Scott Lloyd

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's always fun when you have the leadership of a group that makes rules about criticizing them or pointing out their errors.

Obviously, they would never try to totally outlaw people criticizing them or pointing out their errors.  They are, after all, fallible, and everyone knows they make mistakes.

But please only criticize on the points that they will allow you to criticize them, in the way that they specify, and only point out those errors that they will accept being pointed out.

On this point, I would return to the speech Elder Oaks gave that I cited earlier:

Quote

 

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

“‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

“Better stop murmuring and build. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 142–43.)

President McKay’s teaching against speaking evil of others is a principle of Christian behavior that applies to all people. But his companion counsel against “murmuring” is a teaching that applies uniquely to Church members and Church leaders.

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. Consistent with gospel standards, these evaluations—though critical and public—should be constructive.

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24, quoted above.)

The prophet Moses expressed another reason we should refrain from criticizing Church leaders. On one occasion, the whole congregation of the children of Israel became dissatisfied and “murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness.” (Ex. 16:2.)

“What are we, that ye murmur against us?” Moses asked them. “The Lord heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord.” (Ex. 16:7–8.) Similarly, when the children of Israel ignored the prophet Samuel’s inspired warnings and begged him to appoint a king to rule over them, the Lord directed him to do as they asked, explaining: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” (1 Sam. 8:7.)

In these two instances, the Bible teaches that rejection of or murmuring against the counsel of the Lord’s servants amounts to actions against the Lord himself. How could it be otherwise? The Lord acts through his servants. That is the pattern he has established to safeguard our agency in mortality. His servants are not perfect, which is another consequence of mortality. But if we murmur against the Lord’s servants, we are working against the Lord and his cause and will soon find ourselves without the companionship of his Spirit.

 

Further:

Quote

 

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference. President Brigham Young described his own application of this method in a circumstance in which he felt “a want of confidence” in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s financial management. After entertaining such thoughts for a short time, President Young saw that they could cause him to lose confidence in the Prophet and ultimately to question God as well. President Young concluded:

“Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. … He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. … He was God’s servant, and not mine.” (Journal of Discourses, 4:297.)

Elder Lorenzo Snow also observed some “imperfections” in Joseph Smith, but he also reached a positive conclusion about the Prophet:

“I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority He placed upon him … for I knew that I myself had weakness, and I thought there was a chance for me.” (Quoted by Elder Neal A. Maxwell in Ensign, Nov. 1984, p. 10.)

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

President John Taylor described these last two remedies when he taught how we should sustain a leader:

“But supposing he should … be found lying or cheating, or defrauding somebody; or stealing or anything else, or even become impure in his habits, would you still sustain him? It would be my duty then to talk with him as I would with anybody else, and tell him that I had understood that things were thus and so, and that under these circumstances I could not sustain him; and if I found that I had been misinformed I would withdraw the charge; but if not it would then be my duty to see that justice was administered to him, that he was brought before the proper tribunal to answer for the things he had done; and in the absence of that I would have no business to talk about him.” (Journal of Discourses, 21:207–8.)

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.

A person who approaches a difference with a Church leader by praying about it keeps himself or herself in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. That person also goes directly to the One who can resolve the problem. It may be resolved by inspiration to the leader or by communication of added understanding, strength, or patience to the person who prays.

All five of these are appropriate options for Church members who differ with their leaders. The preferred course depends upon the circumstances and the inspiration that guides those who prayerfully seek.

By following these procedures, Church members can work for correction of a leader or for change of a policy. Members who do so in the correct spirit will not grieve the Spirit of the Lord. They will not alienate themselves from their leaders or their brothers and sisters in the Church.

 

On the insinuation here of heavy-handedness by Church leaders with regard to how they deal with criticism, Elder Oaks taught:

Quote

Throughout our history we have had members who have criticized the Church and its leaders. Church disciplinary action against such members has been rare or nonexistent. Persistent, public critics punish themselves. By deliberately separating themselves from those who have been called as their leaders, critics forfeit the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord. They drift from prayer, from the scriptures, from Church activity, and from keeping the commandments. They inevitably lose spirituality and blessings. As the prophet Nephi observed, those who succumb to pride and “works of darkness” are on the way to spiritual destruction, “for the Spirit of the Lord will not always strive with man.” (2 Ne. 26:10–11.)

