The President Of The Church We Are Studying Next Year Is . . .

[Tacenda]

Part 3... After being discovered in a diner drinking coffee: "Sister, you're the third woman today to mistaken me for that old SOB."

And then... A man, seeing him drinking coffee on another day says "I'd rather commit adultery than drink coffee." J Golden replies "So would I..."

Thanks Cal, this is bringing back some great memories of road trips.

I'm going to have to listen again with my new perspectives. He is what some LDS need! Better focus on the inside vs. outside.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

http://deseretbook.c...enter/i/5112015Joseph Fielding Smith!I'm very, very, very curious to see what selections from his vast writings the Church has decided the worldwide Church should hear from and take note of today.

Joseph Fielding's writing were the source material for his son-in-laws (Bruce R McConkie) Mormon Doctrine. So should have some good stuff, as well as some controversial stuff.

[mnn727]

Personally, I can't see the point in the Presidents of the Church series. They all say pretty much the same things and all the lesson headings are pretty much the same. In other words, they are all interchangeable. not only that, but we are told that living prophets always trump dead ones.

 

Actually, my main beef is that the 3 hour progamme is too long and too contrived. I would like to see the church develop a new curriculum where priesthood/relief society and sunday school are amalgamated into a new instructional curriculum based on the scriptures and the teachings of the current prophets and apostles. We could then shorten the whole programme to 2 hours.

I love the Presidents series - do they all say similar things? Sure, isn't it amazing that Gods message is the same? Something said 100 years ago is just as relevant today as it was then. 

I imagine they will keep saying the same things until all LDS get the basics down finally.

 

I actually think peoples dislike of it has more to do with the way it is taught rather than what is taught.

 

As far as 3 hours I'd drop everything after the Sacrament is passed during Sacrament meeting (no talks): 20 minutes for Sacrament meeting, 40 minutes for SS and 50 minutes for PH/RS. 5 minutes in between = 2 hours.

Adult Testimony meeting one weeknight a month (during the kids activity night for the Ward)

Edited August 17, 2013 by mnn727

[Stone holm]

Joseph Fielding's writing were the source material for his son-in-laws (Bruce R McConkie) Mormon Doctrine. So should have some good stuff, as well as some controversial stuff.

As well as some dead wrong opinion.

[why me]

Personally, I can't see the point in the Presidents of the Church series. They all say pretty much the same things and all the lesson headings are pretty much the same. In other words, they are all interchangeable. not only that, but we are told that living prophets always trump dead ones.

 

Actually, my main beef is that the 3 hour progamme is too long and too contrived. I would like to see the church develop a new curriculum where priesthood/relief society and sunday school are amalgamated into a new instructional curriculum based on the scriptures and the teachings of the current prophets and apostles. We could then shorten the whole programme to 2 hours.

There is a point to the presidents' series. It can connect us with our past history and what the prophets were saying to the saints back then. I think that what is in the manuals is for the lds in the latter days. And it seems that this message in the lds presidents' series is a reflection of that and this can make the series redundant.

 

So, the question is: what should be taught to the latter day saints in place of the materials in the manuals?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

As well as some dead wrong opinion.

How many "dead wrong" and how many do you think will be listed. Also is your "dead wrong" based on personal opinion...do you consider him a lesser Prophet?

[David T]

How many "dead wrong" and how many do you think will be listed. Also is your "dead wrong" based on personal opinion...do you consider him a lesser Prophet?

 

Keep in mind that most of his writings are from prior to his time as President of the Church (his time as president was very short). His book "Man, His Origin and Destiny", when it comes to understanding and attempting to destroy the idea of organic evolution, can be demonstrably shown as dead wrong on many, many, many counts. Other apostles were also highly opposed to it, and the President of the Church at the time wasn't incredibly pleased by it, either.

 

And yet, many of its views became normalized, thanks to the prolific nature of JFS, and especially his son in law, BRM. And the dying out of much of the most vocal opposition.

 

JFS was also a very strong proponent of the Less Valiant In Pre-Existence Model of the explanation for the Priesthood Restriction, and taught and strongly affirmed that multiple times in his books.

 

Both of these ideas were very, very influential, and still hold sway with some members today.

