Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rockpond

Hype for April 2019 Conference

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Society is going towards acceptance of LGBT persons as equals and refusing to call their biology sin. The church of 50 yrs hence will acknowledge this and try to claim that it was always that way, throwing Nelson and Oaks under the bus.

No doubt you are 100 per cent right, just like how, more than 60 years on, we as a Church have totally accepted all the other premises of the Sexual Revolution, including embracing pornography as harmless, 'free love' as desirable, and abortion as necessary, just to name a few  ...

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No doubt you are 100 per cent right, just like how, more than 60 years on, we as a Church have totally accepted all the other premises of the Sexual Revolution, including embracing pornography as harmless, 'free love' as desirable, and abortion as necessary, just to name a few  ...

You left out mass murder and bestiality and taking away candy from babies ....

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

You left out mass murder and bestiality and taking away candy from babies ....

I feel reasonably certain that they aren't part of the Sexual Revolution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

We'll just call it continuing revelation, clarification, and further light.  It's all good.

That's why the CoC D&C has 167 sections.  Tons of clarification.

You know, you don’t sound much different from a critic of the church who is dissatisfied that the church isn’t changing enough...you’re just on the other end of the spectrum dissatisfied that it is changing too much.

Both come from the same place of criticism of leadership...what gives?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, esodije said:

I think this is a good time to bring up the effect that sweeping, rapid policy/doctrinal change had on the Community of Christ. The CofC goes on, but in a dissipated, almost moribund state. The time may well come when the LDS Church ordains women

I am starting to believe this will be far sooner than anticipated.  The changes to the endowment, the article in this month's Ensign, etc.  The signs are there.  It's on their minds.

I think Pres. Nelson's personal feelings amd thoughts will be a deciding factor.  Does he want to plead for it in the temple as Pres. Kimball did the the 70's?  Or does he not want to touch it during his administration.  It would certainly cement hus administration in history.

Ironically I think if it wasn't for the Kate Kelly's and Ordain Women protests they might not be taking as long as they are.  No capitulation allowed.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

The church of 50 yrs hence will acknowledge this and try to claim that it was always that way, throwing Nelson and Oaks under the bus.

If not one issue it will be another.  Nothing they say is considered true unless their successor says it is.

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No doubt you are 100 per cent right, just like how, more than 60 years on, we as a Church have totally accepted all the other premises of the Sexual Revolution, including embracing pornography as harmless, 'free love' as desirable, and abortion as necessary, just to name a few  ...

Apples and oranges...sort of.

The Church isn't likely to embrace immorality but eventually they'll throw Nelson under the bus for something.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Both come from the same place of criticism of leadership...what gives?

As I've noted before, on the surface, one really can't discern any difference between the online observations of grumpy fundamentalists and the online observations of dissatisfied progressives. Both ends of the arc truly do bow till they nearly meet ... with prophets the common stumblingblock.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, SteveO said:

You know, you don’t sound much different from a critic of the church who is dissatisfied that the church isn’t changing enough...you’re just on the other end of the spectrum dissatisfied that it is changing too much.

Both come from the same place of criticism of leadership...what gives?

I  have a firm testimony that the gospel as restored by Joseph and systematized by Brigham etc is true.  While there were changes during the 1800s they didn't change the pattern of what Joseph restored.

The only reason most members today don't agree with me is the Church hasn't abandoned anything they have a testimony of.

That may yet happen eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I  have a firm testimony that the gospel as restored by Joseph and systematized by Brigham etc is true.

'We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is'.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Exiled said:

You left out mass murder and bestiality and taking away candy from babies ....

Are you equating abortion or porn to mass murder, etc?  Curious about your point of view as nonLDS here, often critical of the Church and why you responded in such a fashion to three behaviours that are not illegal and are accepted by a significant portion as society though viewed by the Church as immoral/against God's commands.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I  have a firm testimony that the gospel as restored by Joseph and systematized by Brigham etc is true.  While there were changes during the 1800s they didn't change the pattern of what Joseph restored.

The only reason most members today don't agree with me is the Church hasn't abandoned anything they have a testimony of.

That may yet happen eventually.

Do you see Brigham as getting anything wrong?  My main thought is the Priesthood Ban which seems very different from the pattern Joseph presented in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you equating abortion or porn to mass murder, etc?  Curious about your point of view as nonLDS here, often critical of the Church and why you responded in such a fashion to three behaviours that are not illegal and are accepted by a significant portion as society though viewed by the Church as immoral/against God's commands.

I was obviously responding to an attempt to over-exaggerate what I said about throwing Pres Nelson and Oaks under the bus in the future when the church inevitably warms up to the LGTB issue. The parade of horribles Humba said would happen were clearly an attempt to falsly equate LGTB with morality. Accepting biology does not mean morality is in danger.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you equating abortion or porn to mass murder, etc?  

