Kenngo1969 Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 John, If I buy your book, can I get your autograph? (Serious question, by the way ... ) 1
Duncan Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 I think revelation should always trump policy. For example I got a new calling and afterwards, as in a month later, I was told it would be for two years. Well, what if God has in mind something else for me in a year from now? is he bound by this rule?
jkwilliams Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 John, If I buy your book, can I get your autograph? (Serious question, by the way ... ) I doubt the mods here would appreciate me doing business here, but send me a PM.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 The revelation is in the calling of the member to the Quorum of the Twelve in the first place under revelation from God, Who knows the end from the beginning. And I have no doubt the Brethren feel the confirming witness when the man is ultimately named as president.Established patterns don't preclude revelation.The only reason a revelation would be needed where a pattern already exists is to deviate from that pattern. Revelation may have been needed to set up the pattern, but that doesn't mean every procedure within that pattern going forward is its own revelation. It's possible someone could have a revelation to maintain the status quo, but what's the point? It feels like a very deterministic argument to say that something like Nelson being called to the Q12 was itself a revelation for his eventual ascension to President.
cinepro Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 John, If I buy your book, can I get your autograph? (Serious question, by the way ... ) It's a really good book. I actually read the entire thing out loud to my family over the course of two long car trips. I started by reading the opening story, and they told me to keep going (my daughter would say "Continue!" every time I stopped for a break). My teenage kids were fascinated. I've never done that before (or since). 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 The only reason a revelation would be needed where a pattern already exists is to deviate from that pattern. Revelation may have been needed to set up the pattern, but that doesn't mean every procedure within that pattern going forward is its own revelation. It's possible someone could have a revelation to maintain the status quo, but what's the point? It feels like a very deterministic argument to say that something like Nelson being called to the Q12 was itself a revelation for his eventual ascension to President.So you're saying there can be no confirming witness that a course of action one is on or a thing one has already determined to do is right? Or doesn't that count as revelation in your lexicon?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Established patterns don't indicate revelation either.I think as Church members, it's easy to go overboard with our esteem for the "succession" process, and sometimes we think the guidelines were handed down from on high with clarity and finality.I certainly thought so, until reading about the different events that took place around the successions of John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow. For example, this is what happened when Lorenzo Snow was made Prophet: The process as we know it today was worked out over many decades, and there was lots of discussion, some disagreements, and certainly some compromises. Obviously we can say that in all this there was "revelation", but it certainly wasn't in the form of the Lord laying it out in 1844.So we have you saying that established patterns don't indicate revelation and we have Happy Jack Wagon saying that a confirming spiritual witness that it is right to pursue an established pattern is unnecessary. I think the two of you need to hash this thing out between you. Let us know when you think you have arrived at a resolution. 1
Guest Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 This might belong in the news section but FYI... http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/russell-m-nelson-new-president-of-the-quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LDSNewsRoomTop15+(RSS%3A+LDS+Newsroom)No surprise...but good move.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 So you're saying there can be no confirming witness that a course of action one is on or a thing one has already determined to do is right? Or doesn't that count as revelation in your lexicon?I have already conceded that it could happen that way but I don't see the point. Good feelings about a decision that has already been made and institutionalized could just as easily be confirmation bias. No revelation is needed. It's happening either way.
Duncan Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 I think some people, insecure people mind you, are stuck on their title. We saw that in that dopey Singles Ward movie from 10 years ago or so, that EQ Pres. came to a party or something and introduced himself as"President". I am by no means saying President Nelson is like this, I have no idea. I remember about 3 years ago? our stake had some area council meeting and so we had a bunch of stake presidents at Church. I introduced myself to one brother and he just said his name was Doug and I found out later he was a Stake President, but another man said his name was President W. Hatever, "I'm the President of the Wherever Stake and we are here for a special meeting", it was an interesting contrast. I was and still am impressed with "Doug" and wasn't so much with the other bloke 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Yeah, I know I was poking a little fun at the many FB friends who have been bending over backwards talking about how inspired the calling was. Who else was it going to be? There's not much need for new revelation if we follow a defined pattern.In that post, you spoke of a personal interaction you had had with President Packer. In light of the intent that you have now expressed for your post, are we to conclude that the incident you related is fictional?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 I have already conceded that it could happen that way but I don't see the point. Good feelings about a decision that has already been made and institutionalized could just as easily be confirmation bias. No revelation is needed. It's happening either way.Those who are accustomed to receiving revelation will tell you they can easily tell the difference between genuine revelation and "confirmation bias." Regarding not seeing the point, Cinepro, by shedding doubt on whether established patterns come about through genuine revelation, has suggested a reason that it might be useful to have a confirming witness of what has already been established. As I said, perhaps the two of you can resolve this clash. I'll be content for the moment to sit back and watch.
