The Last Mormon Freedom

[Jeff K.]

I know, but it makes it speculation at best.

[Mortal Man]

Joseph Fielding Smith warned against wards trying to encourage male members to all wear white shirts. He felt it would evolve into priestcraft.

What's the reference for that?

[Zakuska]

Let me get this straight.... you are stating that if one were to suddenly stand up in the middle of a temple ceremony to give a travelogue and bear a testimony, that it is equally acceptable to doing it somewhere else. such as a group in a corner, and a testimony is a testimony wether born in Sacrament meeting or a Louisiana Swamp? Or are there guidelines of conduct that come into play?

I don't think your accurate in your estimation.

Would speaking in tongues be acceptable behavior in the Celestial room of the Salt Lake temple? From my experience the typical speaking in tounges isn't acceptable Mormon behavior period.

When the Spirit moves who are we to tell God to shut up and watch the Movie?

[maklelan]

Sorry if I fail to see the picturesque sunset over the Grand Canyon that you seem to see. Paul called the saints "babes in christ" his children who he begot through Christ and the Gospel. There is a definate child Parent relationship between the Apostles and the lay members.

A ridiculous analogy. Again, it's dishonest to insist the counsel to limit testimonies to testimonies and short faith-promoting stories is analogous to whispering fragments of a testimony into a kids ear at the pulpit. Trying to justify it through scripture is silly.

PS. One poster on your side of the fence a few pages ago said "breif stories" no matter what they were about were not appropriate.

Every apostle who has addressed this has said brief faith-promoting stories are appropriate. I stated in the very first post that I'm going by the counsel of the Twelve.

[Fiannan]

What's the reference for that?

Here it is:

"[speaking about additional aspects added to sacred ordinances] These changes and innovations are innocently adopted, but in course of time there is the danger that they will become fixed customs and considered as necessary to the welfare of the Church. For example, let us consider the ordinance of the Sacrament. It became the custom in many wards throughout the church to have the young men who passed the Sacrament all dressed alike with dark coats, white shirts and uniform ties. This could in time lead to the established custom of dressing them in uniform, such as we see done in some sectarian and other churches. Then again as they passed the Sacrament they had to stand with their left hand plastered on their backs in a most awkward manner. The priests or elders who administered these holy emblems had to stand in a certain way as the one officiating in the prayer knelt at the table. In some instances the Bishop stood in the pulpit with raised hands in an attitude of benediction. Other customs among the quorums and in the services of the wards were introduced. Members of the Church were instructed that they must not touch the trays containing the bread and the water with their left hand, but must take it in their right hand after partaking as their neighbor held the tray in his or her right hand. In the Priesthood in the wards, we now have "supervisors" directing the activities of the deacons and the priests. How long will it take before these supervisors are considered as a regular part of the Priesthood and it will be necessary to set them apart or ordain them to this office? So we see that we, if we are not careful, will find ourselves traveling the road that brought the Church of Jesus Christ in the first centuries into disrepute and paved the way for the apostasy." (Church History and Modern Revelation, Vol 1, p.103)

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/qa/29.htm

[Zakuska]

A ridiculous analogy. Again, it's dishonest to insist the counsel to limit testimonies to testimonies and short faith-promoting stories is analogous to whispering fragments of a testimony into a kids ear at the pulpit. Trying to justify it through scripture is silly.

Every apostle who has addressed this has said brief faith-promoting stories are appropriate. I stated in the very first post that I'm going by the counsel of the Twelve.

According to Jeff K it was the Apostle who insisted that it wasn't.

[Mortal Man]

Here it is:

Thanks

This will be useful...

[maklelan]

According to Jeff K it was the Apostle who insisted that it wasn't.

Who is "the Apostle?"

[Deborah]

"Wise men talk because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something." -Plato

Spiritually guided people bear testimony because they have something the Lord wants them to say; those not so guided or seeking to aggrandize themselves say something they want people to hear.

[Zakuska]

Who is "the Apostle?"

On the previous page Jeff K said this in response to something I said.

PS. One poster on your side of the fence a few pages ago said "breif stories" no matter what they were about were not appropriate.

Would that be the apostle's talk?

So Im assuming the Apostle whom Jeff K quoted on the page before that would be "The Apostle" we are talking about... I beleive it was Russel Ballard.

[jwhitlock]

The whole Irony of this thread is people are complaining about parents whispering testimonies in childrens ears yet these SAME people are 100% A-OK with Apostles of God holding Adults hands up to the pulpit and dictating what is and isn't appropriate to be said in a Testimony meeting.

Why the need to make such an extremist claim that is not reflective of anyone's viewpoint in this thread?

[Pahoran]

The Last Mormon Freedom, like The Last Human Freedom, cannot be extinguished.

Sounds noble. What does it actually mean? Shall we take your silence as consent, and that you are declaring "The Last Mormon Freedom" -- all with capitals, no less -- to be the "freedom" to hijack Fast and Testimony meeting at whim?

You may answer "yes" or "no."

I'll be sure to pass that along.

