An Evening With A General Authority 2015

[canard78]

While I am not going to touch the specifics of people not understanding, I do agree with the principle that what seems like straining at gnats for those who have not had a major crisis of faith over historical issues is to the one struggling the absolute center of the crux of the debate. It pulls into question every part of his foundation.

The LDS church leadership should simply acknowledge that the church is being being led by tradition and cultural values and not revelation. They are well-meaning men who receive no more divine inspiration than the Pope or the Dalai Lama.

[stemelbow]

This illustrates how many just do not understand the problem. I love Elder Holland but in that quote above he seems completely unaware of the real issue and dismisses it as being in the thick of thin things. That is way too simplistic. And Teddy, it's not about liberal dogma. In fact many who undergo a faith transition begin as extreme conservatives.

 

I'll only speak for myself here, but I was a Tea Party Republican, conservative in politics, social issues etc and I saw everything as extremely black and white. I was actually stuck in a conservative dogma. The faith transition removed the dogma where I was required to believe an all-or-nothing, us-verses-them, literalistic thinking. So where I started as a dogmatic conservative and literalist I no longer am. Not because that dogma has been replaced by a liberal dogma but because I see nuance and don't buy into either side's dogma (as much as is humanly possible). Now I figure out what I believe on each issue and don't simply check the Conservative box, but neither do I simply check the liberal box.

I dont' see myself much different than the above.

[CV75]

I think this is a big issue that you point out.  Those who have not had a deep faith crisis seem unable to grasp the "those who have" 's perspective.  This will offend some but please hear me without jumping the gun.  Those who have may be focused on the wrong things, they may be centered on the wrong questions... that is entirely possible. It is also possible that until one has really wrestled with the absolute possibility that the Church is not what it claims , they are unable to really grasp at the thought process and anguish the person feels/felt and why this moment seems so make or break for them.  Either way when one struggling comes forward they are rarely met with someone who can handle it and truly help them redirect their faith back to a completely safe space.  I guess I am saying that we have a ways to go to get to a point where both sides can truly hear the other and work together to move forward faithfully in the Church.  If you asked 100 people who had a deep faith crisis where they realized real problems with our history..... I would guess that 95-98 % of them never go back to the way they previously framed the Church and are always aware and bogged down with the questions even for those who remain and are faithful.   I would be curious if anyone here can validate this or offer a counter real life perspective.

Nice glamour shot!

 

The root of a faith crisis is ultimately within the poor soul going through it, and it is spiritual.

 

The way I understand it (absolute possibility means any alternative to that which is real), the only way to wrestle with “absolute possibility” is to let go of that which is real (“real” as defined in Alma 32). This is the only way to fully entertain on a spiritual level a possibility, and to do so to the point of crisis. While this is a very foolish thing to do on purpose, it is often the outcome of our trials in this probationary state, and everyone goes through it to some degree.

 

“The absolute possibility that the Church is not what it claims” could be considered, but absolute possibilities are not real. Because everyone capable of a faith crisis with regards to the Church must already possess some sense of what is real about it, intentionally engaging in this exercise to the point of inducing crisis requires a denial of the worst kind. This is why I think most fall into the trap through ignorance or inexperience, whether as victims or not (on the other hand, the adversary seeks to make us all victims).

 

The scriptures do not teach to try what is not real, only what is real. John 7:17 is just one example.

 

So the solution is always spiritual, not the anti-spiritual or non-spiritual terms upon which the crisis was induced.

[The Nehor]

The LDS church leadership should simply acknowledge that the church is being being led by tradition and cultural values and not revelation. They are well-meaning men who receive no more divine inspiration than the Pope or the Dalai Lama.

Even assuming this is true (which I emphatically do not believe) do you honestly think that would bring in more people then it would drive out? I would walk along with most of my family ands friends. The church would be left with a few people enamored with the social life. Most of those who have left or are struggling with issues would leave as well as there would be nothing left. You would have to toss the entire triple combination.

Basically your advice is terrible.