It seems that Hamba was equating same sex relationships and SSM to porn and abortion.  But maybe he can clarify if he was not doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It seems that Hamba was equating same sex relationships and SSM to porn and abortion.  But maybe he can clarify if he was not doing that.

I just saw him as listing several things associated with the sexual revolution that the Church has not accepted as moral as society has even though it has been over 50 years; he included "free love" by which .I assume he means fornication and adultery.  The first is probably the closest in terms of equivalency as perceived by church teachings, imo.  Adultery if one left one's spouse to engage in it as it would be if one left one's spouse to specifically engage in a heterosexual relationship, including marriage, imo.

So I assume he means we have proof that long term pressure from society to change views on what is sexually moral and what is sexually immoral has not been successful for 60 years (behaviours are still defined as immoral) , so there is no reason to assume given another 50 years there will be change

wiki has these elements of the sexual revolution listed:

Quote

Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage).[2] The normalization of contraception and the pill, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, and alternative forms of sexuality, and the legalization of abortion all followed.[3][4] Some historians have called previous periods of liberalization (and de-liberalization) in Western sexual norms "sexual revolutions" as well.

It isn't Hamba who only defines the sexual revolution in those terms.  It is pretty standard in my experience.  The only things of all the Church has moved on in terms of viewing as no longer immoral behavior is birth control (which has a major health impact) and very limited abortion in cases of major health impact.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am a bit confused. If revelation to the leaders is the direct voice (word) of God, then what difference would the age, life experience, or personal beliefs of the one receiving the revelation make? Just how involved is the one receiving the message in its interpretation and dissemination to the folks?

Years ago I started getting the feeling we should sell our house. I talked to my husband about it and he didn't get those feelings. So we prayed individually about it. He got a no and I got no answer. 

Then one of our stake presidency spoke in church and said to not be so quick to move. I thought maybe that was my answer - the church, after all, teaches us not to go into debt as much as possible and our house was close to being paid off.

But still the thought about moving would go through my mind.

My husband was so firm on not moving that I asked him if he were willing to move if the answer was yes. He said probably not.

So I asked him to prepare himself to be willing to stay or move, whatever the Lord indicated and pray again at some time.

I, in turn, prepared myself to be ok to stay if that  was what the Lord indicated. I was at peace.

So when my husband was ready we individually prayed. I thought the answer would be to stay, but for both of us the answer was strongly to sell the house, in fact it came with an urgency and a date. 

There is more to the story after that,  but for the purpose of this thread: we are a couple united and trying to stand together with the Lord. We found very strongly that we have to be willing to hear what the Lord wants from us if we want to receive revelation. 

I have no doubts the prophets also have to be willing to receive revelation. While I have seen much humility and willingness to change in most of them, I also know they are human and maybe they are not ready for some specifics of revelation.

Does that mean I can be ready before a prophet? Perhaps. It doesn't mean that I can receive revelation for a change though. What I can receive is peace that in the end the Lord will have things set up right under Jesus, whatever those things are.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Calm said:

It isn't Hamba who only defines the sexual revolution in those terms.  It is pretty standard in my experience.  The only things of all the Church has moved on in terms of viewing as no longer immoral behavior is birth control (which has a major health impact) and very limited abortion in cases of major health impact.

Yes, I'd agree and that is acceptance and change in the church (regarding sexual revolution).  So, it's not a huge leap to believe there could be more acceptance and change regarding same-sex relationships (with the same moral guidelines as heterosexual relationships and marriages).  I actually believe that will happen.  Maybe not with the leaders we now have, but when the younger generations are the leaders.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t disagree. ;)  I bet a lot of people would be disoriented by such a thing. 

Remember when coke was newly sold on campus? How many under 40 were affected? Not nearly as big a deal but I certainly know people who have never drank caffeine at all.  I’m sure that change was alarming for some. 

 

I was thinking the same thing! When I was a kid, cola was forbidden! Period! That was understood by everyone in the ward!

It is still disconcerting to see the bishop walking into the building with a Coke, or people bringing 2-liters of Coke to ward pitch ins!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rain said:

Does that mean I can be ready before a prophet? Perhaps. It doesn't mean that I can receive revelation for a change though. What I can receive is peace that in the end the Lord will have things set up right under Jesus, whatever those things are.

Revelation comes for our stewardships.  

We all have different stewardships and we all are at different levels of revelatory readiness and understanding.

Just because someone has a different or bigger stewardship doesn't mean they automatically are getting more revelation. You could absolutely be ready in your stewardship before someone else is in theirs.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, Prof said:

I was thinking the same thing! When I was a kid, cola was forbidden! Period! That was understood by everyone in the ward!

It is still disconcerting to see the bishop walking into the building with a Coke, or people bringing 2-liters of Coke to ward pitch ins!

