Bill Reel’s Conference Predictions

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Correct. He hasn't left the Church, and at this point, the Church hasn't excommunicated him. I feel reasonably confident that if either of these situations changes, we'll all hear about it.

You're the one who claimed that a person can leave the Church without formally removing her/his name after having made the following observation:

This is nonsense.

I recently signed up to receive email notifications from my favourite discount chemist. They now have my name on their list. I wanted to receive notifications of specials, but I'm starting to wonder if they maybe don't email me a bit too often (nearly every day!). Solution: I remove my name from their email list. Leaving my name on their list but grumbling about how they just won't leave me alone is illogical and childish.

It’s nonsense to suggest that someone who dedicated years or decades of their life to the church and then realizes that it is not what it claimed should then be required to never speak of the church again. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It’s nonsense to suggest that someone who dedicated years or decades of their life to the church and then realizes that it is not what it claimed should then be required to never speak of the church again. 

I've never suggested that. Ever. I'm happy for you to copy a post where I have in case I'm mistaken.

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've never suggested that. Ever. I'm happy for you to copy a post where I have in case I'm mistaken.

I didn’t say you had.  Do you agree with it?

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I didn’t say you had.  Do you agree with it?

Nope. And certainly not in the way you phrased it.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, halconero said:

I do strongly believe we are entering into a preparatory period for further revelation. As one friend put it, we may very well be on the cusp of Moses going back up the mountain. While I do believe there may be some streamlining around policies, facilitating worship, I also believe there will be directions that will be hard for members to receive.

Things I consider to be possibilities, perhaps not at this conference, but sometime in the future:

1. Dissolving overlay wards.

2. Elevate the position of Elders Quorum President and Relief Society Presidents to be somewhat co-equal with the Bishop in conducting  temple recommend interviews, and setting people apart. Yes, even Relief Society presidents setting people apart.

3. Increased adherence to the Word of Wisdom, including provisions regarding the eating of meat.

4. Increased adherence to the law of the fast.

5. Changing the temple recommend question regarding affiliation with groups whose teachings run contrary to those of the church, to belief in teachings which run contrary to those of the church.

5a. That may affect progressive members with a belief in same-sex marriage, as well as members whose stances don't align with Church immigration policy.

6. Bishops will take over the interviewing of perspective converts.

I also believe there will come a day, perhaps not to far off, where the Lord commands his people to live particularly hard commandments, and take particularly controversial stances. I would also not be surprised if the leaders of the Church are commanded to begin living these before the general memberships, perhaps in a way which will try both the leaders and the members if/when they become public. That's all I'll say on that.

To the bold, polygamy?

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It’s nonsense to suggest that someone who dedicated years or decades of their life to the church and then realizes that it is not what it claimed should then be required to never speak of the church again. 

 

25 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've never suggested that. Ever. I'm happy for you to copy a post where I have in case I'm mistaken.

 

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I didn’t say you had.  Do you agree with it?

 

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Nope. And certainly not in the way you phrased it.

Glad we could clear that up. 

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

I think the larger issue is that we've switched to largely a "discussion" model even for adults, at the expense of "lessons." 

I think people whose only experience is "discussions" and less and less ever "lessons" is vastly different than people who have had "lessons." Yes, there can be brutally boring lessons, but I think church's ability to teach people doctrines, principles, stories, background, etc. is vastly different under a "discussion" model than it is under a "lesson" model. 

By different, do you mean better? I really haven't noticed a whole lot of difference other than the way the room is laid out..

 

[halconero]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

If Bill Reel’s list is the “progressive Mormon” wish list than this one is the “conservative Mormon” or maybe even “fundamentalist Mormon” wishlist. 

Perhaps, though if you knew me, and the specifics of these views I suspect it would provide some nuance.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My default assumption is that measures and procedures established under the direction of the apostles and prophets are done so with divine approbation, as that's how the Savior does things in His church.

Isn't this basically asking for perfection from the apostles? Meaning that everything that they have the LDS church do is divinely inspired, so there can be no mistakes in what they do?

