Conference discussion

[Metis_LDS]

9 minutes ago, member10_1 said:

Help me understand the point at which a belief ceases to be only an interpretation of sensory experience and becomes knowledge of the absolute. Let’s say I’m trying to know if Joseph Smith really translated an ancient record by the power of God in order to publish the Book of Mormon. 

1. I read it 

2. I abide by its precepts

3. I pray about it. 

4. I feel really good when reading and praying about it

5. I see good results from living its precepts.

Without engaging in circular reasoning, describe the point at which I can know that my perceptions of and beliefs about the Book of Mormon correspond to what is beyond my perception. 

 

I will do my best to tell what I know,  but that is not everything only my personal experience.  There is an economy in Heaven, so one most be willing to accept what they get.  So without being overly simple it is just as easy to to get a general testimony about Joseph Smith which covers many aspects of his work.  I am not sure about your circular reasoning exclusion,  we seem to be bound by this as human beings.  So the quickest way for me to tell you about my testimony in Joseph is to say I just know.  In a perfect conversation you say "I do not understand".  I say please explain how you know you woke up this morning.  Your trying to prove to me that you did wake up would quickly become circular and you would at some have to admit that you just know you woke up.  Some may say no one can really know anything.  I say the Heavens told me many times (over years) about Joseph Smith and his mission of restoring the Gospel and now I just know.

[Duncan]

Just now, ALarson said:

Hey, it's a process!  I think (if I'm counting correctly) there are now 35 temples that have been announced with no ground breaking yet.

Just be grateful yours wasn't one of the ones that was suspended (rare, but it's happened).

well, that's true!!!!!! hhhahhahahha!

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Hey, it's a process!  I think (if I'm counting correctly) there are now 35 temples that have been announced with no ground breaking done yet.

Just be grateful yours wasn't one of the ones that was suspended (rare, but it's happened).

If I remember correctly, there was one that was canceled outright. I think it was because the zoning requirements were too onerous. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Definitely not.  All truth is a part of God. We can go to the source to know what is true and what isn’t. 

Does God teach science in the scriptures?

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, member10_1 said:

Help me understand the point at which a belief ceases to be only an interpretation of sensory experience and becomes knowledge of the absolute. Let’s say I’m trying to know if Joseph Smith really translated an ancient record by the power of God in order to publish the Book of Mormon. 

1. I read it 

2. I abide by its precepts

3. I pray about it. 

4. I feel really good when reading and praying about it

5. I see good results from living its precepts.

Without engaging in circular reasoning, describe the point at which I can know that my perceptions of and beliefs about the Book of Mormon correspond to what is beyond my perception. 

 

I suppose it's the point where faith is no longer necessary.  When that happens is probably unique for everyone.  I don't believe very many of us reach that point while still in mortality.  I think for most of us, "we see through a glass darkly" on some topics for most of our lives.

For a lot of beliefs, actions or issues, it seems like it can take years, decades, or longer to truly know the fruits of some seeds.  And people often believe that they have seen the fruit of something, only to change their minds later.   Even when using 'good results' as evidence, most of the time we are still function on faith.

While I believe that absolute truths exist, I think it's a long journey learning them.

  

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Does God teach science in the scriptures?

I really don't know.  I've never studied it.  But scientific truth is as much a part of God as any other kind of truth is (if the teachings in the temple are correct, anyway).

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I remember correctly, there was one that was canceled outright. I think it was because the zoning requirements were too onerous. 

I was thinking of the one in Harrison, New York (announced on September 30, 1995).  Here's what is stated about it:

Quote

Originally named the White Plains New York Temple the temple was renamed to the Harrison New York Temple.[123] Along with the Boston Massachusetts Temple, it was to be built instead of the Hartford Connecticut Temple announced in October 1992.[124] Reportedly, efforts were still underway in 2004, though delayed by lawsuits and objections by local officials.[125] However, this temple was removed from the list on the Church's official temple website soon after the dedication of the Manhattan New York Temple.