 

He had much, much, much good to say and do for the Church. Far more than anything else. But yes, he also had ideas which were incorrect, products of their times, and, in the words of Elder Holland, ideas that he identified as those that "must never be perpetuated."  The problem is, many of them still are being perpetuated by members. I find it highly unlikely there will be chapters in the book covering these topics, however.

Edited August 18, 2013 by David T

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Keep in mind that most of his writings are from prior to his time as President of the Church (his time as president was very short). His book "Man, His Origin and Destiny", when it comes to understanding and attempting to destroy the idea of organic evolution, can be demonstrably shown as dead wrong on many, many, many counts. Other apostles were also highly opposed to it, and the President of the Church at the time wasn't incredibly pleased by it, either.

 

And yet, many of its views became normalized, thanks to the prolific nature of JFS, and especially his son in law, BRM. And the dying out of much of the most vocal opposition.

 

JFS was also a very strong proponent of the Less Valiant In Pre-Existence Model of the explanation for the Priesthood Restriction, and taught and strongly affirmed that multiple times in his books.

 

Both of these ideas were very, very influential, and still hold sway with some members today.

 

He had much, much, much good to say and do for the Church. Far more than anything else. But yes, he also had ideas which were incorrect, products of their times, and, in the words of Elder Holland, ideas that he identified as those that "must never be perpetuated."  The problem is, many of them still are being perpetuated by members. I find it highly unlikely there will be chapters in the book covering these topics, however.

Seems you have a low opinion of the man and his Presidency...not sure how the length of his Presidency has to do with his teachings. There are still members of the 12 who agree with him concerning evolution, I believe in organic evolution, but believe the creation of man was a singular event. Where does that put me, in the wrong or right side of things?

[MDalby]

Hopefully this quote will be in lesson 1, paragraph 1(attributed but not sourced, anyone have a source):

― Joseph Fielding Smith

That was a quote from General Conference...  I love this quote and had it in my database.  Here is the full quote:

 

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH SHOULD BE PROPERLY TRAINED

This is a very important age in which we live, and our message and our authority in the world are the most important things in the world. The souls of members of the Church are just as precious in the sight of the Lord as are the souls of the people in the world unto whom our missionaries go with the plan of salvation. In fact, if a choice is to be made, a soul already in the Church—one who is in the Covenant—is just a little dearer to the Father, if possible, than is one who is on the outside. Of course, the Lord is no respecter of persons, and all souls are precious in his sight, but he no doubt loves those who obey his voice and who are willing to walk in his truth, more than he does those who fail to do so. We should spend our time and give diligent attention to the training of members of the Church.  Teachers who are filled with the spirit of the Lord and who are tried and true, should be called to act in this capacity, and those who are not so tried and proved, should not be called to instruct the members. What do we accomplish if we spend our time and means preaching in the world to make converts to the gospel, if we place instructors before the youth in the stakes and wards who destroy the faith in the hearts of the young people in the divine message entrusted to our care?

(ELDER JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH, CR, APR 1928, 66)

Edited August 18, 2013 by MDalby

[David T]

Seems you have a low opinion of the man and his Presidency...

Then you must have missed where I said, in the post you quoted, "He had much, much, much good to say and do for the Church. Far more than anything else."

 

 

not sure how the length of his Presidency has to do with his teachings.

 

It doesn't - just pointing out that his output in his office as president and prophet of the Church (in response to your question 'do you consider him a lesser Prophet?') was much smaller than his work separated from that office. People notice a substantial difference, for example, between the tone, topic,  and teachings of Ezra Taft Benson prior to the reception of the Prophetic mantle and afterwards. I was saying one cannot use his teachings prior to being The Prophet to characterize his Prophetic ministry. 

 

 

 

There are still members of the 12 who agree with him concerning evolution, I believe in organic evolution, but believe the creation of man was a singular event. Where does that put me, in the wrong or right side of things?

 

Just don't mischaracterize and mock scientific concepts you don't understand (or those who do accept those principles) and acknowledge that you're acting on faith, and you're just fine. JFS regularly mischaracterized the position of the opposing view, , likely because he misunderstood it, and knocked down straw-men. Even if your ultimate position is correct, the points made to try to bolster that point would still be false. 