And there's this challenging bit of wisdom:

Quote

This counsel will be anathema to some. I invite those who are troubled by it to consider it in terms of the teachings of the scriptures rather than in terms of their personal preferences or the canons of any particular profession. Those who reject the authority of the scriptures or our latter-day prophets cannot be expected to agree with what I have said. Those who see freedom or truth as absolutely overriding principles in all human actions cannot be expected to be persuaded by the scriptures’ teaching that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” (1 Cor. 8:1.)

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While I don't disagree that church leaders may sometimes describe themselves as the "Lord's anointed" that really doesn't mean they're the only anointed. Elder Oaks' comment could be taken as a bit self-serving.

 

Your definition strikes me as a new one, one not intended in the scriptural passages in which the phrase occurs. In fact, I would call it quirky.

Quote

But the issue of "evil speaking" of the "Lord's anointed" as covenanted in the temple has never been described (as far as I know) as part of a covenant not to disagree, contend, or find fault with the brethren.

I'll have to acknowledge sharp disagreement between us on that statement.

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's entirely possible you're correct about that.  But there's also this thing that people do called "retconning" that would totally apply if it weren't true.

It's entirely possible that cinepro has never beaten his wife. But if that supposition is not true, he is certainly guilty of domestic violence.

The understanding that the content of the Book of Mormon was produced expressly for us who are living in the latter days did not originate with me. President Ezra Taft Benson taught it repeatedly a generation ago:

Quote

 

The second great reason why we must make the Book of Mormon a center focus of study is that it was written for our day. The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us. Mormon wrote near the end of the Nephite civilization. Under the inspiration of God, who sees all things from the beginning, he abridged centuries of records, choosing the stories, speeches, and events that would be most helpful to us.

Each of the major writers of the Book of Mormon testified that he wrote for future generations. Nephi said: “The Lord God promised unto me that these things which I write shall be kept and preserved, and handed down unto my seed, from generation to generation” (2 Ne. 25:21). His brother Jacob, who succeeded him, wrote similar words: “For [Nephi] said that the history of his people should be engraven upon his other plates, and that I should preserve these plates and hand them down unto my seed, from generation to generation” (Jacob 1:3). Enos and Jarom both indicated that they too were writing not for their own peoples but for future generations (see Enos 1:15–16, Jarom 1:2).

Mormon himself said, “Yea, I speak unto you, ye remnant of the house of Israel” (Morm. 7:1). And Moroni, the last of the inspired writers, actually saw our day and time. “Behold,” he said, “the Lord hath shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you.

“Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing” (Morm. 8:34–35).

If they saw our day and chose those things which would be of greatest worth to us, is not that how we should study the Book of Mormon? We should constantly ask ourselves, “Why did the Lord inspire Mormon (or Moroni or Alma) to include that in his record? What lesson can I learn from that to help me live in this day and age?”

And there is example after example of how that question will be answered. For example, in the Book of Mormon we find a pattern for preparing for the Second Coming. A major portion of the book centers on the few decades just prior to Christ’s coming to America. By careful study of that time period, we can determine why some were destroyed in the terrible judgments that preceded His coming and what brought others to stand at the temple in the land of Bountiful and thrust their hands into the wounds of His hands and feet.

From the Book of Mormon we learn how disciples of Christ live in times of war. From the Book of Mormon we see the evils of secret combinations portrayed in graphic and chilling reality. In the Book of Mormon we find lessons for dealing with persecution and apostasy. We learn much about how to do missionary work. And more than anywhere else, we see in the Book of Mormon the dangers of materialism and setting our hearts on the things of the world. Can anyone doubt that this book was meant for us and that in it we find great power, great comfort, and great protection?

 

Link: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng

On the other hand, the notion that everything Nephi wrote or recorded by way of revelation was preached or distributed to the people living back then is not self-evident to me. Perhaps you can substantiate it.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Small but important clarification- There is no covenant not to find fault with "the brethren". There is mention of the "Lord's anointed" but that doesn't necessarily refer to the brethren. Who are the anointed? Anyone who has received their endowment.

I would also note that to "find fault" implies an active effort to find anything to criticize of with which to find fault. Sometimes one merely needs to open ones eyes to recognize obvious faults. No one is searching for these faults, but merely recognizing them. And why shouldn't they? Are prophets and apostles beyond reproach? Nope. Why not? Because they are humans and are fallible just like the rest of us.

In this talk

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

Elder Dallin H. Oaks seems to apply the definition to the Lord's anointed that I have always understood it to mean: those who have been called of God to lead His people.

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

It is odd to read it as they would have understood it.  It would be like President Monson standing in conference and saying:

"I had vision, and behold, there was a great building, and in this building were people who were fighting against the Zidelbobs of Kebod, (Kebod being the daughter of God whom shall come to earth in the year 2654.)  Let us all learn from this vision to follow Kebod and her teachings in the day that she comes in power."

