Stone holm Posted July 1, 2013 Author Posted July 1, 2013 That is not it at all.http://ldsfaq.byu.ed....aspx?number=68From their beginnings Latter-day Saints have regarded economic welfare as an indispensable part of religion. An 1830 revelation received by Joseph Smith stated, "Verily I say unto you, that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal" (D&C 29:34–35). Accepted as part of the revealed word of God, this principle implied that every aspect of life had to do with spirituality and things eternal. For President Brigham Young, who led the Church in the West for thirty years, this revelation meant that "in the mind of God there is no such a thing as dividing spiritual from temporal, or temporal from spiritual; for they are one in the Lord" (JD 11:18).We cannot talk about spiritual things without connecting with them temporal things, neither can we talk about temporal things without connecting spiritual things with them…. We, as Latter-day Saints, really expect, look for and we will not be satisfied with anything short of being governed and controled by the word of the Lord in all of our acts, both spiritual and temporal. If we do not live for this, we do not live to be one with Christ [JD 10:329].A little more complicated, but a different topic for a different time.Yeah and they moved towards the United Order -- so you saying the business culture of the GAs overwhelmed the more radical prophetical tradition?
volgadon Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Yeah and they moved towards the United Order -- so you saying the business culture of the GAs overwhelmed the more radical prophetical tradition?No, I am saying that business culture is part and parcel of the "radical prophetical tradition." 1
Stone holm Posted July 1, 2013 Author Posted July 1, 2013 No, I am saying that business culture is part and parcel of the "radical prophetical tradition."Uhm....no....can't go there with you. City builders, colonizers, yes....corporate business culture...no.
Questing Beast Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 There are many and saints are getting them revealed to themselves all the time. General distribution? Well, that has to wait until the saints as a whole are ready.And you know all of that how, exactly? God revealed it to you? My personal revelation is quite opposite to what you assert here, yet I feel closer to "God" than ever in my life.JS said that he had revealed half (or less) of what God had shown him, because the Saints were not ready for it. And if he did reveal all that he already knew, most of the Saints would be offended and apostatize. It doth appear that "we" are no more ready now than then, because not only have we not received a whit of what JS asserted to know, but quite the opposite: the Church has dropped many things that JS revealed/instituted, and continues to streamline into a "mainstream" religion....
The Nehor Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 And you know all of that how, exactly? God revealed it to you? My personal revelation is quite opposite to what you assert here, yet I feel closer to "God" than ever in my life.JS said that he had revealed half (or less) of what God had shown him, because the Saints were not ready for it. And if he did reveal all that he already knew, most of the Saints would be offended and apostatize. It doth appear that "we" are no more ready now than then, because not only have we not received a whit of what JS asserted to know, but quite the opposite: the Church has dropped many things that JS revealed/instituted, and continues to streamline into a "mainstream" religion....Yeah, I was complaining once about lack of new revelation and God slapped me upside the head and directed me to Alma where it is taught that many know the mysteries of God but they are only to share the generally revealed stuff. Add to that experience with the concept and knowing many others experienced with the idea. I am grateful for it now. Direct revelation is more inspiring and spiritually healthy then second-hand (though second-hand is useful of course). It is also much more fun.I disagree that we are mainstreaming. 3
volgadon Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Uhm....no....can't go there with you. City builders, colonizers, yes....corporate business culture...no.Compare the efforts of city building, colonising, business ventures, and the sundry economical matters contained in the D&C and other sources to other 19th century businesses and tell me if there is a significant difference. 3
Stone holm Posted July 1, 2013 Author Posted July 1, 2013 Yeah, I was complaining once about lack of new revelation and God slapped me upside the head and directed me to Alma where it is taught that many know the mysteries of God but they are only to share the generally revealed stuff. Add to that experience with the concept and knowing many others experienced with the idea. I am grateful for it now. Direct revelation is more inspiring and spiritually healthy then second-hand (though second-hand is useful of course). It is also much more fun.I disagree that we are mainstreaming.I rarely take the beast's side in discussions, but I have to agree we did a lot of mainstreaming under Pres Hinckley and it remains to be seen whether that continues under Pres Monson.