[stemelbow]

We’ve recently addressed a dozen or so of these issues in a series of essays, desiring to be both accurate and transparent within the framework of faith. Not all gospel questions have answers yet, but they will, and they’ll come. In the meantime, I have a question. What conceivable historical or doctrinal or procedural issue that may arise among any group could ever overshadow or negate one’s consuming spiritual conviction regarding the Father’s merciful plan of salvation, His only begotten Son’s birth, mission, atonement and resurrection, the reality of the first vision, the restoration of the priesthood, the receipt of divine revelation both personally and institutionally, the soul shaping spirit and moving power of the Book of Mormon, the awe and majesty of the temple endowment, one’s own personal experience with true miracles, and on and on and on? It is a mystery to me – talk about a question – it is a mystery to me how those majestic, eternal first level truths so central to the grandeur of the whole gospel message can be set aside or completely dismissed by some in favor of obsessing over second or third or fourth level pieces of that whole. To me, this is in the words attributed to Edith Horton truly being trapped in the thick of thin things.

It's just so hard. It's not easy. I know all the spiritual manifestations I've had. I don't deny them. But I still struggle with fundamental questions and concerns. When he says, "What conceivable historical or doctrinal or procedural issue that may arise among any group could ever overshadow or negate one’s consuming spiritual conviction regarding the Father’s merciful plan of salvation" I say, how merciful is it when millions of people's lives seem to be full of nothing but torture, pain and suffering? I can hope till the cows come home that they will be eternally blessed for having to work through such a terrible place here. Except I don't know that is the case. Things are said, scriptures are quoted--there will be damnation for those who aren't faithful. Conviction for His merciful plan? I don't even know for sure that's it's merciful. It's difficult even into eternity as we learn that God Himself suffers pain and anguish for those who are lost--considering the billions that will always be the pain and suffering seems eternal to this empty weak mind. I don't know how we get around something like that. I want the best for all, at least I can say that with honesty, but we already know most won't get anywhere near the best. If I'm sitting in some Celestrial world someday I can't imagine feeling pleased about it when, let's just say, a very beloved friend end up in a Telestial world (ah but he was born with same sex attraction, they say).

I feel like the things said by Holland like in this address, don't work for me. It's not that I disagree. It's simply that they don't apply to my world. I'm sure it's me that's the problem. He could even tell me that, I've considered it, but the pain is still there. And if God feels the pain of the suffering of His creations, and we're supposed to be like God, why happiness at all? It seems like pain for others is all there will ever be, even if it is interrupted for us to enjoy communion with other loved ones. Ultimately, even if we can feel happy, we'll always be full of pain, suffering for those who are lost. And If I end up lost? Well, that may be the best option. Who wants to sit on a pedestal knowing loved ones aren't with you?

Edited February 12, 2015 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

I think this is a big issue that you point out.  Those who have not had a deep faith crisis seem unable to grasp the "those who have" 's perspective.  This will offend some but please hear me without jumping the gun.  Those who have may be focused on the wrong things, they may be centered on the wrong questions... that is entirely possible. It is also possible that until one has really wrestled with the absolute possibility that the Church is not what it claims , they are unable to really grasp at the thought process and anguish the person feels/felt and why this moment seems so make or break for them.  Either way when one struggling comes forward they are rarely met with someone who can handle it and truly help them redirect their faith back to a completely safe space.  I guess I am saying that we have a ways to go to get to a point where both sides can truly hear the other and work together to move forward faithfully in the Church.  If you asked 100 people who had a deep faith crisis where they realized real problems with our history..... I would guess that 95-98 % of them never go back to the way they previously framed the Church and are always aware and bogged down with the questions even for those who remain and are faithful.   I would be curious if anyone here can validate this or offer a counter real life perspective.

There aren't two sides. There is a huge spectrum that we're all on somewhere. I think polarizing and dichotomizing is part of the problem. There are not two kinds of people--those who have had a "faith crises" and those who have not. There are people and each has forged their own little path--a faith crises is just a term seemingly used to divide us. We all struggle in oru own way.

[wtrdog]

Even assuming this is true (which I emphatically do not believe) do you honestly think that would bring in more people then it would drive out? I would walk along with most of my family ands friends. The church would be left with a few people enamored with the social life. Most of those who have left or are struggling with issues would leave as well as there would be nothing left. You would have to toss the entire triple combination.

Basically your advice is terrible.

 

Excellent job supporting my thesis.  So your argument is that they should "lie for the Lord" because all the sheeple are too weak minded to take care of themselves?  Like Cypher, you want to be plugged back into the Matrix?  A work of fraud is perfectly ok, so long as it's pious?  I'm absolutely baffled by your thinking.  What ever happened to Choose The Right and let the consequences follow?  If the revelation my leaders receive does not have a higher confidence interval than the Pope, then yes, absolutely freaking yes, I want to know that.  Are you kidding?  Your salvation is at stake, man.  Take a step back and really try to consider things without any bias whatsoever.  