 

Would people really sit there and nod reverently?  Perhaps.  But I suspect there would be a lot of as well.

(I suspect there would be a lot of people saying "Uh, God doesn't have a daughter named "Kebod", and having such a being come to the Earth in 2654 doesn't really fit our doctrine...", which is also how people probably would have reacted back in Nephi's day as well.)

 

I'm not sure how much of Nephi's vision would have been preached or publicized to his contemporaries. My understanding was that it was revealed to him and recorded to come forth in our day.

But in any event, it is also my understanding that the doctrine of a Messiah coming in the meridian of time to redeem His people was part and parcel of the word of God as it was preached from Adam down through the prophets that preceded the coming of Christ, though that knowledge or a portion thereof may have been lost through apostasy.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To read multitudes were gathered to fight against the 12, as a tiny few who disagree with some of the off-hand remarks from the 12 and say so from time to time in a non-confrontational manner is, at least, interesting, Scott.  on that basis any stated prophesy will be fulfilled. 

In this day, there are no multitudes gathered to fight.  There are some people questioning, sure, but they are so few as by and large most people don't pay a bit of attention to the 12. 

"those who contend against the united word of the apostles of Christ place themselves in the unhappy category of those represented in Lehi's dream as the multitude who inhabit the great and spacious building, the "pride of the world," as it were, who mock and scoff at those who are pressing forward to partake of the fruit of the tree of life."

Let's make this easy.  Who is mocking and scoffing at you? 

Feeling a bit defensive, stemelbow?

There, there. You can stand down. I'm not interested in turning this into a brawl.

42 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So people who don't believe Noah's flood was global are in the great and spacious building.  Got it.

Apparently you bypassed or forgot this sentence from my second post on this thread:

Quote

I think there's a clear distinction in meaning between disagree and contend.

Moreover, holding an opinion about whether the flood was global does not strike me as contending against the apostles of the Lamb.

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I never quote from oaths taken in the temple, and the quote you have taken from me doesn't come from a temple oath, but I just assumed that you would know what I am referring to.  Certainly Scott knows, and the Brethren themselves have sometimes referred to it.  Indeed, a number of endowed members have been unchurched for it, including my friend Lavina Fielding Anderson.  Are you sure that you don't know what I am referring to?

Yes, I understood quite clearly what you are referring to.

45 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You did misread or misunderstand, either that or I was very muddled and unclear.  I was not speaking of breakers of temple covenants, but universally of those outside the oath-bound covenant, both LDS and non-LDS, who may freely find fault with the Brethren.  Then I quickly noted that this might be risky, since all will be judged by God in accordance with how they judge others.  I then recommended that we say something nice, and let God be the judge.

Here again is what I actually said:

Maybe the brackets help.

No, the brackets were not necessary for me to understand your meaning in that sentence.

It just seemed to me, at first, that you were saying that only those who have made covenants in the temple are accountable for contending against the apostles of the Lamb and that everyone else gets a pass for doing so. If that's not what you were saying, I'm relieved.

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Thank you for putting this in perspective. I think often we members play the persecution card too quickly.  Most kindred, tongues, and people have never heard of or know little about our twelve apostles, so its not correct to say they are all fighting against them.

Since the apostles of Jesus Christ are charged in any age with the responsibility to direct the work of proclaiming His gospel teachings and to administer His church, including the baptizing of those who embrace the gospel (see Mark 16:15-16) it follows that all who contend against the teachings of Christ and His gospel in any way or sense are by logical extension and in a symbolic way, contending against the apostles of the Lamb of God.

16 hours ago, strappinglad said:

My problem is timing. At the time of Lehi's vision there were no apostles to contend with and wouldn't be for 600 years. From an LDS perspective, there were about 1500 years of history in which there were also no apostles to contend with/against. What were all the folks in the great and spacious building doing? waiting? Perhaps there are more metaphorical meanings to ' the apostles of the Lamb ' .

I'm not understanding your problem with timing. This is a vision of the future, a great panorama that would transpire beginning hundreds of years later.

In being shown Lehi's vision, Nephi sees many things pertaining to the mortal ministry of Christ in minute detail. He sees the mother of the Son of God, he beholds that she is a virgin, he sees the birth of Christ, he sees Christ's ministry, he sees the baptism of Jesus, he sees the calling of the twelve apostles, he sees Jesus performing many miracles, he sees the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Furthermore, he sees many things that pertain to the latter days including the discovery and colonizing of America, the great apostasy and restoration and the building up of Zion. Moreover, he beholds the future ministry of John the Revelator and the vision that would be unfolded to him.