 

There were also the three that were announced and never built back in the early days of the church (but may still be built?):

Temple Lot (Efforts halted in 1830s)

Location:  Independence, Missouri, United States 
Announced:  April 1829
Site Dedicated August 1, 1831 when cornerstones laid by Joseph Smith. The plat for the City of Zion (Independence, Missouri) originally called for 24 temples at the center of the city.[122] A temple has never been built at this location because the temple's site, as designated by Joseph Smith, is occupied by a Latter Day Saint movement denomination known as the Church of Christ (Temple Lot).

Adam-ondi-Ahman (Efforts halted in 1830s)

Location:   Missouri, United States 
Announced:  April 26, 1838
Site dedicated. Laid out by Brigham Young (although no cornerstones were laid). Never built because of 1838 Mormon War. Design was to be similar to Kirtland Temple. Site dedicated and temple announced on April 26, 1838 by Joseph Smith.

Far West Missouri Temple (Efforts halted in 1830s)

Location:  Far West, Missouri, United States 
Announced:  April 16, 1838
Site Dedicated. Cornerstones laid and dedicated April 26, 1839. Efforts discontinued in 1800s. The cornerstones remain, covered in glass, as part of a memorial park at the site.

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by ALarson

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is not but verbal outbursts are inappropriate and the prophet agrees with me. Sweet vindication!  

God is a somber gentleman. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I was thinking of the one in Harrison, New York (announced on September 30, 1995).  Here's what is stated about it:

 

There were also the three that were announced and never built back in the early days of the church (but may still be built?):

Temple Lot (Efforts halted in 1830s)

Location:  Independence, Missouri, United States 
Announced:  April 1829
Site Dedicated August 1, 1831 when cornerstones laid by Joseph Smith. The plat for the City of Zion (Independence, Missouri) originally called for 24 temples at the center of the city.[122] A temple has never been built at this location because the temple's site, as designated by Joseph Smith, is occupied by a Latter Day Saint movement denomination known as the Church of Christ (Temple Lot).

Adam-ondi-Ahman (Efforts halted in 1830s)

Location:   Missouri, United States 
Announced:  April 26, 1838
Site dedicated. Laid out by Brigham Young (although no cornerstones were laid). Never built because of 1838 Mormon War. Design was to be similar to Kirtland Temple. Site dedicated and temple announced on April 26, 1838 by Joseph Smith.

Far West Missouri Temple (Efforts halted in 1830s)

Location:  Far West, Missouri, United States 
Announced:  April 16, 1838
Site Dedicated. Cornerstones laid and dedicated April 26, 1839. Efforts discontinued in 1800s. The cornerstones remain, covered in glass, as part of a memorial park at the site.

 

Yeah, it was the one in Hartford that I remember as having been canceled. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

We have always exercised reverence in our sacred meetings, which precludes shouting from the congregation.  We don’t clap for outstanding musicians and we don’t shout approval for announcements.  At an informal meeting, go for it.  

It amounts to time, place and manner. Sacred convocations call for a certain degree and type of decorum. 

I also think it inappropriate when invitees gathered on a temple grounds hoot, shout and applaud when the bride and groom emerge following a marriage. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[jpv]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Seventy Pablo Vilar's day with his missionary brother touched my heart deeply.  That is what the Gospel is all about, not vapid, abstruse, and abstract theorizing about theology.

"Abstract theorizing about theology" is what keeps some of us in the Church.

I was spiritually nourished and sustained during a dark time by Blake Ostler and his son's podcast* which could be only described as you do.  Don't get me wrong, talks like that are great, but if that's all we had it wouldn't be enough to sustain some of us 

* http://www.exploringmormonthought.com

[jpv]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

Pres. Oaks talking about how harder it is to repent in the next life, is that for those who had a chance here to accept the Gospel but didn't? Because, 99% of humankind haven't been around to hear and accept the true Gospel and so are in the next life hopefully trying to repent-it's like showing up for the test of your life and for your life but you didn't even know their was a test and 99% of people doing it

The test is to act on whatever light and knowledge we have, even if one doesn't have the Restored Gospel or the Christian message, and only has the light of Christ given to all.