 

Engaging in wild speculation, what if, just what if, there is a God, afterlife, etc., that's all true, and we are here to be tested, but it's a rigged game and the correct answer is to reject all organized religion and become an atheist?  How funny would it be to die, be releaved and ecstatic that you still exist, walk up to the judgement seat and have God say, "Good to see you back.  I know that was hard and sorry for putting you through that, but it was necessary.  You'll get a nice break before the next phase.  I wish I had good news for you, but, unfortunately, you failed the test.  You were supposed to reject religion, not become an idol-worshipping zealot.  I really did try to make it obvious for you.  All of the clues I gave you screamed 'not true,' and this was the point of the test.  We've observed that when placed in a body people tend to become overcome by body feedback known as 'emotion.'  In the interest of selfishness and self-preservation, people cling to the most absurd of beliefs as a coping mechanism.  This then leads to dogma and the mistreatment of others who don't subscribe to those same beliefs.  People become tribal and succumb to peer pressure.  Our goal was for you to put aside those things and feel the Spirit, and to learn to discern right and wrong without having to be instructed in every little thing..."  Hopefully you can appreciate the point I'm trying to make here.  

[stemelbow]

The LDS church leadership should simply acknowledge that the church is being being led by tradition and cultural values and not revelation. They are well-meaning men who receive no more divine inspiration than the Pope or the Dalai Lama.

I agree. Just ask what revelation in this day is leading us?

[Nofear]

Stopped reading ad-hominem with the term "sheeple".

[canard78]

While I am not going to touch the specifics of people not understanding, I do agree with the principle that what seems like straining at gnats for those who have not had a major crisis of faith over historical issues is to the one struggling the absolute center of the crux of the debate. It pulls into question every part of his foundation.

It's a sad day when you realise the church is being being led by tradition and cultural values and not revelation. They are well-meaning men who receive no more divine inspiration than the Pope or the Dalai Lama.

[stemelbow]

Excellent job supporting my thesis.  So your argument is that they should "lie for the Lord" because all the sheeple are too weak minded to take care of themselves?  Like Cypher, you want to be plugged back into the Matrix?  A work of fraud is perfectly ok, so long as it's pious?  I'm absolutely baffled by your thinking.  What ever happened to Choose The Right and let the consequences follow?  If the revelation my leaders receive does not have a higher confidence interval than the Pope, then yes, absolutely freaking yes, I want to know that.  Are you kidding?  Your salvation is at stake, man.  Take a step back and really try to consider things without any bias whatsoever.  

 

Engaging in wild speculation, what if, just what if, there is a God, afterlife, etc., that's all true, and we are here to be tested, but it's a rigged game and the correct answer is to reject all organized religion and become an atheist?  How funny would it be to die, be releaved and ecstatic that you still exist, walk up to the judgement seat and have God say, "Good to see you back.  I know that was hard and sorry for putting you through that, but it was necessary.  You'll get a nice break before the next phase.  I wish I had good news for you, but, unfortunately, you failed the test.  You were supposed to reject religion, not become an idol-worshipping zealot.  I really did try to make it obvious for you.  All of the clues I gave you screamed 'not true,' and this was the point of the test.  We've observed that when placed in a body people tend to become overcome by body feedback known as 'emotion.'  In the interest of selfishness and self-preservation, people cling to the most absurd of beliefs as a coping mechanism.  This then leads to dogma and the mistreatment of others who don't subscribe to those same beliefs.  People become tribal and succumb to peer pressure.  Our goal was for you to put aside those things and feel the Spirit, and to learn to discern right and wrong without having to be instructed in every little thing..."  Hopefully you can appreciate the point I'm trying to make here.

I got it. Not a bad thought at all.

[Duncan]

I agree. Just ask what revelation in this day is leading us?

 

 

I'd say the lowering the missionary age, changing the Youth curriculum, which in turn changes-hopefully, the youths and then missionaries and all their families who then change the people they serve. Our stake is nearly dead for members BUT with this infusion of missionaries what members we do have the missionaries have been a HUGE positive uplift for them, so I think it's great!!!

[stemelbow]

I'd say the lowering the missionary age, changing the Youth curriculum, which in turn changes-hopefully, the youths and then missionaries and all their families who then change the people they serve. Our stake is nearly dead for members BUT with this infusion of missionaries what members we do have the missionaries have been a HUGE positive uplift for them, so I think it's great!!!

