Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Scrutinizing general conference


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the latter.

From Edward Kimball's excellent article, "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood":

This is the meeting which culminated in the 1978 revelation (it makes for some fascinating reading).  No indication here, I think, that Pres. Kimball had connived to keep Elder Petersen from the proceedings.

Elder Petersen was contacted about this one week later, on June 8.  His response . . . 

So, yeah.  Not much of a story.

Oh, hush.  Don't harsh the narrative, brah!

;)

-Smac

Hah! :D 

I beat the venerable Smac97 to the punch! :aggressive: 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69667-scrutinizing-general-conference/?do=findComment&comment=1209763302

;):D 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment

Shakespeare wrote a play with a title that applies to this contrived controversy. Something about much ado.

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
On 10/2/2017 at 9:41 AM, stemelbow said:

I wish there was more "we're in this together" sentiment.  But the battle wages in the hearts of those who want sides, want fighting

I guess its in the eye of the beholder.  As one with two loved ones outside, and their devastated families, the meme is truly ironic, descriptive and a welcome break from sadness.  No offense, Stem, I take the meme as from one who IS "We're in this together."  It's not us who want sides and fighting.  They can leave the Church, but they can't leave it (or us) alone.

Edited by Meerkat
Link to comment
5 hours ago, llama said:

The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous.13 Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng

unanimity= revelation

Would you apply that same definition of revelation when say all the cardinals and pope agree on something?  How about a corporate board room?  What is it when they all agree to something, but later change their minds?  Are both of those decisions revelation?

I am not trying to cause a problem.  And I can see how you came to that conclusion. But I am curious how you apply that kind of thought process in similar areas.

Link to comment
On 10/2/2017 at 10:44 AM, Jeanne said:

..I didn't know the real history.  Why did I not know?  It is my fault isn't it?

Maybe some of it is your fault.  I've read the controversies over the past 40 plus years and was not surprised by any of it (except the Book of Abraham, which doesn't bother me.)  I didn't see the importance of discussing much of the anti information out there with my children.  When they were confronted with it, two relied more on the authors' interpretation of the history than other possible scenarios and left the Church.  I now see my mistake.  I believe the Church (led by human beings who also continue to learn line upon line, precept by precept,) has reached the same conclusion.  Hence, the Church emphasis on the Joseph Smith Papers, Church white papers, transparency and acknowledging our mistakes.

Edited by Meerkat
Link to comment
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Right.  You are relentlessly hostile to the LDS Church, and have come to this board to anonymously purvey triple hearsay gossip from some other unidentified and anonymous "source" about what he claims to have heard from Bro. Wilkins.  

No, that's not cagey at all.

Right.  'Cuz nothing bespeaks honesty more than a relentlessly hostile and anonymous critic of Mormonism peddling gossip from purportedly another anonymous source claiming to be a friend of a dead Mormon about that dead Mormon, with the apparent purpose of undermining or otherwise tearing down the dead man's religion.

Yes.  This is how Truth is found.  Or something.

Yes, I gathered that.  

Says the relentlessly hostile and anonymous critic of Mormonism, who has no competency to tell us one way or the other whether his anonymous "source" is "repeating what he heard" or is just making it up whole cloth.

This is rather the problem with hearsay.

You cannot credibly tell us what was said in "that conversation" because you weren't there.

An anonymous critic of Mormonism quotes an anonymous "source" about what yet another person said.  All in an effort to impeach the credibility of Elder Oaks' description of how the Proclamation came to be.

Golly!  With this caliber of evidence, who wouldn't be convinced?

Again, you cannot credibly tell us what your anonymous "source" witnessed.  You weren't there.

Thanks,

-Smac

And so the Mormon defeats his opponent by name calling rather than addressing what was actually written.  

If you don't believe his source does that necessitate calling him names in order to assert the disbelief?

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, california boy said:

And so the Mormon defeats his opponent by name calling rather than addressing what was actually written.  

If you don't believe his source does that necessitate calling him names in order to assert the disbelief?

Oh, it’s not name-calling.  It’s impeccable logic, incisive analysis and common sense. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
On 10/2/2017 at 11:34 AM, Jeanne said:

I will of course take some responsibility...in hindsight, I wish that I had asked more questions..especially in Seminary.  I thought though that all I needed to know was what I was taught..an to  believe and live it.