Actually it's the bishop's role to call the members of the ward to repentance; it is your responsibility to sustain him, and not gossip about him behind his back on a message board.

Sadly no, I didn't have to [make up the claim that there is a "standard testimony."]

And yet the established fact is that you did.

In order for this statement to make any sense, a testimony must first be properly defined, which would contradict your previous statement.

No. It would not.

There is, in my country, a book called The Road Code which contains all the official rules for driving on the road. There are rather a lot of those rules. Now if someone was really, really, extraordinarily dumb -- or else utterly and completely dishonest -- they might try to pretend, based upon those many rules, that there was just one kind of "standard car" that was allowed to be driven on the road.

An assertion that could be disproved simply by looking out the window.

Just like your assertion can be disproved by attending a well-regulated Fast and Testimony meeting. There are really very few rules around what should happen in that meeting. There is no one "standard testimony" -- and nobody with any credibility at all actually imagines that there is -- but that doesn't change the fact that there are many things that are not testimonies.

Just like there are many things on the road that are not cars.

See, Mortal? I teach Primary. I can make it so simple that even you can understand it.

Please make up your mind.

Done.

I like stories.

So do I, but that's not what a Testimony meeting is for.

If there is no "standard testimony," then how can it be properly borne?

Please coordinate with Pahoran and come back when you've got your story straight.

In same way that cars can be properly driven even though there is no "standard car."

That was just too easy, Mortal.

Let me see if I follow the arguments thus far:

1) The spirit is an extremely tenuous thing, easily dissipated by a stray comment.

2) I have no control over my own spiritual experience; rather, I'm entirely at the mercy of defective ward members.

3) Under no circumstances should anyone express themselves.

4) "Getting up there and saying what you want to" is strictly forbidden. I assume this means that "getting up there and saying what you don't want to" is encouraged.

5) Although the Rameumptom speech appears to epitomize proper testimony bearing, it nevertheless is not to be followed for reasons that remain unclear.

6) Regardless of what your "personal feelings" may suggest, the spirit is only present if Pahoran and alter idem say it is.

I regret that I find myself unable to accept that you have any good faith basis on which to claim to believe what you assert.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

Why the need to make such an extremist claim that is not reflective of anyone's viewpoint in this thread?

And yet according to Jeff K, Russel M Ballard said its inapporpriate to even tell uplifiting short stories about how one came to ones faith in Christ.

[jwhitlock]

I think the gray area comes because one purpose of a church is meant as a place people go to praise and worship God, but the church dictates how one is to worship. So it seemingly comes between an individual's personal relationship with God. Is the church for the benefit of the people, or are the people for the benefit of the church sort of thing.

There must always be boundaries and structure in public group worship. Without such, the meetings would quickly devolve into chaos.

The only real question is where those boundaries should be set. As members of the Church, we look to counsel from the leaders of the Church (and it is counsel, not mandate) to provide that structure.

Of course, public worship - which is what we are talking about here - is much different than private worship. Hence, the claim that the structure of public worship somehow inhibits an individual's personal relationship with God is irrelevent.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here it is:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/qa/29.htm

It seems to me that asking the young men to wear white shirts is not the same thing that Joseph Fielding Smith is decrying here, i.e. a "uniform" with identical jacket, tie, an awkward stance with left hand plastered behind the back, etc.

He was warning against extremism. Asking everyone to wear a white shirt doesn't go that far.

[Scott Lloyd]

And yet according to Jeff K, Russel M Ballard said its inapporpriate to even tell uplifiting short stories about how one came to ones faith in Christ.

It's M. Russell Ballard. And can you provide a verbatim quote?

[jwhitlock]

"Wise men talk because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something." -Plato

Spiritually guided people bear testimony because they have something the Lord wants them to say; those not so guided or seeking to aggrandize themselves say something they want people to hear.

That pretty much catches the essence of it.

[consiglieri]

It seems to me that, in an age where the slightest deviation from the lesson manual is strictly forbidden, a lot of members cherish their once-a-month freedom to express themselves in a manner not dictated by the Correlation Committee.

I am somewhat heartened that a thread can so devolve without any help from yours truly.

But having made that point, I now feel free to interject that I totally hear what you are saying, MM.

Over the years, the Church has more and more come to dictate what can and cannot be said in official Church meetings. When that is not addressing the needs of some of the members and they want to have additional gospel discussions in their homes, the Church also puts that on the list of verboten items.

In other words, you have to meet at Church and say the things the Church wants you to say, and woe betide the saint who does otherwise.

Fast and testimony meetings then naturally become the last bastion where the saints meet, that a saint can freely say what is on his or her mind and open up as to what is in his or her heart.

But this cannot stand.

Even though we are told that the Spirit is to conduct the meetings, we have guidelines handed down which I have heard read repeatedly to the effect that a "real" testimony is all that should be borne at Church, and that a "real" testimony should be, "I know the Church is true. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. I know Jesus is the Christ. I know the Book of Mormon is true. Amen." (Next, please.)