It seems as if you have not read or grasped these chapters in 1 Nephi.

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Only those who are bound by temple covenant have taken an oath not to find fault with the Brethren, even if/when they are wrong.  All others of those both in and out of the LDS faith may freely find fault with the Brethren.  One might want to pause, however, before passing judgment too hastily.  For with what judgment you judge, so shall you be judged.  Might be better to say something nice.  Let the Lord pass judgment.

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly here, Bob, but I see the great and spacious building and its inhabitants -- identified as "the pride of the world" -- as being far more universal in scope than merely breakers of temple covenants, though such would certainly be included in it. Nephi beheld that its fall "was exceeding great," and "thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb." There's nothing OK about contending against divine truth or fighting against the apostles of the Lamb of God, even if done in ignorance.

Your identification of "those who are bound by temple covenants" and who subsequently find fault with the Brethren sounds more like those in Lehi's dream who partake of the fruit of the tree of life (the love of God) and then are ashamed and eventually join the multitudes in the great and spacious building.

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Are we back to this discussion in every thread?

I note MormonVideoGame is on "limited" status. That could explain it. I understand that those on limited are prevented from starting threads, so hijacking others' threads would be his only means of pushing his agenda. Just a hunch.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that the bolded part above is an interesting emphasis, and one that i had never noticed before either.  And it's an interesting question-whether one can contend (or struggle) against the apostles and still be grasping the rod.

And I used the word united advisedly. Individual apostles have erred in the past; when acting with unity as a quorum or a council, not so much.

4 minutes ago, William Jones said:

Johnny Cake responded well to your question. 

Did you see my reply to Johnny Cake's response? The one I just posted?

He said there has been "some chatter" about this and that, and he provided zero documentation. I don't see that as him having "responded well."

Quote

Also, I don't think you can deny that certain church stories got exaggerated over time.  Who do you think did that?  My ancestors crossed the plains with the Martin handcart company.  After that disaster, my ancestor was counseled, from the brethren, not to talk about it.  He didn't even write down his recollections in a journal because he didn't want to go against the brethren.  His children begged him to do so but he was firm.  Why do you think he was instructed not to talk about it?  If you look at the real history, it was because it was a mistake by Brigham Young and compounded by Franklin Richards, an apostle at the time.  It wasn't exactly the faith promoting story it's been twisted into today.  It was simply a tragedy that should have been avoided.  Humans make mistakes and this certainly was one.  But to make it into some faith promoting story out of the tragedy sure makes one question.

I was thinking more in terms of modern-day. Can you cite any episode since Paul Dunn where a Church leaders has fabricated stories and passed them off as truth as he did?

21 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

There is some chatter that 2 particular talks given in the last General Conference used Dunn-Like liberties to make their faith promoting stories...well more faith promoting.  One involved a Stake Center fire story...where liberties were made in the story to make it faith promoting and the other that I am aware of is the Japan tsunami story where liberties were taken to embellish that story to make it more faith promoting than the actual events that took place. 

In the absence of solid documentation, I must chalk up this report of "some chatter" to common, garden-variety rumor-mongering.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

That's not my problem.

The church formed my deeply held convictions, including Joseph's words. I was all in.  I lived as a Mormon when it went against local tradition.

 I defended the church and gospel my whole life and tried to live it and as I did so and continued to exercise faith, I learned that Joseph could not have been a prophet. I learned, from the LDS gospel, that there is a point that the Spirit will depart from a man.

Eventually, if we are fortunate, the truth will out. And, in my perspective in the case of Joseph Smith, it did.

If we accept that the Spirit can depart from a prophet, we must by the same token allow that the Spirit can depart from the follower of a prophet with the result that the follower no longer accepts the prophet.

13 hours ago, William Jones said:

I think a lot of church leaders were like Paul Dunn and his exaggerated stories that he used to tell, for faithful purposes. Over the years, building faith turned into stretching the truth or outright "lies for the lord." They may have meant well, but reality isn't that faith promoting at times and so there is a temptation to make the story better. Now, with the internet, it's hard to hide it any more.

Other than Paul H. Dunn, I'm hard-pressed to think of a Church leader who meets this description.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Probably.  

Probably as in he hasn't been asked yet or he has been asked but hasn't committed?

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

FYI... Dehlin's salary is posted on the Open Stories Foundation website (as are all the financials for OSF).  His salary is $75k per year beginning in 2016.  IOW, somewhere higher than the "poverty line" and lower than an LDS general authority.