That is a good encapsulation.  My experience has been exactly that-- believe and live it, and enjoy a relatively happy life.  The blacks and the priesthood issue, for example, never bothered me.  I always saw all races as my brothers and sisters.  A black friend I baptized told me "I don't know why I can't hold the priesthood.  All I know is the Book of Mormon is true and I have the assurance that, someday, my family and I will enjoy all the Temple blessings as anyone else."  About two years later, he and his family were sealed in the Seattle Temple.   I was content looking for ways that issue (and others,) could fit into my world view.  Christ taught that the Gospel would be taken first to the Jews, then the Gentiles.  Remember the woman in scriptures who wanted the Gospel, but her time hadn't come yet?  I saw the blacks falling into that category.  Turns out I was wrong.  But the Brethren, for whatever reason (revelatory or societal,) corrected it.  I trust them to continue to do the right thing as they become aware of it.  In the mean time, I was able to prove many other principles to my satisfaction and enjoy (what seems to me) a very happy and purpose filled life.

Edited by Meerkat
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Shakespeare wrote a play with a title that applies to this contrived controversy. Something about much ado.

 

Speaking of contrived controversies, I wonder if one could characterize an anti-Mormon uproar about the presence of a word of French origin in the English translation of the Book of Mormon as much ado about “adieu.” 

I hear the Bard was big on puns. Do you suppose he would enjoy that one?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh, it’s not name-calling.  It’s impeccable logic, incisive analysis and common sense. 

It's name calling and unnecessary for someone to make his point unless that is all you have to say.  Others are perfectly capable of evaluating Johnny Cakes credibility all by themselves. 

I find much of what SMAC has written as very interesting and adds his perspective and opinion on what is being discussed..  But the name calling?  Not so much.  

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
3 hours ago, california boy said:

Would you apply that same definition of revelation when say all the cardinals and pope agree on something?  

Since, as an article of faith, they lack the priesthood authority as is vested in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, the answer would be "no."

3 hours ago, california boy said:

How about a corporate board room?  

Again, no.  For the same reason as above.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

What is it when they all agree to something, but later change their minds?  Are both of those decisions revelation?

I am not trying to cause a problem.  And I can see how you came to that conclusion. But I am curious how you apply that kind of thought process in similar areas.

The "thought process" about how revelation is sought and received by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?  The only quorums of prophets, seers and revelators with authority from God to preside over the LDS Church?  

It's a rather singular process, one not found in board rooms or the Sistine Chapel during a papal conclave.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

It's name calling and unnecessary for someone to make his point unless that is all you have to say.  Others are perfectly capable of evaluating Johnny Cakes credibility all by themselves. 

I find much of what SMAC has written as very interesting and adds his perspective and opinion on what is being discussed..  But the name calling?  Not so much.  

I don't recall "name calling."  I've called Johnnie by his online handle.  I've called is anonymous source his "buddy," which is pretty innocuous.

I have characterized Johnnie as a "critic" and "hostile to Mormonism."  Sounds apt and descriptive, not an epithet.

I'm "hostile to elective abortion," but I wouldn't construe that as "name calling."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edit to Add: I also called Johnnie and his purported "source" "gossipmongers."  Yes, I'll own that as namecalling.  And I apologize for it.

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Ironically, I'm the one who posted some of Wilkins comments, I'm just willing to be be open to the possibility that there is truth on both sides

So am I.  But I'm also willing to actually proceed with examining the purported evidence and reach a reasoned and informed conclusion as to the craptastic quality of the dreck being presented by Johnnie and his purported "source."  As, apparently, are you, since you said "I think we can now lay that claim of Wilkin's having written the proclamation to rest as just another church critic's attempt to undermine the church."  

No need to sit on the fence for this one, IMHO.  It's not even a close call.

Critics can certainly come up with pointed and valid criticisms of the Church.  That's part of why I've been on this board for so long.  I find some value in examining some aspects of my faith in an adversarial construct, as it gives me the opportunity to re-examine what I believe and why.  As Hugh Nibley put it“We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes."