A long overdue change in age on a policy is revelation? Ok. I guess when we set the bar that low we can say safely, many things are lead by revelation then. After all, when companies change policy and it benefits the company, no doubt, God inspired it, even if that change was illegal or deceptive.

[cinepro]

A long overdue change in age on a policy is revelation? Ok. I guess when we set the bar that low we can say safely, many things are lead by revelation then. After all, when companies change policy and it benefits the company, no doubt, God inspired it, even if that change was illegal or deceptive.

 

The problem is that you're only looking for "positive" revelations (i.e. revelations to do or change something).  You're not counting all the "negative" revelations (i.e. a revelation not to do something) that you don't know about.

[cinepro]

 

I think he also might be understating the issue....at least in my observation.

 

Pretty sure you're the only person who has ever accused Elder Holland of understating anything, ever.

[Duncan]

A long overdue change in age on a policy is revelation? Ok. I guess when we set the bar that low we can say safely, many things are lead by revelation then. After all, when companies change policy and it benefits the company, no doubt, God inspired it, even if that change was illegal or deceptive.

 

 

I don't think that is a fair comparison, The Church isn't going to change into something entirely new and start selling Jelly beans and saddle soap. Maybe too we can't handle more revelation like say the Priesthood ban removal, if we can't get members to read scriptures, for example I don't think the Lord is going to give us more scriptures

Edited February 12, 2015 by Duncan

[CV75]

Tell me something.  Say the apostles, the "special witnesses" who we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, were to each get up in conference and say that they've never seen Christ?  What if they said they have never experienced a vision or had any spiritual experience that would fall into this realm, but that all they've experienced are "feelings," burnings of the bosom and such, exactly the same sort of feelings that everybody else experiences, and that this is the form their "revelation" comes in, as a confirming feeling in response to a prayer.  In other words, that their "special witness" isn't really special at all, how do you think membership would react to it?  I don't think the reaction would go over very well.  I'm not saying people would be headed for the doors, some might, but what this would do is generally lower confidence and cause people to take "prophetic counsel" a lot less seriously.  But, if it's the truth of the matter, that's how it should be.  We need to be open about what we're submitting to.  Are we truly submitting to the Lord, or just some leader's "feeling?"  Are you really just an idol worshipper?  With the leaders being your graven image?

Different apostles convey different types of testimonies. From what I've been able to gather, their "source testimonies" range from a feeling in the heart to a thought in the mind to a face-to-face interview with the Lord, whether spiritually with the eyes of faith or in the flesh with quickened eyes; literally or figuratively.

 

The men themselves are "special witnesses" by virtue of their calling and what they are tasked with doing: "special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling."

 

My testimony is special to me, however one might characterize it as mundane or even imaginary. The apostles' testimonies likewise, it doesn't matter what kind it is or what their personal experience has been. What matters is the connection I have with the Lord as a result of the restored keys that they exercise, the resonance I have with their witness when they bear it, and unity I have with them and the saints upon those first-level matters Elder Holland mentioned.

[stemelbow]

I don't think that is a fair comparison, The Church isn't going to change into something entirely new and start selling Jelly beans and saddle soap. Maybe too we can't handle more revelation like say the Priesthood ban removal, if we can't get members to read scriptures, for example I don't think the Lord is going to give us more scriptures

Maybe one day the Church will become inspired again and change into something new.

[Duncan]

Maybe one day the Church will become inspired again and change into something new.

 

 

why wait, we can get our own personal revelation! Like, for me, personally it doesn't affect me one white if they opened up a new BYU in say Toledo or something or change Ricks into BYUI but if God told me to marry Henrietta Hoofluntz then that would impact me more than these other items and vice versa, someone in Idaho doesn't care who I marry

[wtrdog]

I'd say the lowering the missionary age, changing the Youth curriculum, which in turn changes-hopefully, the youths and then missionaries and all their families who then change the people they serve. Our stake is nearly dead for members BUT with this infusion of missionaries what members we do have the missionaries have been a HUGE positive uplift for them, so I think it's great!!!

 

This absolutely does not fall into the category of revelation.  And for proof of this I point you to the talk by Elder Packer in 2010.  Watch the first couple minutes where he talks about The Proclamation.  Compare the transcript after things were edited by correlation committee vs the video.  Care to take a shot at explaining why The Proclamation was demoted by the correlation committee from a "revelation" to a "guide?"

