Calm

It does need to be about you because it’s you who are choosing to interpret a factual observation about the unknown internal state of people into something that is ugly and prejudicial instead of taking into account how it can also be used without all the emotion you are attaching to it.

And adding information that leads us to not jump to conclusions, but to take more time to assess both makes sense to me. And given that assessment reaction is on the instinctual level, it needs to be a strong piece of data to push us into spending more time assessing imo, especially when so much of our culture pushes us to go with impulse and emotion rather than discipline and reason.

But you don’t understand what that means to them, only how you interpret it, even after it’s been explained to you (it includes also seeing you as a potential good guy, it’s a position more of neutrality, more withholding judgment than accusation).

Right, that’s pretty much is the only info I can think of we believe is revealed and I see that as pretty vague. Was the Father also persecuted, was his life threatened, or were those of his world more receptive? Was he born in a time where there was little tech or higher tech so he himself was able to bring the Gospel to his world at that time. Did he die young or old? Married or not?Given the details of the Father’s life not only depended on his choices, but the choices of those around him which we have no information on, I don’t believe we can extrapolate much beyond what you have said. Did Jesus do everything he saw the Father do or only those things his circumstances allowed?

If you read the rest of my post, it explains.

Would love to get some feedback from Danzo and Smac so I know if I am on the right track or not. I have no doubt this subject is going to come up again and I hate the idea we might have to start from square one again and therefore never come to a clear understanding of what the other is actually thinking.

So good to hear.

No, I don’t believe that. Given what I see in manuals in the last 25 years, I think they try to use scripture as much as possible to support teachings and if an belief is not fleshed out in scripture, it may not get discussed in detail. Speculation is much less present in manuals as well now than it was in the past….which I very much approve of. And God the Father as a mortal is not detailed in scripture or imo official sources for labeled revelation. I also think with the misrepresentations that have been done by antis, they are more careful in how this is taught in official publications, including conference. I don’t think it’s about looking more mainstream, but an overall approach to keep to the better supported basics when teaching. Functionally it may often end up looking the same, but the purpose is quite different imo….just as me cleaning my house because I love order is not anywhere close to me cleaning my house so I won’t be embarrassed when others come over, but it looks identical with a very clean house.

Except it has with local church leaders in mine and others’ experience according to their reports. It would be best to avoid misunderstanding to specify when you are talking about official church publications including conference talks. I am assuming you mean general authorities and officers. I suspect most here would understand if you used “general church leaders” where they won’t with just “church leaders”, since common usage includes local church leaders in that category….though it might be best given meanings of general to be precise and say “general authorities and officers” if that is what you actually mean. For example, Elder Nelson appears to be describing a local leader who only later became a mission president under the section in his talk headed “Church Leaders” here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1991/04/listen-to-learn?lang=eng My guess is if you don’t specify you are not talking about local leadership, you will get pushback and many will see you as intentionally misrepresenting reality on this topic. If your point is to be persuasive, avoiding that is pretty easy and straightforward, imo.

I expect most people would interpret it that way, some nitpickers like myself would point out nuances that debate is about discussion, thinking is about what goes on internally, but since I do a lot of my thinking verbally in discussions, that can often amount to the same thing for me functionally speaking and I wouldn’t be surprised if others are like that…so even a more nuanced view might be pretty much the same thing in personal interpretations or practice, imo. I don’t take that teaching in isolation though, so I suspect most would see me as ignoring it, lol. It is for me because too many in my experience take it as instruction to diminish the purpose of personal revelation when it comes to church doctrine to only confirm what comes from the pulpit at conference or even locally (they hear leaders quoting the prophet and assume whatever goes along with the quote is in the same league). It can even get extrapolated in my experience to a belief that they shouldn’t be exploring ideas themselves because all that should come from authority.

Dont forget the shoes if decent quality.

Same problem here.

And the style of the two songs are very different, one slow, the other very upbeat, so got to wonder why they got connected in Brother McKay’s head.

There is a problem with using Old Folks at Home as an African American heritage song. It was written by Steven Foster who had never been to Florida it seems and was just looking for a two syllable name to fit the melody according to Goggle. Worse, it was written to be performed by a blackface minstrel group. At least his intention was positive, but delivery was not respectful since it looks like he just made stuff up about the dialect used. https://pages.stolaf.edu/americanmusic/2021/12/08/stephen-fosters-intent-and-impact-with-old-folks-at-home/ Layers of wrong here by not checking actual history before making the joke (the song is presented as being sung by a slave). Also wonder if Brother McKay knows the lyrics given the first verse includes the lovely longing for de old plantation line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Folks_at_Home

In how he sang it? More than likely. It is not just Black choirs that sing it that way. Pretty sure we sang it as kids, must have been in school as it wouldn’t have been played on the radio stations I listened to back then, lol, and I learned it somewhere. It’s a great song to sing along to. I think this is the version from the Church that was released when it was announced as a new hymn. This is sung with power and heart.