It has come to the point that Elder Bednar last conference chided those who deviate from the set formula even to the extent of saying they love their spouse. ("I wonder if they ever say this to their spouse in private.")

Although I sympathize with those who do not like to sit through travelogues, or hear about the medical condition of various and sundry, I am nevertheless reluctant to completely forego the last "once-a-month" freedom still provided at Church for the Spirit to actually conduct a meeting (Moroni 6:9; D&C 46:2).

Just my two-cents.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[jwhitlock]

In other words, you have to meet at Church and say the things the Church wants you to say, and woe betide the saint who does otherwise.

You seem to have wandered onto the wrong board. This is an LDS board, not the Scientology board.

[consiglieri]

You seem to have wandered onto the wrong board. This is an LDS board, not the Scientology board.

I didn't know they called themselves saints, too.

I thought they were "scients."

(I'll go back to my sofa jumping, now.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

It's M. Russell Ballard. And can you provide a verbatim quote?

Sure thing scott...

Post #138 by JeffK.

http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208781326

Personal testimony is the foundation of our faith. It is the binding power that makes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unique in the lives of its members, as compared with all other religious denominations of the world. The doctrine of the Restoration is glorious in and of itself, but the thing that makes it powerful and imbues it with great meaning is the personal testimonies of Church members worldwide who accept the Restoration of the gospel and strive to live its teachings every day of their lives.

A testimony is a witness or confirmation of eternal truth impressed upon individual hearts and souls through the Holy Ghost, whose primary ministry is to testify of truth, particularly as it relates to the Father and the Son. When one receives a testimony of truth through this divinely appointed process, it immediately begins to have impact on that person

[Pahoran]

I am somewhat heartened that a thread can so devolve without any help from yours truly.

Yes. You are not the only ark-steadier around. Did you think you were?

But having made that point, I now feel free to interject that I totally hear what you are saying, MM.

Over the years, the Church has more and more come to dictate what can and cannot be said in official Church meetings.

How shocking! How horrible! The Church wanting to ensure that its official meetings reflect its aims and teach its doctrines!

Clearly the next step after curriculum correlation -- at least in the minds of some -- is the Brave New World.

In other words, you have to meet at Church and say the things the Church wants you to say, and woe betide the saint who does otherwise.

Really? Do tell! Exactly what "woe" has betidden anyone who did otherwise?

Fast and testimony meetings then naturally become the last bastion where the saints meet, that a saint can freely say what is on his or her mind and open up as to what is in his or her heart.

But this cannot stand.

You're right. It can't.

That's because Fast and Testimony meeting is not, and was never intended to be, "the last bastion where the saints meet, that a saint can freely say what is on his or her mind and open up as to what is in his or her heart."

There are, contrary to your deliberate mischaracterisation, plenty of such "bastions." Even -- or especially -- when there isn't an apostate abusing Gospel Doctrine class as his bully pulpit. It just so happens, however, that Fast and Testimony is not one of them.

Never has been.

Fast and Testimony meeting is an occasion for Saints to edify one another by bearing their testimonies.

Not for them to hold forth on whatever the fad of the hour might be.

Even though we are told that the Spirit is to conduct the meetings, we have guidelines handed down which I have heard read repeatedly to the effect that a "real" testimony is all that should be borne at Church, and that a "real" testimony should be, "I know the Church is true. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. I know Jesus is the Christ. I know the Book of Mormon is true. Amen." (Next, please.)

CFR, please.

It has come to the point that Elder Bednar last conference chided those who deviate from the set formula even to the extent of saying they love their spouse. ("I wonder if they ever say this to their spouse in private.")

That's false. As you of course perfectly well know, there is no "set formula."

You have also brazenly misrepresented Elder Bednar's point. His talk was not about testimony bearing, but about how we act at home. The title is, "More Diligent and Concerned at Home." Here is the relevant excerpt from his talk:

Sometimes in a sacrament meeting talk or testimony, we hear a statement like this:

[jwhitlock]

You have also brazenly misrepresented Elder Bednar's point. His talk was not about testimony bearing, but about how we act at home. The title is, "More Diligent and Concerned at Home." Here is the relevant excerpt from his talk:

I was a tad uncomfortable with that misrepresentation, too. Thanks for the quote.

It seems that when general authorities give counsel intended to address the excesses some members of the Church engage in, there are some who are more than willing to misapply that counsel as being general - and then, by definition, overly authoritarian - in nature. By doing so, they are then able to condemn the Church for not being more "open minded".

[Deborah]

I am amazed at how many people interpret simple counsel as some kind of dictatorial methodology. What in the heck is wrong with letting people know how they can better get and give the spirit in a meeting? Those who are disputing this so hotly surely have experienced those who add nothing to the spirit of the meeting and in fact detract from it. I've certainly taken the counsel to heart and make sure that I am using the time to bear true testimony of something I've learned as a result of an experience and not just telling a story about where I've been.

[nicolasconnault]

Is this a forum for members to whine and winge, or to discuss LDS-related topics? In many of these posts there is a clear spirit of apostasy, I'm glad there are many posters like Pahoran who have the guts to state things as they are.