Are you around age 40?

im 50 and distinctly remember at 5 being sat down and told the rules had changed.  Then changed again at 49.  Ill admit I never took the rule to heart but for the most part did my best to comply when necessary. I remember at 5 thinking, what an odd rule. 

We have many odd rules imo.  I’m ok with that.  I put them in their place and do my best.  When change happens I roll with it.  My testimony is not about the rules.  I recognize others do it differently.  

Some people just feel safer coloring inside every line and I understand that.  I feel safer with flexibility - especially since the organization flexes. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Mustard,

I am 54. Grew up in Indiana. Like you, I try to respect that others do things differently. Dealing with change can be hard, when something is so ingrained as this was.

My 81 year old mother has a much harder time than I do with it!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Prof said:

Mustard,

I am 54. Grew up in Indiana. Like you, I try to respect that others do things differently. Dealing with change can be hard, when something is so ingrained as this was.

My 81 year old mother has a much harder time than I do with it!

I do wonder why it was ingrained.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I do wonder why it was ingrained.  

Because even some former Prophets misinterpreted the Word of Wisdom to mean no caffeine.  So does that mean that hot beverages could have been misinterpreted to mean tea and coffee?

 

Quote

 

President Hinckley also viewed the Word of Wisdom as proscribing all caffeinated beverages. During his tenure as President he gave two interviews in which he was asked about caffeine and the Word of Wisdom. In a 1996 interview with Mike Wallace he mentioned that “Mormons adhere to a very strict health code.” Wallace then asks, “No alcohol, no tobacco, no coffee, no tea, not even caffeinated soft drinks…” President Hinckley responded, “Right.” (60 Minutes, April 7, 1996.) In a 1998 interview on Larry King Live he also mentions caffeine.

Gordon B. Hinckley: …You’ve read a part of the word of wisdom. The word of wisdom covers many things. It covers the excessive use of meat, as I see it. It covers, in a very particular way, the use of tobacco and alcohol.
Larry King: By saying no?
Gordon B. Hinckley: By saying, by proscribing those things.
Larry King: No to caffeine?
Gordon B. Hinckley: No to caffeine, coffee and tea.
(Larry King Live, September 8, 1998)

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 So does that mean that hot beverages could have been misinterpreted to mean tea and coffee?

If that is the case, then it begs the question - what else could it possibly be referring to - Postum?  Hot chocolate?  Hot milk?  What other hot beverages were popular at the time that might have been viewed as unhealthy?

Not really trying to argue, but if you disagree with the current interpretation, then we really need an alternative explanation for what "hot drinks" is referring to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, pogi said:

If that is the case, then it begs the question - what else could it possibly be referring to - Postum?  Hot chocolate?  Hot milk?  What other hot beverages were popular at the time that might have been viewed as unhealthy?

Not really trying to argue, but if you disagree with the current interpretation, then we really need an alternative explanation for what "hot drinks" is referring to. 

I don't know.  Maybe a "hot toddy"?

Why would tea or coffee be worse for us to drink hot?  Why is it worse than hot chocolate (that also has caffeine in it if that's the problem)?

I really don't know, but when some of the word of wisdom has been interpreted incorrectly by past Prophets, it leaves the door open that they may have been mistaken about other interpretations too.  

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know.  Maybe a "hot toddy"?

Why would tea or coffee be worse for us to drink hot?  Why is it worse that hot chocolate (that also has caffeine in it if that's the problem)?

I really don't know, but when some of the word of wisdom has been interpreted incorrectly by past Prophets, it leaves the door open that they may have been mistaken about other interpretations too.  

Hot Toddy may not be that far off. I've heard it speculated that "hot drinks" could refer to distilled liquors that "burn" as they go down. Who knows?

But other cultures have other drinks that are served hot. Hot cider and hot chocolate are a couple of hot drinks from our culture that aren't included in the WoW. And what about hot soups? I've also heard it speculated that the temperature of the drink really is the issue since extremely hot liquids can cause damage to the throat and even digestive processes. I don't know anything about that stuff, but it does illustrate that we really don't know much.

In any case, we always have verse 2 of Section 89 reminding us that the WoW was not given "by way of commandment". :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know.  Maybe a "hot toddy"?

Why would tea or coffee be worse for us to drink hot?  Why is it worse than hot chocolate (that also has caffeine in it if that's the problem)?

I really don't know, but when some of the word of wisdom has been interpreted incorrectly by past Prophets, it leaves the door open that they may have been mistaken about other interpretations too.  

If I remember correctly, one of the only General Conference talks to be stricken completely from the conference record was by Elder Richards in 1932. It was a fascinating talk about the word of wisdom. I think it was Heber J Grant that ordered its removal from the conference record. Somewhere here I have a copy of that record and sure enough, the talk never happened! It is floating around on the internet now. Read it; it is a great talk!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...