No, the Seventy imagined the conversation he would have had with his friend about the way he was singing, his friend was just singing in an unexpected to him way. He wanted to turn to him and comment, but he didn’t (probably because they were in a meeting and then he forgot about it till the song came to his mind for the talk). And he’s imagining what his friend would say. I got to wonder if his friend is annoyed with him and telling him that no way would he (the friend) have gone there, he was just singing the song like he had heard others sing it or some such thing.

He’s given two conference talks. To those who want to see a fuller picture, here’s a link: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/speakers/kyle-s-mckay?lang=eng He’s been a Seventy since 2018. I am a bit surprised his voice was stressed so much, or so it seemed to me. His delivery was much smoother from the beginning in both of his talks. Maybe he doesn’t typically tell jokes, but his humorous anecdote about his son was done well enough. Or maybe he got to practice more.

Not quite so bad as I was expecting (minimal mimicking), but if that was all his friend had done, why the heck did he go to “African slave” rather than just gospel singer or just Black even. The song itself wasn’t written until the 1920’s or later. There is more to Black cultural heritage than just slavery. From just this clip so I may be way off, I don’t remember if I have heard him speak before….he’s not a natural speaker or storyteller. Too much in his head, it seems to me. My guess is his wit isn’t in storytelling or jokes, but spontaneous observations. Those type of people should avoid telling jokes and keep to heartfelt sentiments of gratitude, enjoying being there, even being vulnerable about nervousness. Brief and not convicted remarks to stumble over.

But of me wishes that and part of me really, really hope there’s not one in existence.

That is a small part of the KFD imo. Not in terms of importance, of course, but all the details included. Yet it is often used as shorthand for Plan of Salvation stuff. There are parts that are still prominent imo. Some however that is never heard from the pulpit. When was the last time someone taught that those who died young would live eternally at that age? “A question will Mothers have their Children in Eternity yes, yes, you will have the Children, <But> as is it falls so it will rise, It will never grow, It will be in its precise form as it fell in its mothers arms. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of Children reigning on thrones of glory not one cubit added to their stature.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/1#full-transcript This is the only one that says they will not grow at all (not just not grow or change to adults while dead). The other 3 talk about being able to inherit thrones, etc, so I am guessing Woodruff put 1 and 1 together and got 3…3 being age/physical form wouldn’t ever change with one 1 being things would be the same or something like that, but Joseph meant blessings and not physical form here and the other 1 being mothers would raise their children from the age they died at, physical form when resurrected being the same as at death but growing into adulthood, not being locked into childhood for eternity. One of these days I should totally dissect the KFD.

I believe the earth is set up in part to rub our noses in what it would be like if we don’t humble ourselves and learn from God, turn ourselves over to him to be purified and sanctified and instead attempt to set ourselves up as the center of the universe so to speak. It’s chaos. It’s to show us what we really want (added: and don’t want) so that there will be no sidetracks or second guessing or rebellions in the later stages where more damage can be done, instead we will all have a tight focus on what we truly desire. I think by the time we are done with mortality and the post mortality debriefing, those who can be convinced (in the sense of hearts and minds being fully committed, not manipulated into feeling that way, but freely choosing because they know the alternatives and don’t value them) to be truly selfless so that all may have joy will have their hearts set on that being our ultimate state of being and those who cannot be convinced it’s what they want will live a more isolated life where their lack of desire to do good won’t harm anyone and they can contribute as much as they desire, so as to have the joy they want as well if not as full as those who are willing to go all in.

That’s the way they did it for my brother a couple of decades ago. My sister sat in for my mom (which is likely the only reason why I remember as I don’t remember mine or my son’s) as Mom and my other sister was with Dad in the hospital with brain surgery (it wasn’t likely life threatening, being practical and not wanting to waste effort and money and relatives traveling, they insisted the wedding go ahead).

So while he intentionally (at the moment) talked like an African slave from the stand, he would never have used Ebonics when mimicking if that was what his friend was using? (I agree he probably won’t now given the reaction to his mimicking).

Some of its ideas, for sure. I agree with those that have been repeated are definitely doctrinal. But other of its ideas have been ignored. I believe people need to be careful not to treat it like a regular conference talk since 1) there are different version that sometimes contradict each other or have unique ideas not confirmed by other versions or other materials from Joseph and 2) it was never vetted by Joseph iirc. He could have misstated something. I would love to see a color coded version where ideas that have been consistently taught over the years, ideas that were present in more than one version, ideas that were present in only one version, and ideas that are contradicted by other versions or other teachings of Joseph are all highlighted in different colors with appropriate footnotes. I could get behind that as a study aid.

And how is mimicking someone doing a bad job of what he thought was pretending to be a slave emulating another’s traditions (this is how he described it himself, see below)? Serious question as I am trying to understand your thought process on this. From the link in the first post.