Stone holm Posted July 1, 2013 Author Posted July 1, 2013 Compare the efforts of city building, colonising, business ventures, and the sundry economical matters contained in the D&C and other sources to other 19th century businesses and tell me if there is a significant difference.Yeah religion.
volgadon Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Yeah religion.I'm not talking about "religion." I'm talking about the form, language, and content.
Stone holm Posted July 1, 2013 Author Posted July 1, 2013 I'm not talking about "religion." I'm talking about the form, language, and content.Yeah, but I am talking about religion which is not a business and not easily amenable to corporate culture without losing spirituality.
The Nehor Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 I rarely take the beast's side in discussions, but I have to agree we did a lot of mainstreaming under Pres Hinckley and it remains to be seen whether that continues under Pres Monson.I would characterize it more as getting our message out. I see no changes in the gospel. I do see an emphasis on us being less insular. 3
Stone holm Posted July 1, 2013 Author Posted July 1, 2013 I would characterize it more as getting our message out. I see no changes in the gospel. I do see an emphasis on us being less insular.Oh, I don't think the media is too far off when they coined the phrase "Cult of Normalcy" and pinned it on us. Not sure what "insular" means in this context, but if you mean an emphasis on being "less peculiar" would agree. Personally I liked our peculiarities as to doctrine.
The Nehor Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Oh, I don't think the media is too far off when they coined the phrase "Cult of Normalcy" and pinned it on us. Not sure what "insular" means in this context, but if you mean an emphasis on being "less peculiar" would agree. Personally I liked our peculiarities as to doctrine.Did we lose any of those?
Stone holm Posted July 1, 2013 Author Posted July 1, 2013 Did we lose any of those?No as Pres. Hinckley would say, "We don't emphasize that..."
Avatar4321 Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Yeah, I was complaining once about lack of new revelation and God slapped me upside the head and directed me to Alma where it is taught that many know the mysteries of God but they are only to share the generally revealed stuff. Add to that experience with the concept and knowing many others experienced with the idea. I am grateful for it now. Direct revelation is more inspiring and spiritually healthy then second-hand (though second-hand is useful of course). It is also much more fun.I disagree that we are mainstreaming.I dont think we could mainstream if we wanted to.
The Nehor Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 No as Pres. Hinckley would say, "We don't emphasize that..."We don't. Mostly because emphasizing things like men becoming gods tends to create doctrinal cranks. Even Joseph said it was a doctrine that should not be spoken of casually. I attended a class a few times where the teacher referred to everyone as "gods in embryo" every week and twisted every lesson around this theme. It seemed to me to be a cloak for arrogance and the whole thing seemed vulgar (in the old sense of the term). 1
Stone holm Posted July 2, 2013 Author Posted July 2, 2013 We don't. Mostly because emphasizing things like men becoming gods tends to create doctrinal cranks. Even Joseph said it was a doctrine that should not be spoken of casually. I attended a class a few times where the teacher referred to everyone as "gods in embryo" every week and twisted every lesson around this theme. It seemed to me to be a cloak for arrogance and the whole thing seemed vulgar (in the old sense of the term).Well some truth to that I suppose, but I do think we have been doing some mainstreaming, " See we are just like you, regular Mr and Mrs. Cleaver, folks don't ya know."