That said, there are times when critics need to be called out for presenting crap.  This thread is just such an instance.  Gossipy triple hearsay peddled by an anonymous hostile source and presented as evidence for the proposition that "{G}od didn't author {the Proclamation}," and that there was an "utter lack of revelation" in its origins?  And this is supposed to be noteworthy?  

Gimme a break.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Speaking of contrived controversies, I wonder if one could characterize an anti-Mormon uproar about the presence of a word of French origin in the English translation of the Book of Mormon as much ado about “adieu.” 

I hear the Bard was big on puns. Do you suppose he would enjoy that one?

You mean, the final word in Jacob's book in the Book of Mormon is ... much adieu about nothing? :D;)  (Seriously, in case someone is wondering whether it really is much adieu about nothing, see here (last accessed October 10, 2017): https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Language/"Adieu".)

Sorry, couldn't resist! ;) 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Maybe some of it is your fault.  I've read the controversies over the past 40 plus years and was not surprised by any of it (except the Book of Abraham, which doesn't bother me.)  I didn't see the importance of discussing much of the anti information out there with my children.  When they were confronted with it, two relied more on the authors' interpretation of the history than other possible scenarios and left the Church.  I now see my mistake.  I believe the Church (led by human beings who also continue to learn line upon line, precept by precept,) has reached the same conclusion.  Hence, the Church emphasis on the Joseph Smith Papers, Church white papers, transparency and acknowledging our mistakes.

“Anti Information” is now the gospel topics essays. 

And, who has acknowledged mistakes?  I don’t think our leaders have acknowledged any mistakes made by the church, and its leaders, in the past. 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Since, as an article of faith, they lack the priesthood authority as is vested in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, the answer would be "no."

Again, no.  For the same reason as above.

The "thought process" about how revelation is sought and received by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?  The only quorums of prophets, seers and revelators with authority from God to preside over the LDS Church?  

It's a rather singular process, one not found in board rooms or the Sistine Chapel during a papal conclave.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you have explained very clearly exactly what is being discussed.  It all comes down to whether you believe the claim of priesthood authority.  I can understand that.  What is a bit unclear still to me is the reluctance for these chosen leaders to declare their consensus a revelation.  For example, the PoF has been around for decades, yet Elder Oaks talk is the first that I know about that has declared it a revelation.  And another example would be Elder Nelson being the only one to call the Nov policy a revelation at a fireside.  

Do you think this is the commonly accepted belief in what a revelation is amongst church members?  Perhaps my expectations are a bit higher than most members.  I always considered a revelation something more than the 15 getting together and making a unanimous decision on church government.

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nephi acknowledged his own weaknesses

The author of the Title Page to the Book of Mormon (presumably Moroni) acknowledged "faults" and "mistakes."

Joseph Smith repeatedly acknowledged his own flaws.

The Gospel Topics essays about "Race and the Priesthood" and the "Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints" acknowledge errors by members and leaders.

Pres. Uchtdorf acknowledged mistakes made by members and leaders in an October 2013 General Conference address.

God Himself appears to have acknowledged the flaws and mistakes of His people in D&C 1:31.

Latter-day Saints are frequently reminded that they and their leaders are not infallible (that is, that they make mistakes).

And on and on and on.

It'll never be enough, though.  That's the pernicious thing about faultfinding: You will always be able to succeed at it if you try hard enough.

Always.

Thanks,

-Smac

Acknowledging fallibility is not the same as acknowledging THE mistakes (as in what those mistakes were so they can be corrected).

And apparently even raising the issue of past mistakes gets one branded as a “faultfinder” which should give us an idea of how open we are about our mistakes.  For me, your response is indicative of how we are currently handling past mistakes in our church:  preaching theoretical fallibility while trying to silence anyone who attempts to discuss the mistakes.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you have explained very clearly exactly what is being discussed.  It all comes down to whether you believe the claim of priesthood authority.  I can understand that.  What is a bit unclear still to me is the reluctance for these chosen leaders to declare their consensus a revelation.  For example, the PoF has been around for decades, yet Elder Oaks talk is the first that I know about that has declared it a revelation.  And another example would be Elder Nelson being the only one to call the Nov policy a revelation at a fireside.  

Do you think this is the commonly accepted belief in what a revelation is amongst church members?  Perhaps my expectations are a bit higher than most members.  I always considered a revelation something more than the 15 getting together and making a unanimous decision on church government.

