The show must -- and did -- go on

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

Just an added issue of bad social behavior. But no, not my only issue, I just feel more harm is being done when one to an elderly man. But maybe a younger Prophet could be like Saint Nick (the real one) and challenge heretics to fist fight to settle the matter.  

Or at least call down fire from heaven.

Anything to inject a little interest into General Conference.

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

OTOH, there were performances of certain Godspell songs in at least my sacrament meetings...very conservative ward too.  My family even performed one for my brother's farewell.  My grandma was the one to take us to the performances, though she was a bit uncomfortable with the clown costumes; she was a good sport about taking us to stuff she wasn't comfortable at, the circus (her allergies), Disneyland (the crowds), rollercoaster theme park (her equilibrium...and her little hairpiece which semidetached itself).

I believe it was shortly there after sacrament meeting music was much more limited, but I may be confusing events.  (Given the quality of some of the performances, shutting them down was not all bad)

So it was your family that short-changed the rest of us!

 

[Guest]

Just now, consiglieri said:

Or at least call down fire from heaven.

Anything to inject a little interest into General Conference.

Elder Holland does this very often. I used to feel this way, but as I age, I have come to realize that the Spirit speaks in a "still small voice", with the same recurring message. He does so because there "is nothing new under the sun", and the need arises because we are the same ole sinners committing the same ole sins. So as the scriptures do the same, book after book, to people after people, it seems the pattern of men needeing to hear it and the pattern of God as he teaches. So maybe the fault of the message is the fault of God's people, who have ears that do not hear and eyes that do not see. 

From a poem...

"The blind they see no colors,

the deaf they hear no voice.

Halt not by birth it seems,

But rather so by choice." 

From the poem, "The Path"

-Lee-

 

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

Elder Holland does this very often. I used to feel this way, but as I age, I have come to realize that the Spirit speaks in a "still small voice", with the same recurring message. He does so because there "is nothing new under the sun", and the need arises because we are the same ole sinners committing the same ole sins. So as the scriptures do the same, book after book, to people after people, it seems the pattern of men needeing to hear it and the pattern of God as he teaches. So maybe the fault of the message is the fault of God's people, who have ears that do not hear and eyes that do not see. 

From a poem...

"The blind they see no colors,

the deaf they hear no voice.

Halt not by birth it seems,

But rather so by choice." 

From the poem, "The Path"

-Lee-

 

I hear what you are saying, Pa Pa, but in Joseph Smith's day, we were still "the same ole sinners committing the same ole sins."

And yet Joseph Smith received revelation after revelation setting forth new and exciting vistas of theology and gospel knowledge.

He even incorporated the idea into the temple endowment of living in expectation of "receiving further light and knowledge."

Joseph said that it was his province to dig up new things for his audience to hear.

It seems things have changed drastically since Joseph Smith's day.

The revelatory spring his dried up and left a desert in its place.

I have long had the impression Church leadership rests heavily on Joseph Smith's laurels.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I hear what you are saying, Pa Pa, but in Joseph Smith's day, we were still "the same ole sinners committing the same ole sins."

And yet Joseph Smith received revelation after revelation setting forth new and exciting vistas of theology and gospel knowledge.

He even incorporated the idea into the temple endowment of living in expectation of "receiving further light and knowledge."

Joseph said that it was his province to dig up new things for his audience to hear.

It seems things have changed drastically since Joseph Smith's day.

The revelatory spring his dried up and left a desert in its place.

I have long had the impression Church leadership rests heavily on Joseph Smith's laurels.

Granted, but that was a part of the restoration of all things, the new and everlasting covenant. At some point we have received almost all that is needed for salvation. I know revelation and new things are exciting, but we must guard against "seeking unto ourselves new teachers and having itching ears", as a Paul taught, being content in every situation. If there is a fault in receiving new revealation, the fault lies in us, not in the Prophet. In those early days when very young men were being called as Apostles, there we many excommunications as they lacked spiritual maturity. 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Okay, then I've got a joke that maybe you'll like, which seems appropriate here.

What is the difference between a terrorist and a soprano?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can negotiate with the terrorist.

Makes no sense to me. 

[Traela]

11 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I hear what you are saying, Pa Pa, but in Joseph Smith's day, we were still "the same ole sinners committing the same ole sins."

And yet Joseph Smith received revelation after revelation setting forth new and exciting vistas of theology and gospel knowledge.

He even incorporated the idea into the temple endowment of living in expectation of "receiving further light and knowledge."

Joseph said that it was his province to dig up new things for his audience to hear.

It seems things have changed drastically since Joseph Smith's day.

The revelatory spring his dried up and left a desert in its place.

I have long had the impression Church leadership rests heavily on Joseph Smith's laurels.

How much revelation was recorded in the Old Testament?  Not much, considering the span of time.  And most of it could be summarized as "repent, you knuckleheads."

 

Edited December 20, 2015 by Traela

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/19/2015 at 5:55 PM, consiglieri said:

You are right that terrorists are not the functional equivalent of home teachers, Scott.

But neither are terrorists the functional equivalent of calling for a boycott.

A moment's reasonable reflection ought to cause you to realize that I never did say that "terrorists are the functional equivalent of calling for a boycott."

What I did was to use argumentum ad absurdum to illustrate the fallacy in the contention that ardent dedication to a cause automatically makes a particular behavior acceptable or excusable.

Quote

Calling for a boycott may not be something I would support, but it is not "inherently odious, hateful and contemptible."

I used those descriptors advisedly, and I stand by them.

They are an apt characterization of any endeavor to shut down a cultural event over an unrelated controversy. It would be like taking an axe to one of Michelangelo's masterpieces because you didn't like his politics.

Quote

Some people would use those words to describe the new Church policy.

And in that, they would be glaringly and arrogantly wrong.

Quote

Which is why they called for the boycott in the first place.

See the Michelangelo analogy above.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/19/2015 at 5:50 PM, consiglieri said:

For the record, and in a bit more serious vein, I do not like the idea of trying to boycott a musical presentation because of a problem with religious policy.

This is the first halfway sensible thing I've seen you write since you were allowed back on this board.

Too bad it was overshadowed by your subsequent posts.

 

[Avatar4321]

On 12/18/2015 at 1:16 PM, Walden said:

I find myself asking the same question every time the home teachers show up at my door.

Odd. I rather enjoy meeting with with families in the church. I especially enjoy my small part in bringing them to Christ.