Or do you also allow that they can make mistakes and those mistakes are given heavenly approval even though they are wrong?

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but that seems to be a tough position to have, that every policy announcement is divinely approved.

I find solace in Catholicism that priests and bishops and popes are viewed as flawed humans, sometimes terribly so. The leaders are like me -- full of problems and sins. It also allows me to think through what they present and gives me a space to actually disagree if that is what my reason, faith, experience, and prayers leads me to. It is a very rare instance when something is dogmatically declared.

[Hamba Tuhan]

52 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Glad we could clear that up. 

And I stick by my other statement. People who choose to remain formal Church members but think somehow they can require fellow ward/branch members to stop caring about them, thinking about them, discussing them, praying for them, and planning how to help them return to full faith and activity are either nuts or are just looking for excuses to post stupid stuff on the internet about how Church members can't leave people alone.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

40 minutes ago, halconero said:

Perhaps, though if you knew me, and the specifics of these views I suspect it would provide some nuance.

You probably never guessed you'd someday be labelled a 'conservative, hey, let alone 'fundamentalist'?! 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, halconero said:

Perhaps, though if you knew me, and the specifics of these views I suspect it would provide some nuance.

I’m open to those points having nuance.  I was commenting on the face value of what you had written. 

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And I stick by my other statement. People who choose to remain formal Church members but think somehow they can require fellow ward/branch members to stop caring about them, thinking about them, discussing them, praying for them, and planning how to help them return to full faith and activity are either nuts or are just looking for excuses to post stupid stuff on the internet about how Church members can't leave people alone.

I agree with that.  I mean, I would have said the last part differently but I agree with the principle. 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, halconero said:

I do strongly believe we are entering into a preparatory period for further revelation. As one friend put it, we may very well be on the cusp of Moses going back up the mountain. While I do believe there may be some streamlining around policies, facilitating worship, I also believe there will be directions that will be hard for members to receive.

Things I consider to be possibilities, perhaps not at this conference, but sometime in the future:

1. Dissolving overlay wards.

2. Elevate the position of Elders Quorum President and Relief Society Presidents to be somewhat co-equal with the Bishop in conducting  temple recommend interviews, and setting people apart. Yes, even Relief Society presidents setting people apart.

3. Increased adherence to the Word of Wisdom, including provisions regarding the eating of meat.

4. Increased adherence to the law of the fast.

5. Changing the temple recommend question regarding affiliation with groups whose teachings run contrary to those of the church, to belief in teachings which run contrary to those of the church.

5a. That may affect progressive members with a belief in same-sex marriage, as well as members whose stances don't align with Church immigration policy.

6. Bishops will take over the interviewing of perspective converts.

I also believe there will come a day, perhaps not to far off, where the Lord commands his people to live particularly hard commandments, and take particularly controversial stances. I would also not be surprised if the leaders of the Church are commanded to begin living these before the general memberships, perhaps in a way which will try both the leaders and the members if/when they become public. That's all I'll say on that.

That is an interesting idea but people other than Bishops are not set apart to be THE "common judge in Israel".

Having multiple judges who might disagree is not a wise move, especially when they cannot be set apart for the position.

It's serious stuff.

[halconero]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You probably never guessed you'd someday be labelled a 'conservative, hey, let alone 'fundamentalist'?! 

Pride Parade on the streets, Mormon conservative in the sheets. I'm single, so they're pretty boring sheets.

[halconero]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That is an interesting idea but people other than Bishops are not set apart to be THE "common judge in Israel".

Having multiple judges who might disagree is not a wise move, especially when they cannot be set apart for the position.

It's serious stuff.

What functions pertain to the office of common judge according to scripture? Could the Bishop retain those functions while also in a co-equal position with regards to settings apart and temple recommends? Are there callings which already exist in the ward which are seen as co-equal or roughly co-equal?