cinepro Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Those who are accustomed to receiving revelation will tell you they can easily tell the difference between genuine revelation and "confirmation bias." Regarding not seeing the point, Cinepro, by shedding doubt on whether established patterns come about through genuine revelation, has suggested a reason that it might be useful to have a confirming witness of what has already been established. As I said, perhaps the two of you can resolve this clash. I'll be content for the moment to sit back and watch. I'm not sure why anything needs to be resolved. I'm fairly sure that HJW and I are allowed to have a different opinion about such things (and I'm not even sure where we differ, and I'm not interested enough to research it.)
VideoGameJunkie Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) When my mom was going to marry a non member, my grandpa asked for advice whether she should go through with the marriage with Russell M Nelson and Dallin H Oaks and Jeffrey Holland as they were friends of his and colleagues. My mom ended up marrying my dad and here I am today, still in the church, though not sealed to my parents. So I trust what President Nelson has to say, or I may not be here today. Edited July 18, 2015 by VideoGameJunkie
Scott Lloyd Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I'm not sure why anything needs to be resolved. I'm fairly sure that HJW and I are allowed to have a different opinion about such things (and I'm not even sure where we differ, and I'm not interested enough to research it.)Your choice. Just pointing out the contrast, which I think is quite obvious.
Damien the Leper Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Elder Nelson was the Sunday School Pres. in the 70's as Bro. Lloyd has pointed out and one of his counselours was Joseph B. Wirthlin. Then Joseph B. Wirthlin became a General Authority and so now he was responsible for the General Sunday School and so his former President, Pres. Nelson now had to report to Elder Wirthlin so I guess be careful how you treat your counselours!!!! But I love this moment from General Conference involving these two great brethren https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdedmKHw84wI very much miss Elder Wirthlin. I cried when he passed because my love for his stewardship and the love in his heart. I would loved to have met him and give him a hug. 1
Stargazer Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I wonder how the titles thing got started. Early in the church, members pretty uniformly called Joseph Smith "Brother Joseph." By the end of his life, however, it was almost always "President Smith." I wonder if anyone would be offended if we referred to Brother Russell or Brother Thomas. One interesting thing I noticed during my mission in Germany was that using titles seemed to be discouraged. A branch president was almost never referred to as "President Schmidt", but almost always as "Bruder Schmidt". Male full-time missionaries were never ever referred to as Elder, but always as "Bruder". In the Language Training Mission I was told that this was because Germans have a "thing" about titles, and in order to avoid LDS members getting too wound up about titles, they were de-emphasized in the Church context. You can imagine that titles are important to the people in a country where a person with two Doctor degrees would be addressed formally as "Herr Doktor Doktor Schmidlt". Since in Germany the title of Professor is actually an academic degree, you could even have that added into the mix. I kid you not: in Duesseldorf (a large city with a University), while tracting I once ran into a house where the name plate over the doorbell read "Professor Doktor Doktor Schmidt". In other words, Schmidt had two doctorates and a professorship. Yikes! 1
Stargazer Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 It's a really good book. I actually read the entire thing out loud to my family over the course of two long car trips. I started by reading the opening story, and they told me to keep going (my daughter would say "Continue!" every time I stopped for a break). My teenage kids were fascinated. I've never done that before (or since). I have to give an Amen to that. I really enjoyed John's book, and it was quite an eye-opener for how things were different from my mission in Germany in the mid-70's. If I were to write a book about my experiences on my mission, it would be dead boring. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 One interesting thing I noticed during my mission in Germany was that using titles seemed to be discouraged. A branch president was almost never referred to as "President Schmidt", but almost always as "Bruder Schmidt". Male full-time missionaries were never ever referred to as Elder, but always as "Bruder". In the Language Training Mission I was told that this was because Germans have a "thing" about titles, and in order to avoid LDS members getting too wound up about titles, they were de-emphasized in the Church context. You can imagine that titles are important to the people in a country where a person with two Doctor degrees would be addressed formally as "Herr Doktor Doktor Schmidlt". Since in Germany the title of Professor is actually an academic degree, you could even have that added into the mix. I kid you not: in Duesseldorf (a large city with a University), while tracting I once ran into a house where the name plate over the doorbell read "Professor Doktor Doktor Schmidt". In other words, Schmidt had two doctorates and a professorship. Yikes!The fact that you refer to the "language training mission" indicates that you served a good long time ago as did I. I would be interested to know whether titles are still eschewed in the Church there. Our son will be going to Sweden, and I'm learning quite a bit has changed from when I served there in the 1970s.