Depends on how much time he spends at it. He's got some sort of counseling practice on the side, doesn't he?  75 grand for part time work is a pretty sweet gig, especially if it's a hobby. 

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Fascinating to me that the one essential eternal value you think to mention, as the church needing to hold to, is avoiding the "redefinition of marriage" rather than anything that Christ actually taught during his mortal ministry.  Then again, that obsession seems to me to be part of the reason for our declining growth.  Which I guess is, to you, a fulfillment of prophecy.  So, right on, brother!

I don't know of a "church of the holy podcast".  I know that our church is one that values gospel study (including when done through the spoken word) and the Terryl Givens interview certainly fits well.  I'd highly recommend it.

I see the redefinition of marriage as symptomatic of a broader evil, which is the destruction of the family unit. And the eternal nature of the family is indeed part of the everlasting gospel.

Furthermore, to limit the teachings of Christ to what the New Testament gospels happen to record that He said during His mortal ministry is myopic indeed. Which is why I treasure the doctrine pertaining to ongoing revelation and the open canon.

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Don't get me wrong, Scott.  I love this narrative and Nehpi's vision.  It's just not what I was raised on.  And, of course, what I was taught growing up greatly influenced how I interpreted Nephi's vision.

Ironically, I first remember hearing this explanation of the Church's future from Terryl Givens on Mormon Stories.  It immediately resonated with me but the idea that we only needed a presence on the earth (with the priesthood keys) rather than needing to give every soul an opportunity to accept/reject saving ordinance was new to me.

Oh, I still believe every soul will be given an opportunity to accept or reject the saving ordinances. I also believe in the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy in connection with his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

The problem is that many people over the years have misunderstood the timetable. I earnestly believe that our task prior to the Second Coming of Christ is primarily to set the stage for what will come later. We are establishing the Savior's kingdom throughout the earth preparatory to His coming in glory. Christ has set upHis Church in latter days to be as a city on a hill, a light shining in the darkness, a leaven for the loaf in an increasingly dark and wicked world. That is why it is so very essential that His Church hold fast to eternal values and standards, resisting and avoiding shifting trends such as the redefinition of marriage and the destruction of the family as an institution. If the Church were to succumb to these shifting trends, it would lose its power to accomplish its task of preparing the world for the coming of Christ in glory. He would have to reject us as a people, because we would no longer be in a position to fulfill that divine role.

What's going on right now is part of the panorama. But the really epic events will take place after Christ's coming. That's when we will see the stone rolling forward to break down all other kingdoms and to fill the earth.

Immediately after Christ's coming, the vast majority of the world -- perhaps even a proportionately larger majority than today -- will not yet belong to the Church of Jesus Christ. But from that point on, there will be a rapid and exponential conversion of the peoples of the earth until virtually all have accepted the saving ordinances.

A couple of factors will have facilitated this:

For one, the wicked will have been destroyed through cataclysmic events preceding the coming of Christ, leaving only those who are disposed to righteousness to survive.

For another, Satan will be bound during the thousand years of Christ's millennial reign and will not have power to blind the eyes or darken the minds of the people. With their inborn light, they will recognize the truth when they see it.

Furthermore, the coming of Christ in glory will be as the dawn that spreads forth into the bright light of day. The truth will be so obvious that people will be obliged to recognize it and receive it.

As people accept the gospel and receive the saving ordinances, they will in turn take it to others who will also receive. Again, the growth will be exponential. And all these converted souls will perform vicarious ordinances of salvation in the temples of the world for those who have died. Those departed spirits will in turn receive the gospel on the other side of the veil.

So Daniel's prophecy commenced with the Restoration of the gospel and priesthood keys and authority through the Prophet Joseph Smith and it will culminate during the millennial reign of Christ when ultimately every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord and that the fullness of the gospel is being proclaimed by emissaries of the Church of Jesus Christ.

I'm not acquainted with what Terryl Givens said to John Dehlin in the church of the holy podcast, but if it is consistent with the above, I say good for him. I very much agree with him in that event.

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Then there was this...

Singing softly or bursting into song? Which was it? Would you gag at any other religious utterance expressed at the moment of death or is that reserved just for the Mormons? Why didn't you just tell them to knock off the repulsive singing and let you die in peace?

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ok I give up...

Don't give up. 

Maybe you could take this matter to John Dehlin. It could be the topic of his next six-hour podcast: "Mormons Singing Religious Songs When They Think They Are about to Die: What's with Them? Why Don't They Just Shut Up?"