Edited October 4, 2018 by halconero

[rockpond]

I know that a bishop's job is tough... long hours, lots of pressure, never ending challenges.  I spent over four years as a bishop's counselor trying to do everything I could to ease my bishop's burden.  I took that responsibility very seriously (as did the other counselor, the ward clerk, and the executive secretary... it was a team effort to reduce the bishop's workload and stress-load).

I was also executive secretary to three bishops so I've had a front row seat to their demanding schedules for many years.

But, when it comes to one-on-one interviews (whether they are new temple recommends, counseling, discussing welfare situations, or extending certain calls and setting them apart), I just don't feel like when can eliminate that particular burden.  Some things need to be done by the bishop either because he has the keys or because he has the hearts of the ward members.

To illustrate that last one, I'll share this:  the bishop I last served with as a counselor did not enjoy public speaking (he was good at it, but it seemed to make him nervous).  But, I loved sitting on the stand and watching the way the ward members reacted and looked to him when he spoke.  I have a testimony of the bishop's mantle.

Edited October 4, 2018 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My default assumption is that measures and procedures established under the direction of the apostles and prophets are done so with divine approbation, as that's how the Savior does things in His church.

 

 

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Isn't this basically asking for perfection from the apostles? Meaning that everything that they have the LDS church do is divinely inspired, so there can be no mistakes in what they do?

Or do you also allow that they can make mistakes and those mistakes are given heavenly approval even though they are wrong?

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but that seems to be a tough position to have, that every policy announcement is divinely approved.

I find solace in Catholicism that priests and bishops and popes are viewed as flawed humans, sometimes terribly so. The leaders are like me -- full of problems and sins. It also allows me to think through what they present and gives me a space to actually disagree if that is what my reason, faith, experience, and prayers leads me to. It is a very rare instance when something is dogmatically declared.

It will, no doubt, come as no surprise to you that I don't view it that way.

Notwithstanding I recognize their fallibility, I can choose to trust that they are acting in accordance with the will of God, as I have full confidence in their collective wisdom, experience, spirituality and goodness. It bolsters my confidence to know they lead the Church through councils and thus act as a collective check on one another's fallibility.

We all do this, more or less, in day-to-day living as we make countless choices of those in whom we will repose our trust and those in whom we will not.

Richard Bushman, an esteemed scholar and historian who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, once spoke of what he termed in academic jargon "the routinization of charisma" in the Church. By that he meant that Latter-day Saints expect that those called to lead the Church will seek divine revelation pertaining to their callings and will act in accordance thereto.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes we do.  I believe in sustaining our leadership, in following them as they follow God, and I accept revelation that comes through them.

But as Joseph clearly taught a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.  And I don't presume they are getting inspiration in every decision all the time in every administrative decision when they themselves give no such indications.

I believe that in administering the Church, prophets and apostles are indeed acting as prophets.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

You’ll note that I said it was something the Prophet could do. 

And I cast my lot with the Lord. 

Which would entail giving heed to His word as revealed through prophets and apostles.

[halconero]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I know that a bishop's job is tough... long hours, lots of pressure, never ending challenges.  I spent over four years as a bishop's counselor trying to do everything I could to ease my bishop's burden.  I took that responsibility very seriously (as did the other counselor, the ward clerk, and the executive secretary... it was a team effort to reduce the bishop's workload and stress-load).

I was also executive secretary to three bishops so I've had a front row seat to their demanding schedules for many years.

But, when it comes to one-on-one interviews (whether they are new temple recommends, counseling, discussing welfare situations, or extending certain calls and setting them apart), I just don't feel like when can eliminate that particular burden.  Some things need to be done by the bishop either because he has the keys or because he has the hearts of the ward members.

To illustrate that last one, I'll share this:  the bishop I last served with as a counselor did not enjoy public speaking (he was good at it, but it seemed to make him nervous).  But, I loved sitting on the stand and watching the way the ward members reacted and looked to him when he spoke.  I have a testimony of the bishop's mantle.

We already do delegate some of those functions out though. Temple recommend interviews can be done by counsellors. Certain callings can also be extended by them, and their setting apart performed by a Bishop.