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng

 

The Proclamation, a document developed through prayerful council which included all the apostles, subsequently signed by every member of the FP/Q12, printed and hung on the living room walls in members homes, etc. If even this isn't considered "revelation," it's pretty laughable to try and pass off lowing the age for missionaries as revelation.  This isn't to say that The Proclamation isn't inspired to a certain extent, but the issue is the confidence interval.  Apparently not high enough to call it a "revelation."

[drums12]

How can you trust a group who consistently changes their stance (polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, temple ordinances...etc)? New "prophets" trump dead ones, but when doctrines change, it can be confusing as to where the change comes from. When one questions these changes they are then accused of lacking faith. No one likes being lied to and when a group is consistently caught teaching "half truths" these faith crises arise, which is why these issues must be addressed by the bretheren.

 Because prophets are people.  They learn line upon line as the rest of us do.  I am convinced that most "faith crises" are the result of fundamentalist thinking.  There's a cultural belief in the Church in prophetic infallibility.  It also (unfortunately so IMO) been reinforced in the CES and in some general conference talks.  I think this is changing...hopefully, but it will take a long time.  In the meantime, I sustain those who hold Priesthood Keys, but if something they say or do doesn't feel right to me I take it to God.  I really recommend the Givens' new book, The Crucible of Doubt"  The chapter titled Hero Worship is wonderful.

[Brian 2.0]

All the small trivial pieces Holland is talking about aren't often the reason people leave... those things are the gateway to the questioning the much larger question of personal revelation.  Did my experience come from God?  Or could it have been from another source, or even internal?  And if it was from and external source, what does it mean?  Does that experience automatically translate into the LDS Church being God's one true church and that God is an anthropomorphic male?

 

To say people that leave are dismissing or tossing aside the larger issues is not a fair assessment.   Breaking down the trivial issues often lead you to apply the same critical thinking to the larger issues.

[bluebell]

It's a sad day when you realise the church is being being led by tradition and cultural values and not revelation. They are well-meaning men who receive no more divine inspiration than the Pope or the Dalai Lama.

 

It must be a very sad thing to come to a place where you believe that.  I can't relate or empathize but i can sympathize.  

[Duncan]

This absolutely does not fall into the category of revelation.  And for proof of this I point you to the talk by Elder Packer in 2010.  Watch the first couple minutes where he talks about The Proclamation.  Compare the transcript after things were edited by correlation committee vs the video.  Care to take a shot at explaining why The Proclamation was demoted by the correlation committee from a "revelation" to a "guide?"

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng

 

The Proclamation, a document developed through prayerful council which included all the apostles, subsequently signed by every member of the FP/Q12, printed and hung on the living room walls in members homes, etc. If even this isn't considered "revelation," it's pretty laughable to try and pass off lowing the age for missionaries as revelation.  This isn't to say that The Proclamation isn't inspired to a certain extent, but the issue is the confidence interval.  Apparently not high enough to call it a "revelation."

 

 

well, he did say it qualifies as a revelation not necessarily as a revelation-or a guide. Maybe it's both though a revelation and as a guide. I have no idea how it came about or that the age change was a revelation(maybe it was) but it's something that's new anyways

 

how do you know it was changed by the correlation committee and not himself?

Edited February 12, 2015 by Duncan

[wtrdog]

Different apostles convey different types of testimonies. From what I've been able to gather, their "source testimonies" range from a feeling in the heart to a thought in the mind to a face-to-face interview with the Lord, whether spiritually with the eyes of faith or in the flesh with quickened eyes; literally or figuratively.

 

The men themselves are "special witnesses" by virtue of their calling and what they are tasked with doing: "special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling."

 

My testimony is special to me, however one might characterize it as mundane or even imaginary. The apostles' testimonies likewise, it doesn't matter what kind it is or what their personal experience has been. What matters is the connection I have with the Lord as a result of the restored keys that they exercise, the resonance I have with their witness when they bear it, and unity I have with them and the saints upon those first-level matters Elder Holland mentioned.

 

Can you name a single apostle who has claimed to have a face-to-face interview with the Lord?

 

So you're saying that "special witness" is a title that has no real meaning whatsoever?  Interesting argument. Clearly this is not what we're taught to believe about apostles.  If that's the truth of the matter then a paradigm shift is warranted.