Bishopric confession

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I want to point out that it is not always doing something wrong that leads to feeling one has lost companionship.  My decision to take medication when I was falling asleep when I shouldn't was based on a desire to be a better mother, wife, and friend (I feel asleep while babysitting kids whose moms had gone to the temple).  The medication prevented me from feeling the Spirit for a couple of years...it came back not through repentance, but stopping the medication.

I believe that sin can cut the connection just as it can with our loved ones who are with us physically, emotionally, and spiritually.  And it feeling strong again can be a result of forgiveness.

I just don't think that is the only way it works and people may be inaccurate blaming themselves and suffering needlessly by doing so.

 

 

Good point, and yes of course you are right.

In the naturalistic analysis all these feelings are chemical reactions and so of course drugs can and do affect what is happening.

In the case of medication it is clear that medication can interfere obviously.

It is clear in that case that the chemical is driving the experience.

On the other side though, without medication, what causes the chemical reaction which leads to the experience?

Just like an unseen bear growling in the woods, something in the world can start the chemical reactions within us.

But what outside us, in the absence of medication, causes the feeling of an inner "Watcher" in atheists and in believers both?

Is it more like the bear in the woods or more like some invisible "medication"?

But who made that medication and what made it "go off"?

That is exactly the problem with the atheist argument that it is "all psychologically caused" or that it is "social evolution" in action.

Unfortunately both those explanations are as falsifiable and without evidence as the God hypothesis.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/9/2019 at 5:56 PM, bluebell said:

I know a lot of people also think of it as being anyone who has been to the temple.

I think that’s a misapplication in this context. Anointing alludes figuratively to what was done anciently (see 1 Samuel 9:16; 10:1) and pertains to the blessings, privileges and responsibilities of leadership in the kingdom of God. Not wishing to go into detail, I would say that the symbolic anointing that occurs in the temple pertains to futurity and the hereafter. 

Edited May 11, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I recall a particular Sunday School lesson a while back where the teacher was analyzing sin and asked "But what IS sin"?

My jokey and I guess irreverent reply was "Doing something that seemed like a good idea at the time, that you are sorry for later."

Yes it was a joke but I think there was some truth in it.

sounds like marriage☠️

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

The medication prevented me from feeling the Spirit for a couple of years...

So you went several years without any answer to prayer, without any form of revelation, without any divine correct or warnings, etc.? Just trying to understand.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So you went several years without any answer to prayer, without any form of revelation, without any divine correct or warnings, etc.? Just trying to understand.

In the sense of being able to internally experience as I had in the past. It literally felt like a black heavy void in my head.

I trusted the Spirit was listening even if I couldn't hear him and I started to pick up things in others' behaviours that I interpreted as directions.

[SouthernMo]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that’s a misapplication in this context. Anointing alludes figuratively to what was done anciently (see 1 Samuel 9:16; 10:1) and pertains to the blessings, privileges and responsibilities of leadership in the kingdom of God. Not wishing to go into detail, I would say that the symbolic anointing that occurs in the temple pertains to futurity and the hereafter. 

That may be. Who in your definition is “anointed?” Bishops and above?  Seventies?  When bishops are released or when seventies become emeritus, are they un-anointed?  Was James Hamula un-anointed?

Then it begs the question who does god allow me to speak evil of (if not these “anointed”).

If it’s clear to you (or anyone) please explain. It’s not clear to me.

Edited May 11, 2019 by SouthernMo

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that’s a misapplication in this context. Anointing alludes figuratively to what was done anciently (see 1 Samuel 9:16; 10:1) and pertains to the blessings, privileges and responsibilities of leadership in the kingdom of God. Not wishing to go into detail, I would say that the symbolic anointing that occurs in the temple pertains to futurity and the hereafter. 

It definitely could be.  I'm not ready to declare your explanation as a fact but it could be.  

[bluebell]

I've been thinking of the "loud laughter" issue.  That one has always confused me as well.  I don't believe it means we are not ever supposed to laugh obviously, so I'm coming at it from the point of view of, what kind of laughing is o.k. and what kind isn't, in God's eyes?

When someone is really and sincerely laughing (when something has hit them as incredibly funny), they are actually fairly silent.  Sincere laughter disrupts our breathing (that's why some people actually pass out when they are laughing too hard, they weren't able to stop laughing long enough to take a breath).  There is some noise involved in sincere laughter of course but it's usually not usually very loud or obnoxious.  

When I think of loud laughter I think of the laughter associated with mocking or drunken revelry, or meaningless laughter that is forced. Brigham Young called it "empty levity" and CS Lewis spoke about how the habit of flippancy can cause a great deal of harm.

I don't know how that applies to anyone else but contemplating it has been interesting for me so I thought i'd share.   

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

That may be. Who in your definition is “anointed?” Bishops and above?  Seventies?  When bishops are released or when seventies become emeritus, are they un-anointed?  Was James Hamula un-anointed?

