Adam-ondi-Ahman: What does it mean, and do you believe it?

[CV75]

On 2/16/2016 at 9:39 AM, consiglieri said:

It was deceitful manipulation.  Double-sheesh.

How is a "what if" question recognizing the often unconsidered merits of "desperation" a "deceitful manipulation?"

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/becoming-the-person-you-were-born-to-be?lang=eng

“So, now a question as I conclude: What if you learned that the Savior had already returned to this earth—that He, as part of His Second Coming, had already met with some of His true followers in several marvelous, large gatherings—gatherings about which the world, including CNN and the blogosphere, knew nothing. If you found out that the Savior was already on the earth, what would you desperately want to do today, and what would you be willing and ready to do tomorrow?”

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

How is a "what if" question recognizing the often unconsidered merits of "desperation" a "deceitful manipulation?"

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/becoming-the-person-you-were-born-to-be?lang=eng

“So, now a question as I conclude: What if you learned that the Savior had already returned to this earth—that He, as part of His Second Coming, had already met with some of His true followers in several marvelous, large gatherings—gatherings about which the world, including CNN and the blogosphere, knew nothing. If you found out that the Savior was already on the earth, what would you desperately want to do today, and what would you be willing and ready to do tomorrow?”

I think the desperation was manifest in the question itself.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I think the desperation was manifest in the question itself.

And thus we see another example of a non-answer...  I wasn't asking for a vague, non-committal "thought" on how or where desperation is manifest.

"How is a "what if" question recognizing the often unconsidered merits of "desperation" a "deceitful manipulation?" My suggestion, should you not shrink, is to read the speech aaaaaaaall the way through and support what you "think" with an actual, relevant explanation.

Please don't say, "I think the deceitful manipulation was manifest in the question itself." LOL

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I think the desperation was manifest in the question itself.

So if you ask yourself "What would if Jesus was here ?" you are desperate?

[consiglieri]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So if you ask yourself "What would if Jesus was here ?" you are desperate?

It is clear we are unlikely to view Wendy's comments the same way. 

So I want to point something else out.

What is interesting is the response to Wendy's comments on this board.

She is clearly insinuating that Jesus (the real Jesus) has really appeared to real large groups of his real faithful followers; that this has really happened several times; and that this is part of his real Second Coming.

The interesting part is that nobody on this board has actually taken the bait and believed she was even possibly referencing something real and actual that had occurred.

I think this suggests that Internet Mormons are indeed a breed apart from Chapel Mormons.

Chapel Mormons, you see, would take Wendy's comments exactly the way they were intended--and believe that Jesus had really already appeared to large groups of the faithful as part of his Second Coming.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

... clearly insinuating ...

Clearly insinuating???

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Clearly insinuating???

Clearly.

Only a blind man wouldn't see it.

And deaf, to boot.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

.........................................................

The interesting part is that nobody on this board has actually taken the bait and believed she was even possibly referencing something real and actual that had occurred.

I think this suggests that Internet Mormons are indeed a breed apart from Chapel Mormons.

Chapel Mormons, you see, would take Wendy's comments exactly the way they were intended--and believe that Jesus had really already appeared to large groups of the faithful as part of his Second Coming.

"Chapel Mormons" is a phrase I only find on this board, but am not certain what it  means;  Is it based on real sociological metrics?  Has anyone actually done the work of measuring the standard opinions or tendencies of so-called "chapel Mormons"?  Could you provide a helpful description of such people?  Say, five or six points in common in their views and behavior . . .  Is it easier to spot them during Fast & Testimony meetings, when they get up and say something diagnostic?

Edited February 19, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Clearly.

Only a blind man wouldn't see it.

And deaf, to boot.

I'll remind you of what The Nehor had to say:

Quote

 

I actually find the most diversity in personality, lifestyle, and the like amongst the core of true believers. The further you get from there the more people seem to think they are unique but fall into a kind of drab sameness. I go out with missionaries a lot and see less-actives and the like and many imagine their profound musings are new when they are copy and pastes from the internet. I care about them but it can be hard to respect that level of self-deceit.

Now if you mean diversity of belief maybe...........but on the other hand the LDS faith does not spend a lot of time outside of core doctrines telling us what we must and must not believe. Some of the things they do tell us (no homosexuality, no sex outside of marriage, no alcohol, tithing, go on a mission, love everyone) are obnoxious to people who do not like them but they are not where you find the oddities. I know a member who believes all the pagan deities of the past were devils who manifested themselves and gave their real names. I know a crazy lady who is convinced angels rearrange her mirrors while she is not looking. I know an LDS communist and an LDS trade-syndicalist. I know a member convinced that the Ten Tribes live under the ice of Europa. I know a member who believes Adam is a Hindu-style avatar of God the Father, another who believes the Three Nephites are in politics and that John the Revelator personally overthrew the Eastern bloc (I think he thought he cursed Stalin or something too). All of these people are members in good standing with temple recommends and appear orthodox in pretty much every respect. I do not see the monotonous sameness our critics claim to see.