 

I'm fine with GAs not believing in the Big Bang, but it's disappointing when they mock a parody of it (that those who understand the principles behind it don't actually believe) in General Conference, and then wonder aloud how people could believe in such a silly thing. All it does is show that they don't understand the actual real arguments they think they are mocking.

Edited August 18, 2013 by David T

[Avatar4321]

Im looking forward to the new manual. Has it been posted online yet?

[Avatar4321]

I'm fine with GAs not believing in the Big Bang, but it's disappointing when they mock a parody of it (that those who understand the principles behind it don't actually believe) in General Conference, and then wonder aloud how people could believe in such a silly thing. All it does is show that they don't understand the actual real arguments they think they are mocking.

 

Sounds like just about every outspoken Anti-mormon I've ever seen talk about mormonism.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

 

I'm fine with GAs not believing in the Big Bang, but it's disappointing when they mock a parody of it (that those who understand the principles behind it don't actually believe) in General Conference, and then wonder aloud how people could believe in such a silly thing. All it does is show that they don't understand the actual real arguments they think they are mocking.

David, maybe I am misreading; do you believe evolution just happened? Or are you saying "big bang" means nothing was behind it, I ask earnestly.

[David T]

David, maybe I am misreading; do you believe evolution just happened? Or are you saying "big bang" means nothing was behind it, I ask earnestly.

 

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Edited August 18, 2013 by David T

[Calm]

I think he is asking if you believe God had any hand in evolution as well as the "big bang"...and maybe that the "big bang" is equivalent to "creatio ex nihilo".

[Calm]

I think he is asking if you believe God had any hand in evolution as well as the "big bang"...and maybe that the "big bang" is equivalent to "creatio ex nihilo".

 

 

When believers discount the Big Bang because they believe it means a belief similar to 'creatio ex nihilo' only without the creator, they misunderstand the science.  When scientists define existence prior to the Big Bang as "space and time did not exist", this means that whatever was there cannot be measured by how we measure space and time today, it does not mean there was nothing.

 

Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[18] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[19] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[20][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe.

 

Saying this in shorthand, before the Big Band event, there was the Big Band singularity.

 

So if someone ridicules the Big Bang on the basis that it claims there was originally nothing in the universe....as does happen, they would be creating a straw man and knocking that down, not the actual theory.

 

I also believe the condemnation of evolution based on the scripture of every creature reproducing after its own kind is a straw man as well.  Evolution doesn't claim otherwise, it only claims that with long periods of time, the kind of creature changes due to mutations.  Every 'parent' still has a 'child' in its own image, that image is not perfect though and so with time can change.

Edited August 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[David T]

I think he is asking if you believe God had any hand in evolution as well as the "big bang"...and maybe that the "big bang" is equivalent to "creatio ex nihilo".

 

Ah.

 

I think the epic poem found here is an absolutely beautiful LDS-inspired vision of the Creation period of God's plan that illustrates a way evolution not only can - but perhaps needs to be -  an important and essential part of God's plan for the perfection of his children. (In the poem, The Adversary's alternate plan of Intelligent Design is what would remove agency from the Creation(!!) . (FYI, the Gilda Trillim  framework is a fictional device. The real author is the blog post author, Steven Peck, who is also an Associate Professor of Biology at BYU, and an awesome writer of fiction to boot)

[rpn]

I hope honesty and keeping the sabbath day holy will be chapters, as there are really good stories on both of those things.  And I hope there is something on equality in relationships.  His wife sang at my grandmother's funeral as they were friends and as old fashioned as he might (or might not have been in other areas) he treated sister smith with incredible equality of stature --- before equality was a rallying cry of the world.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Do you believe tha evolution just happened or that God was behind it with man in mind?

[rameumptom]

The reality is, these manuals are not the teachings of the presidents of the Church, but the selections selected by correlation of the presidents of the Church.  With Brigham Young, we did not read about his views on polygamy, Adam-God, or the war with Johnston's army. With Joseph Fielding Smith, we will not read about his views on evolution. With Ezra Taft Benson, we will not read his views on politics.

 

Correlation will select topics regarding our beliefs today, and use the presidents' teachings to support correlation's view of doctrine today.  If they ever were to do a Hugh B Brown, J Golden Kimball or BH Roberts, you can be assured it would not include their deeper and more speculative concepts, but only whatever agrees with the basic foundations of the gospel today.  These manuals are primers for new members, not for well read gospel students.