Then it begs the question who does god allow me to speak evil of (if not these “anointed”).

If it’s clear to you (or anyone) please explain. It’s not clear to me.

If you don’t speak evil of anyone then you can be confident you’re on safe ground.

Seems odd that anyone would be looking for permission from God to speak evil of a brother or sister they’ve been commanded to love.

Better for us to strive to never speak guile of anyone.

[let’s roll]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've been thinking of the "loud laughter" issue.  That one has always confused me as well.  I don't believe it means we are not ever supposed to laugh obviously, so I'm coming at it from the point of view of, what kind of laughing is o.k. and what kind isn't, in God's eyes?

When someone is really and sincerely laughing (when something has hit them as incredibly funny), they are actually fairly silent.  Sincere laughter disrupts our breathing (that's why some people actually pass out when they are laughing too hard, they weren't able to stop laughing long enough to take a breath).  There is some noise involved in sincere laughter of course but it's usually not usually very loud or obnoxious.  

When I think of loud laughter I think of the laughter associated with mocking or drunken revelry, or meaningless laughter that is forced. Brigham Young called it "empty levity" and CS Lewis spoke about how the habit of flippancy can cause a great deal of harm.

I don't know how that applies to anyone else but contemplating it has been interesting for me so I thought i'd share.   

Good thoughts.  The idea that resonates with me is avoiding laughter associated with mocking or demeaning thoughts or behavior.

I laughed when the Rockets lost last night.  I’d like to think it was just joyful laughter for the Warriors, but there was some glee for the Rocket’s demise.  Not very Christ-like.  

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that’s a misapplication in this context. Anointing alludes figuratively to what was done anciently (see 1 Samuel 9:16; 10:1) and pertains to the blessings, privileges and responsibilities of leadership in the kingdom of God. Not wishing to go into detail, I would say that the symbolic anointing that occurs in the temple pertains to futurity and the hereafter. 

Agree, and then there is the obvious quote from Exodus 40:12

"And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.

¹³ And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office."

I think that pretty well defines who is considered annointed

[bsjkki]

6 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

If you don’t speak evil of anyone then you can be confident you’re on safe ground.

Seems odd that anyone would be looking for permission from God to speak evil of a brother or sister they’ve been commanded to love.

Better for us to strive to never speak guile of anyone.

What is your definition of speak evil? Does it require malicious intent or is it any idle gossip. Is complaining and pointing out wrongdoing evil speaking. When pointing out someone is flagrantly violating church policy is that wrong? Is questioning someones actions evil speaking? I've had a church leaders who have hurt my family but never sought to undermine them in  the Ward but discussed it with close friends, family and even anonymously on message boards? Was this evil speaking. Personally, I would think evil speaking involves malicious intent, slander or defamation. I also think it matters if your trying to undermine publicly a leaders ability to fulfill their calling. 

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

If you don’t speak evil of anyone then you can be confident you’re on safe ground.

Seems odd that anyone would be looking for permission from God to speak evil of a brother or sister they’ve been commanded to love.

Better for us to strive to never speak guile of anyone.

Completely agree with your practice. But why would the covenant only mention evil speaking against certain individuals?

My belief is that this covenant is more historical and practical than theological.

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree, and then there is the obvious quote from Exodus 40:12

"And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.

¹³ And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office."

I think that pretty well defines who is considered annointed

It doesn’t define it to me. Be more specific. How is this applied today?  Or is it one of those teachings that only those “who have ears to hear” will understand?

Is it all priests?  Who specifically have I covenanted not to speak evil of? 

[let’s roll]

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Completely agree with your practice. But why would the covenant only mention evil speaking against certain individuals?

My belief is that this covenant is more historical and practical than theological.

There’s logic in the idea that we could covenant to live the first and second commandments, since all the covenants we make are subsets to those commandments.  

My personal focus has always followed that conceptualization of all covenants.

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

There’s logic in the idea that we could covenant to live the first and second commandments, since all the covenants we make are subsets to those commandments.  

My personal focus has always followed that conceptualization of all covenants.

If they’re all subsets of 1A & 2A, then why have other covenants (M1 & M2)?

[let’s roll]

22 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

What is your definition of speak evil? Does it require malicious intent or is it any idle gossip. Is complaining and pointing out wrongdoing evil speaking. When pointing out someone is flagrantly violating church policy is that wrong? Is questioning someones actions evil speaking? I've had a church leaders who have hurt my family but never sought to undermine them in  the Ward but discussed it with close friends, family and even anonymously on message boards? Was this evil speaking. Personally, I would think evil speaking involves malicious intent, slander or defamation. I also think it matters if your trying to undermine publicly a leaders ability to fulfill their calling. 

I’ve never gleaned much benefit from lists or definitions—the futility of lists of inappropriate Sabbath activities comes to mind.

My personal experience has been that I’m fully aware of what’s in my heart when I speak and I’m able to discern whether what I choose to say is appropriate.  I’m working on making better choices.