And we will not even get into the weird things I believe.  

 

 

[volgadon]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

It is clear we are unlikely to view Wendy's comments the same way. 

So I want to point something else out.

What is interesting is the response to Wendy's comments on this board.

She is clearly insinuating that Jesus (the real Jesus) has really appeared to real large groups of his real faithful followers; that this has really happened several times; and that this is part of his real Second Coming.

The interesting part is that nobody on this board has actually taken the bait and believed she was even possibly referencing something real and actual that had occurred.

I think this suggests that Internet Mormons are indeed a breed apart from Chapel Mormons.

Chapel Mormons, you see, would take Wendy's comments exactly the way they were intended--and believe that Jesus had really already appeared to large groups of the faithful as part of his Second Coming.

 

 I doubt that most "chapel Mormons" are as simpleminded as you suggest. There is a strong "chapel Mormon" presence on the internet, have you seen any post interpreting her words like that?

[thesometimesaint]

By one metric I'm a front row of the Chapel Mormon. But I still use the internet for my own purposes. It is ambiguous term meant to divide and conquer. Not to bring to a unity of the faith.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, consiglieri said:

She is clearly insinuating that Jesus (the real Jesus) has really appeared to real large groups of his real faithful followers; that this has really happened several times; and that this is part of his real Second Coming.

12 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Internet Mormons

Chapel Mormons

Putting this silliness aside, how is a "what if" question recognizing the often unconsidered merits of "desperation" a "deceitful manipulation?

Edited February 19, 2016 by CV75

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Putting this silliness aside, how is a "what if" question recognizing the often unconsidered merits of "desperation" a "deceitful manipulation?

There is a difference between the following two "what if" statements.  The first deals with a future event with no specifics.  The second deals with a past event with lots of specifics. 

1. If you were to learn that, sometime in the future, your wife cheated on you, what would you do?

2. If you were to learn that, as part of your wife's plan to get divorced from you, she has already cheated on you with several men at several locations--affairs about which even your family and best friends don't know--if you were to learn this about what your wife has done, what would you be desperate to do today, and what would you do tomorrow?

 

There is an obvious difference between the two "what if" statements.

The second is more like what Wendy Nelson said about Jesus.

And the second is made even worse when it is coming from the wife of the owner of the largest motel in your city.  I.e., it is coming from somebody you would be more inclined to believe might have insider information.

To say the second thing to somebody would be considered cruel if not true, because by putting it in the past tense and giving additional details, and by coming from somebody who could have insider information on the subject, it makes it sound more like something that really happened.

Regardless of the "what if" it begins with.

This is the "deceitful manipulation" to which I refer.

And yes, it smacks of desperation.

 

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"Chapel Mormons" is a phrase I only find on this board, but am not certain what it  means;  Is it based on real sociological metrics?  Has anyone actually done the work of measuring the standard opinions or tendencies of so-called "chapel Mormons"?  Could you provide a helpful description of such people?  Say, five or six points in common in their views and behavior . . .  Is it easier to spot them during Fast & Testimony meetings, when they get up and say something diagnostic?

I assume it means the more orthodox and uniform expressions of Mormonism one finds in the chapels as opposed to the internet.

The problem with that is that I believe there is a strong taboo in LDS church services about going "off message". What you hear in church is not necessarily indicative of what everyone is really thinking and feeling. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

There is a difference between the following two "what if" statements.  The first deals with a future event with no specifics.  The second deals with a past event with lots of specifics.

This is screwy. And you still can’t articulate the obvious, and rather go to great lengths to establish “cruelty.”

Tense and detail is irrelevant on the subject of thought experiments about the Second Coming. Our prophets (and their wives) have testified of the Second Coming and being prepared for it from the start, and in great detail. The faithful accept the signs of the times and our preparation as really happening, so it is not a stretch for Sister Nelson to use an “11^th hour” scenario to imagine. There is nothing in her statement that deceitfully states or claims or manipulatively suggests that it happened.

To have a fair comparison with Sister Nelson’s speech (the context of your questions #1 and #2, let’s say, being a speech about being desperate to repent and forgive), you would need to provide as much detail in #1 as the detail we have on the future of the Second Coming.

Using your “logic”, prophecy of the Second Coming is cruel “because by putting it in the [future] tense and giving additional details, and by coming from somebody who could have insider information on the subject, it makes it sound more like something that [is really going to happen].”

(Why are you trying to change the subject to cruelty?)