Calm Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 One interesting thing I noticed during my mission in Germany was that using titles seemed to be discouraged. A branch president was almost never referred to as "President Schmidt", but almost always as "Bruder Schmidt". Male full-time missionaries were never ever referred to as Elder, but always as "Bruder". In the Language Training Mission I was told that this was because Germans have a "thing" about titles, and in order to avoid LDS members getting too wound up about titles, they were de-emphasized in the Church context.Interesting and sounds like a good idea. I wonder if it was a local or import who came up with it. 1
Calm Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 George, you can start a conversation in Social Hall. Why don't you go there and introduce yourself and then you can get your posts apparently wanted. You need 25 to edit and start a thread here.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I very much miss Elder Wirthlin. I cried when he passed because my love for his stewardship and the love in his heart. I would loved to have met him and give him a hug.If I had met Elder Wirthlin, I'm quite sure he would have been walking with a cane. I would have loved to pass by him while using my crutches, simply so I could have gotten the opportunity to say, "Well, hello there, Speedy!" (Perhaps, although I won't have my crutches and he won't have his cane, I'll get that opportunity in the life to come. ) http://continuum.utah.edu/back_issues/2009spring/alumni_profile.html
HappyJackWagon Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 HappyJackWagon, on 17 Jul 2015 - 1:36 PM, said:Yeah, I know I was poking a little fun at the many FB friends who have been bending over backwards talking about how inspired the calling was. Who else was it going to be? There's not much need for new revelation if we follow a defined pattern.Scott Lloyd- In that post, you spoke of a personal interaction you had had with President Packer. In light of the intent that you have now expressed for your post, are we to conclude that the incident you related is fictional? This makes no sense. 1- it was a conversation wtih Elder Nelson (not Packer) Please reread, it may help you be more coherent.2- This is not fictional. Again, you make no sense.
jkwilliams Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I very much miss Elder Wirthlin. I cried when he passed because my love for his stewardship and the love in his heart. I would loved to have met him and give him a hug. I always admired and respected him. He just seemed humble and kind to me. He reminded me of Howard W. Hunter in that respect. Pres. Hunter is the only President of the Church I have met while he was president. It was my last day working at the Church Office Building, and I had to go over to the tabernacle to get something signed, so I used the underground tunnel (and got lost). On my way back, I was walking past the entrance to the administration building just as he came out, and I ran right into the side of his wheelchair. The security guys lunged for me, but he just smiled, shook my hand, and said some kind words about us both being in too much of a hurry.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 This makes no sense. 1- it was a conversation wtih Elder Nelson (not Packer) Please reread, it may help you be more coherent.2- This is not fictional. Again, you make no sense.Pardon. I meant to say Elder Nelson. The reason I wondered if it was fictional is that, by your own account, your post was tongue-in-cheek, intended to deride some people who had posted on Facebook. Given the stated intent of your post, I wondered about the authenticity of your reported incident. It's a reasonable question under the circumstances.
Recommended Posts