The Nehor Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 Well some truth to that I suppose, but I do think we have been doing some mainstreaming, " See we are just like you, regular Mr and Mrs. Cleaver, folks don't ya know."Fat chance of that. I have one third of the Godhead dwelling within me crammed alongside an access card to all the power of the Universe and in my head I have crammed in the secrets needed to walk into the presence of God and on my head I have been anointed a sovereign of creation.I have a hard time seeing myself as folks with the Cleavers. 4
Stone holm Posted July 2, 2013 Author Posted July 2, 2013 Fat chance of that. I have one third of the Godhead dwelling within me crammed alongside an access card to all the power of the Universe and in my head I have crammed in the secrets needed to walk into the presence of God and on my head I have been anointed a sovereign of creation.I have a hard time seeing myself as folks with the Cleavers.Well I don't see myself that way either, but then I'm not big on Madison Avenue style public relations either, yet I know it when I see it, and I certainly saw it.
volgadon Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 Yeah, but I am talking about religion which is not a business and not easily amenable to corporate culture without losing spirituality.I might not have explained as well as I could. What I am saying is compare the form, language, and content of both, and tell me if they substantially differ in those.As for losing spiritually, the Mormon view would have been that they were transforming the business into something spiritual. They would also have considered a religion which could not do that to be a religion not worth living.
Stargazer Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 Yeah, I was complaining once about lack of new revelation and God slapped me upside the head and directed me to Alma where it is taught that many know the mysteries of God but they are only to share the generally revealed stuff. Add to that experience with the concept and knowing many others experienced with the idea. I am grateful for it now. Direct revelation is more inspiring and spiritually healthy then second-hand (though second-hand is useful of course). It is also much more fun.I disagree that we are mainstreaming.And let me cite that: Alma 12:9.One of my very favorite scriptures.I have found that, at least in my own case, that the Lord tends to be very parsimonious about how many words He uses when giving revelations. On three occasions in my life I have had that still, small voice actually use words to convey something to me. Once I got six words, another time, two. And the longest string of words was twelve. On each occasion it was the absolute minimum number of words necessary to convey the meaning completely. If the Prophet gets similar "reveals", then I think he finds it necessary to explain it rather than quote it.Also, has anyone noticed that much of the Doctrine and Covenants is not word-for-word revelation but rather contains a good deal of Joseph Smith's rendering of what might have been something he was told by the Lord, but couldn't give it out in the same format he received it? The King Follett discourse appears to consist of a lot of material that was culled from a much more extensive body of knowledge than he was allowed to hand out wholesale to the Saints. 2
Stone holm Posted July 2, 2013 Author Posted July 2, 2013 I might not have explained as well as I could. What I am saying is compare the form, language, and content of both, and tell me if they substantially differ in those.As for losing spiritually, the Mormon view would have been that they were transforming the business into something spiritual. They would also have considered a religion which could not do that to be a religion not worth living.I don't think I agree on either count, but would you elaborate on the second.
volgadon Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 (edited) but would you elaborate on the second.http://www.withouten...dism-mormonism/ Look out for part 2, soon. It will include another interesting angle.We are the most religious people on the face of the earth. We do not allow ourselves to go into a field to plough without taking our religion with us; we do not go into an office, behind the counter to deal out goods, into a counting house with the books, or anywhere to attend to or transact any business without taking our religion with us. If we are railroading or on a pleasure trip our God and our religion must be with us. Edited August 6, 2013 by volgadon 2
mfbukowski Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 At what point in our Church History did the form of revelation change from The Lord making declarations to the Prophet, to something looking more like business memorandums?Around the same time you stopped beating your wife
Popular Post WalkerW Posted August 20, 2013 Popular Post Posted August 20, 2013 (edited) A little taste from Part 2: Management always lives, works, and practices in and for an institution, which is a human community held together by the bond that, next to the tie of family, is the most powerful human bond: the work bond. And precisely because the object of management is a human community held together by the work bond for a common purpose, management always deals with the Nature of Man, and (as all of us with any practical experience learned) with Good and Evil as well. I have learned more theology as a practicing management consultant than I did when I taught religion. - Peter Drucker[1] 1. Quoted in Karen E. Linkletter, Joseph A. Maciariello, “Genealogy of a Social Ecologist,” Journal of Management History 15:4 (2009): 339. Edited August 20, 2013 by WalkerW 5
Recommended Posts