And she clearly used the phrase “desperately want to do” in the sense of being “willing to do whatever it takes to be prepared” as a function of salubriously motivating desperation, which of course is the case when someone has faith in Jesus.

As a fairly new member, I saw a painting of the Second Coming with the inhabitants of the earth divided on the left and right hands of the Lord. Is the painting deceitful and manipulative because I related to being on the left hand and “desperately” wanted to be on the right?

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Putting this silliness aside, how is a "what if" question recognizing the often unconsidered merits of "desperation" a "deceitful manipulation?

I love Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka!

But let me give you another example.

I also love Bobby Darrin.

I have a recording of a live performance he gave.

Between songs, he announced to the audience, "What if I told you that present in this very audience is the most famous singer of all time?  Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Frank Sinatra!"

There is applause from the audience and necks being craned to get a glimpse of the Chairman of the Board.

The applause dwindles and after a few seconds, because nobody sees Sinatra. 

Bobby Darrin says, "I said, "What if?'"

Then everybody laughs.

They realize the joke is on them.

Bobby Darrin was using words to give the impression he was making a statement of fact while not actually doing so.

The audience fell for it.

Wendy Nelson is doing the same thing.

Except she doesn't let the audience know she is trying to fool them.

 

[thesometimesaint]

25 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I love Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka!

But let me give you another example.

I also love Bobby Darrin.

I have a recording of a live performance he gave.

Between songs, he announced to the audience, "What if I told you that present in this very audience is the most famous singer of all time?  Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Frank Sinatra!"

There is applause from the audience and necks being craned to get a glimpse of the Chairman of the Board.

The applause dwindles and after a few seconds, because nobody sees Sinatra. 

Bobby Darrin says, "I said, "What if?'"

Then everybody laughs.

They realize the joke is on them.

Bobby Darrin was using words to give the impression he was making a statement of fact while not actually doing so.

The audience fell for it.

Wendy Nelson is doing the same thing.

Except she doesn't let the audience know she is trying to fool them.

 

The ant and the grasshopper.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I assume it means the more orthodox and uniform expressions of Mormonism one finds in the chapels as opposed to the internet.

The problem with that is that I believe there is a strong taboo in LDS church services about going "off message". What you hear in church is not necessarily indicative of what everyone is really thinking and feeling. 

If that is so, and there is this strong taboo, then how do you explain The Nehor's opinion to the contrary?

 

Quote

I actually find the most diversity in personality, lifestyle, and the like amongst the core of true believers. The further you get from there the more people seem to think they are unique but fall into a kind of drab sameness. I go out with missionaries a lot and see less-actives and the like and many imagine their profound musings are new when they are copy and pastes from the internet. I care about them but it can be hard to respect that level of self-deceit.

Now if you mean diversity of belief maybe...........but on the other hand the LDS faith does not spend a lot of time outside of core doctrines telling us what we must and must not believe. Some of the things they do tell us (no homosexuality, no sex outside of marriage, no alcohol, tithing, go on a mission, love everyone) are obnoxious to people who do not like them but they are not where you find the oddities. I know a member who believes all the pagan deities of the past were devils who manifested themselves and gave their real names. I know a crazy lady who is convinced angels rearrange her mirrors while she is not looking. I know an LDS communist and an LDS trade-syndicalist. I know a member convinced that the Ten Tribes live under the ice of Europa. I know a member who believes Adam is a Hindu-style avatar of God the Father, another who believes the Three Nephites are in politics and that John the Revelator personally overthrew the Eastern bloc (I think he thought he cursed Stalin or something too). All of these people are members in good standing with temple recommends and appear orthodox in pretty much every respect. I do not see the monotonous sameness our critics claim to see.

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I love Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka!

But let me give you another example.

I also love Bobby Darrin.

I have a recording of a live performance he gave.

Between songs, he announced to the audience, "What if I told you that present in this very audience is the most famous singer of all time?  Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Frank Sinatra!"

There is applause from the audience and necks being craned to get a glimpse of the Chairman of the Board.

The applause dwindles and after a few seconds, because nobody sees Sinatra. 

Bobby Darrin says, "I said, "What if?'"

Then everybody laughs.

They realize the joke is on them.

Bobby Darrin was using words to give the impression he was making a statement of fact while not actually doing so.

The audience fell for it.

Wendy Nelson is doing the same thing.

Except she doesn't let the audience know she is trying to fool them.

I was going to give you a rep point for this, but the system seems arrayed against you.

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If that is so, and there is this strong taboo, then how do you explain The Nehor's opinion to the contrary?

 

 

I think the taboo falls away outside of a church setting. When visiting with ward members we often see the diversity of opinions missing from church meetings. 

I agree with Nehor that the diversity is there. I just don't see it "in the chapels"

Edited February 19, 2016 by Gray

[CV75]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

But let me give you another example.