That said, light versus darkness is often a helpful guide.  What’s the modern parlance for some speech— “casting shade?”

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

It doesn’t define it to me. Be more specific. How is this applied today?  Or is it one of those teachings that only those “who have ears to hear” will understand?

Is it all priests?  Who specifically have I covenanted not to speak evil of? 

Leaders. Those set apart by priesthood authority. That includes about everybody.

But as it's been said just don't speak evil of anyone and you'll be fine.

Why would you want to know who you CAN speak evil about?

It seems a very odd request.

How many steps can you take on Sunday without violating the Sabbath?

[let’s roll]

20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If they’re all subsets of 1A & 2A, then why have other covenants (M1 & M2)?

All covenants and commandments roll up into, and are manifestations of, our love of God and of our brothers and sisters.  Jesus said all commandments “hang” on those first two commandments.

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If they’re all subsets of 1A & 2A, then why have other covenants (M1 & M2)?

You think this is the IRS?

Each of these is a teaching moment to enable us to think about the covenants from a different angle.

You are trying to slice warm butter to the thousandths of an inch

How much yellow do you add to red to make "orange"?

How much money does it take to retire?

We are not to be commanded in all things. 

Edited May 11, 2019 by mfbukowski

[SouthernMo]

26 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I’ve never gleaned much benefit from lists or definitions—the futility of lists of inappropriate Sabbath activities comes to mind.

My personal experience has been that I’m fully aware of what’s in my heart when I speak and I’m able to discern whether what I choose to say is appropriate.  I’m working on making better choices.

That said, light versus darkness is often a helpful guide.  What’s the modern parlance for some speech— “casting shade?”

I like your approach. Let the spirit guide. How do you live your life differently because of that covenant?  How do you identify “the lord’s anointed?”

[SouthernMo]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Leaders. Those set apart by priesthood authority. That includes about everybody.

But as it's been said just don't speak evil of anyone and you'll be fine.

Why would you want to know who you CAN speak evil about?

It seems a very odd request.

How many steps can you take on Sunday without violating the Sabbath?

Thanks for the perspective.

It’s not about what I can and can’t get away with. It’s about understanding the meaning of the covenant. Why would god delineate between speaking evil about one group of people (Lord’s anointed) and another (everyone else)?

[SouthernMo]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You think this is the IRS?

Each of these is a teaching moment to enable us to think about the covenants from a different angle.

You are trying to slice warm butter to the thousandths of an inch

How much yellow do you add to red to make "orange"?

How much money does it take to retire?

We are not to be commanded in all things. 

I am glad you’re happy understanding the covenants as you do.

I would like to understand them better. Analysis and critical thinking are important in understanding a concept.

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Thanks for the perspective.

It’s not about what I can and can’t get away with. It’s about understanding the meaning of the covenant. Why would god delineate between speaking evil about one group of people (Lord’s anointed) and another (everyone else)?

Sorry for being a bit gruff. I am glad you are more charitable than I am.

I think it's more on the order of emphasizing that we should not criticize leaders too vehemently to the point of "evil speaking", because we do not know all the factors involved in their decisions, and it leads to divisions in the ranks.

Every leader has some information that probably should remain confidential. A nursery leader for example may know something about a child's condition or handicap that is privileged information and should not be shared.

That may cause the nursery leader to treat that child differently.

Someone might complain about favoritism without understanding that they do not have the big picture.

In that case and others "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" could lead to divisions in the ward.

So no we should not speak evil of anyone but especially the leaders simply because we don't know their circumstances and it could lead to further division in a ward.

That's my take on it anyway

On the other hand of course if there's some sort of major malfeasance or etc then obviously it has to be brought up. But that would go through the proper channels instead of being "evil speaking." It would be making a justifiable complaint to the proper authorities.

Edited May 11, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've been thinking of the "loud laughter" issue.  That one has always confused me as well.  I don't believe it means we are not ever supposed to laugh obviously, so I'm coming at it from the point of view of, what kind of laughing is o.k. and what kind isn't, in God's eyes?

When someone is really and sincerely laughing (when something has hit them as incredibly funny), they are actually fairly silent.  Sincere laughter disrupts our breathing (that's why some people actually pass out when they are laughing too hard, they weren't able to stop laughing long enough to take a breath).  There is some noise involved in sincere laughter of course but it's usually not usually very loud or obnoxious.  

When I think of loud laughter I think of the laughter associated with mocking or drunken revelry, or meaningless laughter that is forced. Brigham Young called it "empty levity" and CS Lewis spoke about how the habit of flippancy can cause a great deal of harm.

I don't know how that applies to anyone else but contemplating it has been interesting for me so I thought i'd share.   

There was an elder in our mission I forget where from. He had a very distinct laugh, like real.real...... distinct. One time we got him to laugh so hard hard he actually threw up, which made everyone laugh even harder