[David T]

The reality is, these manuals are not the teachings of the presidents of the Church, but the selections selected by correlation of the presidents of the Church.  With Brigham Young, we did not read about his views on polygamy, Adam-God, or the war with Johnston's army. With Joseph Fielding Smith, we will not read about his views on evolution. With Ezra Taft Benson, we will not read his views on politics.

 

Correlation will select topics regarding our beliefs today, and use the presidents' teachings to support correlation's view of doctrine today.  If they ever were to do a Hugh B Brown, J Golden Kimball or BH Roberts, you can be assured it would not include their deeper and more speculative concepts, but only whatever agrees with the basic foundations of the gospel today.  These manuals are primers for new members, not for well read gospel students.

 

To be fair, they do reflect teachings of the Presidents of the Church, but they are not billed as all of the teachings of the presidents of the Church - but the ones that are deemed most relevant to be understood and reviewed today. And yes - they are indeed primers. Many different authoritative ways of teaching the same principles. And I don't see that as a bad thing. Just a different thing. I think those who are very familiar with seeing the more controversial and perhaps out of date concepts taught by those earlier leaders may gain a new appreciation for the good that they did do when more relevent material is emphasized over what is usually more controversial.

 

All many members may have known from BY were probably wierd snippets of his speculative doctrine, and antagonistic repetitions of some of his more ferocious rhetoric. The manual was helpful at the time, I think, for bringing a balance to what was normally regurgitated from BY.

 

One can complain that these aren't complete, or one can appreciate them for what they are, and their purpose. I don't think they're perfect, but they do serve a valuable purpose, I think.

 

The huge Joseph Smith manual was actually a wonderful resource. I'm glad I have the JSPP and Rough Stone Rolling to give a wider perspective, but the books still made gains in familiarizing others with other aspects of Joseph's life and teachings not regularly known. I love that it included aspects of his 1830 first vision account - the most beautiful account, in my opinion.

[rameumptom]

As for evolution, here's a blog post I just put up at Millennial Star that discusses this in conjunction with Abraham 4-5: 

 

http://www.millennialstar.org/and-the-gods-saw-that-they-were-obeyed/

 

Joseph Fielding Smith would have completely disagreed with it.  However, James Talmage and John Widtsoe probably would have liked it.

[Tacenda]

The reality is, these manuals are not the teachings of the presidents of the Church, but the selections selected by correlation of the presidents of the Church.  With Brigham Young, we did not read about his views on polygamy, Adam-God, or the war with Johnston's army. With Joseph Fielding Smith, we will not read about his views on evolution. With Ezra Taft Benson, we will not read his views on politics.

 

Correlation will select topics regarding our beliefs today, and use the presidents' teachings to support correlation's view of doctrine today.  If they ever were to do a Hugh B Brown, J Golden Kimball or BH Roberts, you can be assured it would not include their deeper and more speculative concepts, but only whatever agrees with the basic foundations of the gospel today.  These manuals are primers for new members, not for well read gospel students.

I've bolded the last sentence to state that's what the Gospel Essentials class is for. But understand that not all wards have this class.

[David T]

Do you believe tha evolution just happened or that God was behind it with man in mind?

 

I think if anything, God observed what was happening, knowing what he was looking for. And quantum physics suggests that even the very act of observation changes the nature of what is being observed. So while I don't think God molded and intervened, or designed the process, I also don't think it's accurate to say that I think it's impossible that his influence had an effect.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu57B1v0SzI

 

The fun stuff happens around the 4:00 mark. But you need to watch it up to that point to see why 

Edited August 19, 2013 by David T

[Calm]

To be fair, they do reflect teachings of the Presidents of the Church, but they are not billed as all of the teachings of the presidents of the Church - but the ones that are deemed most relevant to be understood and reviewed today....

Thank you, this states my own position very well...so now I don't have to (no rep points left so stating my approval instead ).

 

Thus I disagree with ram that they are manuals for new members...while I believe most members are familiar with the concepts behind the teachings, I doubt most are that familiar with the specific teachings by the specific presidents.  I know I wasn't, many of the comments I have read for the first time in the manuals.

Edited August 19, 2013 by calmoriah