That's what this probation is for.

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I really don't know.  I've never studied it.  But scientific truth is as much a part of God as any other kind of truth is (if the teachings in the temple are correct, anyway).

Well per your request I will stop bothering you.

But I feel like if we were able to sit down for an hour discussion we will be in perfect agreement.

I think the issues between us are purely semantic.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

I think the issues between us are purely semantic.

Could they possibly be anything else?

[JAHS]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Does God teach science in the scriptures?

Some.  In the Bible the prophet Isaiah said:  "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers " Isaiah 40:22 
When Isaiah wrote this verse he used the Hebrew word "khug" to describe the shape of the earth. Although this word is commonly translated into the English word "circle," the literal meaning of this word is "a sphere".
The Book of Moses has a lot of good stuff.
But that's not the purpose of the scriptures, He wants us to study that out ourselves. I consider God to be the head scientist since He created and knows how everything works. We scientists just haven't yet figured it all out yet.  There is no conflict between  pure science and pure religion. It is all truth.

[Maidservant]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Good for President Nelson to cut down on the verbal outbursts during temple announcements by telling them not to.

 

3 hours ago, provoman said:

I was glad he said that. 

 

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I had anxiety all day about that lol. I’m a lightweight

 

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Why do you think it was bad to express excitement about those announcements?

 

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It felt like those outbursts were getting more and more each time. 

 

2 hours ago, provoman said:

Decorum; time and place

 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I feel like a spontaneous outburst of joy at unexpected news is different than people planning on whooping it up should something exciting happen. 

After the last conference, it felt more like planned “whooping and “hollering” was going to be the norm. I’m glad they shut it down early. 

 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

In posts on this board, I expressed annoyance at the outbursts when they happened before. Feels so nice to be vindicated. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

In fact, sometimes I think it would be nice to get that level of unrestrained joy in those moments.  I think we can too often feel too uptight to let loose our joy even when appropriate because it is mostly not appropriate in our meetings and becomes disruptive.

 

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

God is a somber gentleman. 

It made me sad that people's pure childlike praise is not wanted.  At least the first time it happened, it felt very spontaneous.  I felt like a much better church meeting.  Job 38:7 The morning stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy.

[Maidservant]

DOUBLE POST FOR SOME REASON.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Maidservant

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

It made me sad that people's pure childlike praise is not wanted.  At least the first time it happened, it felt very spontaneous.  I felt like a much better church meeting.  Job 38:7 The morning stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy.

To me it’s like a child who says a profane word- the first time it’s hilarious! But we have to explain and remind that it’s not appropriate.  Because a kid will do it bigger and sillier the next several times.  

But yes the October time was thrilling.  

Edited April 8, 2019 by MustardSeed

[SteveO]

3 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

It made me sad that people's pure childlike praise is not wanted.  At least the first time it happened, it felt very spontaneous.  I felt like a much better church meeting.  Job 38:7 The morning stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy.

The Polynesians on Facebook are taking credit for the warning needing to be issued:

 

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Does God teach science in the scriptures?

No.  The scriptures are not science books.

[mfbukowski]

Well adieu my friends

 I guess i have been banned or something

403 VERBOTEN

No biggie

Edited April 8, 2019 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

On 4/6/2019 at 4:16 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I have no problem with people talking about “my perspective” and “your perspective,” but perspective is not synonymous with truth and should not be confused therewith. Truth is what it is; perspective doesn’t change it. 

An illustration: Perspective makes it seem that parallel rails converge in the distance; reality — or truth — is that they remain parallel as far as they go. 

To say it another way, personal perspective can be, and very often is, wrong. Truth, by definition, cannot be wrong. 

Sorry for the late response.  I am sure you have probably moved on by now.

All we have is our perspective of the elephant (THE Truth).  Though we have parts of the elephant revealed to us, we still interpret it from our perspective.  As the poem says, "an elephant is much like a rope" or a wall, or a spear, or a fan, etc., Or, Christ put it, "the kingdom of heaven is like unto..."  Our perspective, and thus truth, is limited in mortality. It is veiled. It is unwhole. We only see in part in mortality. 