That's an awful example.

I see them as different as,  “What if I told you…” and “What would you do if you found out…”

Bobby’s question is a diversion during a breather mid-show. By using the quick set-up and especially by the common phrase of introduction, Bobby is conveying that Frankie is indeed, actually in the audience. By making the introduction first-hand, he is taking responsibility for both his and the audience knowing that Frankie is in the audience. He is not asking them to do anything thoughtful with the information; it is a reactionary emotional exercise.

On the other hand, Sister Nelson uses her question at the end of her speech to drive home the recurring point. Her “what-if” has audience members learning about the events on their own, not her making an authoritative announcement. She is asking the audience to thoughtfully consider what they would do if they had such knowledge; there is no “gotcha” punchline.

I can see the difference. Can you? I'll make it easy for you: "What if I told you Jesus had come..." versus "What would you do if you learned that Jesus had come..." The first is set up for an emotional reaction, and the second for a thoughtful consideration about what you wold do.

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, consiglieri said:

It is clear we are unlikely to view Wendy's comments the same way. 

So I want to point something else out.

What is interesting is the response to Wendy's comments on this board.

She is clearly insinuating that Jesus (the real Jesus) has really appeared to real large groups of his real faithful followers; that this has really happened several times; and that this is part of his real Second Coming.

The interesting part is that nobody on this board has actually taken the bait and believed she was even possibly referencing something real and actual that had occurred.

I think this suggests that Internet Mormons are indeed a breed apart from Chapel Mormons.

Chapel Mormons, you see, would take Wendy's comments exactly the way they were intended--and believe that Jesus had really already appeared to large groups of the faithful as part of his Second Coming.

 

So you do not only stereotype people, you also mind read what your imaginary people are thinking.

What do you think black people think about?  Got any theories on that one?  Clearly they don't think like US.

I would caution against determining for others what certain classes of people think, based on your prejudices.

The fact that no one here took your bait makes it obvious that you were in error about the meaning from the beginning.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I think the taboo falls away outside of a church setting. When visiting with ward members we often see the diversity of opinions missing from church meetings. 

I agree with Nehor that the diversity is there. I just don't see it "in the chapels"

The reason for that is clear: we are instructed to teach from the manuals and we do.  Good for us.  And also, good for us, is that each of us knows we have our own interpretations as guided by personal testimony.

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I love Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka!

But let me give you another example.

I also love Bobby Darrin.

I have a recording of a live performance he gave.

Between songs, he announced to the audience, "What if I told you that present in this very audience is the most famous singer of all time?  Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Frank Sinatra!"

There is applause from the audience and necks being craned to get a glimpse of the Chairman of the Board.

The applause dwindles and after a few seconds, because nobody sees Sinatra. 

Bobby Darrin says, "I said, "What if?'"

Then everybody laughs.

They realize the joke is on them.

Bobby Darrin was using words to give the impression he was making a statement of fact while not actually doing so.

The audience fell for it.

Wendy Nelson is doing the same thing.

Except she doesn't let the audience know she is trying to fool them.

 

Perhaps your point would work if Frank Sinatra had been dead for a thousand or so years at least.

The point is the AUDIENCE KNEW IT WAS A REAL POSSIBILITY THAT A LIVING BREATHING FRANK SINATRA WAS ACTUALLY THERE.

cheesh.

[cinepro]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"Chapel Mormons" is a phrase I only find on this board, but am not certain what it  means;  Is it based on real sociological metrics?  Has anyone actually done the work of measuring the standard opinions or tendencies of so-called "chapel Mormons"?  Could you provide a helpful description of such people?  Say, five or six points in common in their views and behavior . . .  Is it easier to spot them during Fast & Testimony meetings, when they get up and say something diagnostic?

It's not that hard to understand, unless you're trying to not understand it.  Here's a basic explanation of the principle:

Would you agree that there are some Church members who believe that Noah's flood was a planet-wide event and that it destroyed all life planet-wide except for humans and animals in the ark? ("Group A")

Would you also agree that there are some Church members who don't' believe that, but instead understand the story to be more limited in scope, or more allegorical in nature? ("Group B")

Now, review the teachings of Church leaders and official Church publications on the subject:

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=185

Now, assuming the LDS in both groups have been exposed to roughly the same scriptures and teaching on the subject, how is it that they arrive at such different and contradictory beliefs regarding the scope (and reality) of Noah's flood?

You might argue that such differences are entirely inconsequential, or that it is derogatory to label the two groups, but many would disagree.  And certainly, if someone is interested in discussing LDS doctrine and beliefs on the internet, it is helpful to understand that such disparities exist and to try and understand why.

Edited February 19, 2016 by cinepro