Sister Bonnie Oscarson in the April 2015 general women’s session of general conference, called it a “revelatory document.”  That is precisely what I understand it to be, and the sense I get is that many if not most faithful members do as well. 

And yes, the prophets and apostles routinely receive revelation following or in the course of a period of deliberation and discussion. That you think this is not consistent with the receipt of revelation is your own odd notion to which others are not bound. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So am I.  But I'm also willing to actually proceed with examining the purported evidence and reach a reasoned and informed conclusion as to the craptastic quality of the dreck being presented by Johnnie and his purported "source."  As, apparently, are you, since you said "I think we can now lay that claim of Wilkin's having written the proclamation to rest as just another church critic's attempt to undermine the church."  

No need to sit on the fence for this one, IMHO.  It's not even a close call.

Critics can certainly come up with pointed and valid criticisms of the Church.  That's part of why I've been on this board for so long.  I find some value in examining some aspects of my faith in an adversarial construct, as it gives me the opportunity to re-examine what I believe and why.  As Hugh Nibley put it“We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes."

That said, there are times when critics need to be called out for presenting crap.  This thread is just such an instance.  Gossipy triple hearsay peddled by an anonymous hostile source and presented as evidence for the proposition that "{G}od didn't author {the Proclamation}," and that there was an "utter lack of revelation" in its origins?  And this is supposed to be noteworthy?  

Gimme a break.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm curious, when a newspaper reporter prints a quote from a source in his newspaper should we consider that Triple hearsay?  I'm not being critical of you I'm merely asking a question.  And yes I realize that because all of this information being claimed is coming from  people who are anonymous, just like you too are anonymous, should it then be dismissed out of hand because it is coming from anonymous posters?  Again I'm just trying to understand.  Thanks

PS: I might add that from a legal standard, much of what is posted on this board would qualify as hearsay and be inadmissible in a court of law, and from that standard Johnnie Cakes source, as it stands right now, would also be inadmissible and be stricken from the record as hearsay.  But fortunately we are not held to the same standard here when judging information, which is one of the things that makes this board fun, so we have the liberty to weight information based on its merits.

While I believe that you have presented a strong argument on why Bro. Cakes source should be ignored, there is something in what he has presented that feels real and honest to me.  I just don't get the sense that he is trying to pull one over on us.  I'm willing to factor it into what I also know about the process that gave us the proclamation rather than completely discard it as I sense you have.  But that's part of my personality, I tend to trust.

Edited by Button Gwinnett
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Acknowledging fallibility is not the same as acknowledging THE mistakes (as in what those mistakes were so they can be corrected).

Right.  And if Mistake A is acknowledged, then the critics will discount the acknowledgment as insufficient or insincere, or else will just shift to griping about Mistake B, and then Mistake C, and so on, ad infinitum.  The critics then get to become the arbiters of right and wrong.  The critics enthrone themselves as judges over the Lord's servants.

Again, the pernicious thing about faultfinding is that you'll always succeed at it.  Thank you for so aptly demonstrating my point.

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And apparently even raising the issue of past mistakes gets one branded as a “faultfinder” which should give us an idea of how open we are about our mistakes.  

So Nephi was a faultfinder?  Joseph Smith?  Pres. Uchtdorf?

I think we can and should seek to identify and rectify errors and mistakes.  Certainly.  But not as our critics would have us do it.  The time and place and manner in which such things are discussed and addressed matter.  A lot.

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

For me, your response is indicative of how we are currently handling past mistakes in our church:  preaching theoretical fallibility while trying to silence anyone who attempts to discuss the mistakes.

Ah, malarky.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

The arguments back and forth about revelation and who wrote the proclamation to me are irrelevant. Whatever good there is in the proclamation is a revelation from God, in the sense that it's true, useful and will help us be the best people we can be. It doesn't matter if it was ghostwritten by Colonel Sanders. It's the content that makes something a revelation or not. 

Link to comment

Revelatory is defined as “revealing something hitherto unknown”.

President Hinckley stated, when introducing the Proclamation, that it was a declaration and reaffirmation of what “the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history” which seemingly contradicts claims that it is revelatory.

I am curious what participants here consider to be previously unknown but revealed by the Proclamation. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...