So, if we can't call our perspective truth, then truth is elusive in mortality.  I don't see any harm in calling my experience truth, so long as I distinguish it from that which I can only have faith in mortality in - THE Truth.  My testimony is based on my personal perspective and experience, that is "my truth".  It is ever evolving.  It is organic and growing.  How much of what I "know" will remain intact as I perceive it now is impossible to know.  What I though I knew yesterday is not what I know today.  I don't expect that process to stop until I know all things.  My interpretation of the lines and precepts that I have been given might expand and change as more of the picture is revealed.  

Quote

 ...but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away...For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13)

In other words, that which we call "truth" in mortality, shall be replaced by a holistic and perfect perspective of all things when all truths will be circumscribed into one great whole.  That which we think we know, "shall vanish away" into a much more grand vista of the whole.  Our mortal perspective is like focusing on a small group of pixels in a picture of almost infinite pixels.  We try to make sense of that handful of pixels by saying things like "the kingdom of heaven is like unto...", but that is the best we can do.  

I have faith in THE Truth, but until I see the whole picture, all I have is my limited perspective of it.  TRUTH is untenable and unattainable in mortality.  It is a matter of faith as we look at it through a dark vail. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Maidservant said:

DOUBLE POST FOR SOME REASON.

Yeah maybe the software is flipping out.

I wrote a long post and maybe it timed out or something

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Sorry for the late response.  I am sure you have probably moved on by now.

All we have is our perspective of the elephant (THE Truth).  Though we have parts of the elephant revealed to us, we still interpret it from our perspective.  As the poem says, "an elephant is much like a rope" or a wall, or a spear, or a fan, etc., Or, Christ put it, "the kingdom of heaven is like unto..."  Our perspective, and thus truth, is limited in mortality. It is veiled. It is unwhole. We only see in part in mortality. 

So, if we can't call our perspective truth, then truth is elusive in mortality.  I don't see any harm in calling my experience truth, so long as I distinguish it from that which I can only have faith in mortality in - THE Truth.  My testimony is based on my personal perspective and experience, that is "my truth".  It is ever evolving.  It is organic and growing.  How much of what I "know" will remain intact as I perceive it now is impossible to know.  What I though I knew yesterday is not what I know today.  I don't expect that process to stop until I know all things.  My interpretation of the lines and precepts that I have been given might expand and change as more of the picture is revealed.  

In other words, that which we call "truth" in mortality, shall be replaced by a holistic and perfect perspective of all things when all truths will be circumscribed into one great whole.  That which we think we know, "shall vanish away" into a much more grand vista of the whole.  Our mortal perspective is like focusing on a small group of pixels in a picture of almost infinite pixels.  We try to make sense of that handful of pixels by saying things like "the kingdom of heaven is like unto...", but that is the best we can do.  

I have faith in THE Truth, but until I see the whole picture, all I have is my limited perspective of it.  TRUTH is untenable and unattainable in mortality.  It is a matter of faith as we look at it through a dark vail. 

YAY! 

Carry on - I can't seem to answer him 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, jpv said:

"Abstract theorizing about theology" is what keeps some of us in the Church.

I was spiritually nourished and sustained during a dark time by Blake Ostler and his son's podcast* which could be only described as you do.  Don't get me wrong, talks like that are great, but if that's all we had it wouldn't be enough to sustain some of us 

* http://www.exploringmormonthought.com

Lots of scholars (including me and you) enjoy thinking and discussing theology, and we even do it occasionally here on this board.  But that is not what the Gospel or the LDS Church are all about.  "Mormon" culture is a way of life and a kind of ethnicity, not a form of systematic theology.  Praxis or orthopraxy versus orthodoxy.  That is the sociological or anthropological reality.  So, much as I like and admire Blake and his teacher David Paulsen, I think that Terryl Givens has a better, more realistic take on the question.