In fact, I’m not so much conveying a desire to lessen the role of a Bishop. I’m conveying a desire and sense that the roles of Elders Quorum Presidents and Relief Society presidents will be elevated. There’s no scriptural reason I know of which would prevent their elevation within the ward, nor their being endowed with the wisdom and guidance given to many Bishops now. 

[Rivers]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I thought he got ex'ed?

Just the oldest stereotype -you can leave the church but you can't leave it alone.

I used to really like Bill Reel’s podcast.  Then he turned to another John Dehlin.  I don’t mean that as an insult to either of them.  It’s just that I’ve changed and the kind of material Bill and John produce isn’t for me anymore.

[Meerkat]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

In the final analysis, I don't think the church is getting its bang for the buck with the program, in terms of a) youth testimony and b) youth learning and knowledge. That's my opinion and experience. I think there's a big and growing divide between families that do a good job of teaching their own kids and laying a foundation, and kids whose only exposure to the gospel is at Church on Sunday. Granted that this has always been the case, I think the old manuals did a better job of minimum quality control than Come Follow Me. 

That may be true in many cases at this point in Church history.  But, to borrow a verse from Alma 32 "39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof."  I don't mean to be critical in any way.  I want to embrace the principle if it will help us accomplish the Lord's purposes for today.

We need to follow the manual and raise our level of spirituality and commitment to learning how to teach as the Savior taught.  The only way is to live as He lived, and invest time prayerfully preparing the lessons and using the many new resources the Lord has provided.    Those include our own prayer and inspiration, study, new media resources, our knowledge of our class members and current events that pertain.  He can help us give new and deeper lessons every year.

Every ward is instructed to have a monthly Teacher Council meeting to discuss how this can be accomplished.  Too many wards have low attendance at those key meetings.  We miss out on the experience of seasoned teachers and other leaders when they fail to attend. 

Granted, some of the classes are boring.  It wouldn't be that way if a core of teachers came prepared to discuss the help they need (and support the discussion leader, rather than sit back waiting to be entertained.) Maybe someone could ask the question "How can we make our class so compelling that students will want to attend week after week, month after month?"

It will take hard work in personal study and role playing to gain that skill.  We miss the boat, imo, if we just wing it without learning how to ask the right questions.  We are wasting ours and our class time if we don't embrace what the Brethren have given us and learn how to discuss the Gospel this way.

Why are we being asked to do this? Is it so we can learn doctrine from our Sunday School Teacher? Or is it to help each class member learn how to conduct or participate in a family council meeting, or council with our children, spouse or executive committee at work?  Is it to help each of us prepare for missionary discussions and not turn away from them? 

If it is those things, then we must put in the time and effort to understand why and how the Lord wants us to learn how to teach this way.  The manual is a road map.  We need to use it, in my opinion.

We can still use other resources, such as Teaching, No Greater Call for our own edification if we want, and a host of other books and scriptures that pertain.  Probably easiest is www.teaching.lds.org.  

I hope we can, with enthisiasm, get behind this way of teaching.  Expect the Savior to be in the midst with us, and learn from what He has asked us to do.  He will bless us for any effort we give to these new instructions.  That's my two cents. 

Thanks for your time!

Meerkat

Edited October 4, 2018 by Meerkat

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which would entail giving heed to His word as revealed through prophets and apostles.

Absolutely... His word as revealed through the prophets and apostles. 

In this particular issue we’re discussing (Deacons passing the sacrament trays), there does not appear to be any specific revelation. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Absolutely... His word as revealed through the prophets and apostles. 

In this particular issue we’re discussing (Deacons passing the sacrament trays), there does not appear to be any specific revelation. 

Do you expect there to be an explicit declaration of revelation in each and every instance of Church administration? I don’t. I believe the apostles and prophets seek and are subject to a constant flow of revelation through myriad decisions large and small. It is not necessary to detail or even mention a revelatory experience in each individual case — although President Nelson has been doing more of that lately. And he still gets second-guessed by naysayers and ark steadiers.