Bishop Waddell on the great and spacious building

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, canard78 said:

The times when patriarchal authority should legitimately be used are few and far between. I think this is a case of it being justified

Easy to say for one who doesn't have to live with the consequences.

 

[Rain]

Someone mentioned on the board how it is interesting of what different people can hear in the same talk.  I recognized the name of the speaker for this talk.  I remembered his talk of the great and spacious building.  I sent text/notes to my husband who was traveling to France this weekend.  I was just reviewing my notes and it struck me this difference in what we hear.  I didn't focus on the great and spacious building.  Instead I heard how sometimes it is hard to always think of Jesus. And for me sometimes it is hard!  

With going to Israel soon this talk really spoke to me - to be learning of Jesus, Listening to him and walking with him.  My plan, and I got off track for about a month now, was to really learn more of his life and symbolically walk where he walked with an exercise challenge I created.  I hoped it would help me listen to him better.  Now I am spurred to start again.

For me the talk was a focus...on me (despite the criticism mentioned on the board for that).  Helping me to not become a part of the building by focusing on Christ and the things Christ focused on.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

Someone mentioned on the board how it is interesting of what different people can hear in the same talk.  I recognized the name of the speaker for this talk.  I remembered his talk of the great and spacious building.  I sent text/notes to my husband who was traveling to France this weekend.  I was just reviewing my notes and it struck me this difference in what we hear.  I didn't focus on the great and spacious building.  Instead I heard how sometimes it is hard to always think of Jesus. And for me sometimes it is hard!  

With going to Israel soon this talk really spoke to me - to be learning of Jesus, Listening to him and walking with him.  My plan, and I got off track for about a month now, was to really learn more of his life and symbolically walk where he walked with an exercise challenge I created.  I hoped it would help me listen to him better.  Now I am spurred to start again.

For me the talk was a focus...on me (despite the criticism mentioned on the board for that).  Helping me to not become a part of the building by focusing on Christ and the things Christ focused on.  

I didn't mean to suggest -- and I don't think I did suggest -- that the G&SB was the focus of his talk. I merely presented the quote as outstanding and, for me, very memorable. I repeat, it is one of my favorite quotes of the conference.

I like it because it is so pithy and rings so true.

To take another example, what Elder Oaks said about "the loyal opposition" was not the focus of his talk either. But it is a good and memorable part. So I started a thread about it.

[consiglieri]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One of my favorite quotes from the general conference so far, from Bishop W. Chrisopher Waddell of the Presiding Bishopric:

 

I felt Brother Waddell was spinning the Tree of Life scenario unduly by repeating that those at the tree of life "stood by the prophet" in defying the mocking coming from the great and spacious building.

Those partaking of the fruit of the tree, equated in the scripture with the love of God, are standing next to Lehi.

Lehi is "the prophet".

Today Mormons should stand with "the prophet," President Monson.

Regardless of what anybody else may say.

Or how legitimate their concerns may be.

Blind obedience is one more advocated in General Conference.

[cinepro]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One of my favorite quotes from the general conference so far, from Bishop W. Chrisopher Waddell of the Presiding Bishopric:

 

Did he provide some specific examples that compare 2016 with the mocking and persecution the Church faced in the 1840s, 1880s, or the 1910s?  Or was it just supposed to be self evident?

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Did he provide some specific examples that compare 2016 with the mocking and persecution the Church faced in the 1840s, 1880s, or the 1910s?  Or was it just supposed to be self evident?

I suspect some are feeling persecuted because when they take a stand against gay families, they get a lot of pushback from their non-member peers. 

[cinepro]

15 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I have only been here a few days, but it is becoming evident to me that this is not the best place to learn about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In a previous post Storm Rider brought up the wide range of both LDS & non-LDS heterodoxy here. I have also been cautioned about this from another member through private messaging.  I joined under the assumption that I would be mostly interacting with "mainstream" Mormons. Boanerges mentioned in that same thread that LDS.net would be a better place for getting an orthodox LDS viewpoint (he wrote "heterodox," but I think he meant orthodox). So I will primarily be interacting over there. From what I've seen thus far there are some solid LDS folks here who know their stuff. I don't know if that is the case over there. I may chirp in from time to time here, but probably not a whole lot. Thanks.

With all due respect, Steve, I think any discussion group is going to be a terrible place to learn about the LDS Church. 

If you want to learn about the Church, then there is no better way than to read the Church's own official publications (including class curriculum that is freely available on the website).  These are the teachings that the Church leaders have reviewed and promote as the best representation of Church teachings.  As mentioned in the other thread, the absolute best resource to start with is the Gospel Principles manual.  If you want to know more about LDS Church history, then there is no better and quicker way to get started than the Truth Restored manual.  Obviously, these books are short, faith-promoting overviews of the teachings and history, but they will give you a good starting point to understand the less faith-promoting (faith-demoting?) stuff that can be found elsewhere. 

If you can just read these two books you will have a very, very solid understanding of what the core, foundational teachings and history of the Church are.  From there, you would be able to explore anything that you found interesting, and better understand the more convoluted (and controversial) aspects of the teachings and history.  You could pick up any book about the Church (supportive or critical), and join any discussion group, and at least have a reference point for the orthodoxy and context for what you are hearing.  And if you never picked up another book or discussed the Church again, you would have a very reliable understanding of the Church at its most basic level.

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

18 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I am a little ashamed to admit this. I should have caught on. I have hung around you all for so long. I have heard of the "great and spacious building" and I sense it is to be regarded with suspicion by you all. Anyway, a little context and help for the outsider. What is wrong with a great, or spacious building please?

The ironic part of the story (and I think what tickles critics of the Church) is that the imagery used was given to Nephi during their nomadic period in the desert, and then delivered to Joseph Smith when he was a poor farmer.  And the Church was pretty poor for the first few decades of its existence.  So a "great and spacious building" fostered an idea of the rich, outside world in their cities and edifices, looking down and persecuting the poor, humble Nephite-LDS and LDS-LDS Christians meekly finding their way along the iron rod.

Fast forward a century and now we have a Church that has amassed huge amounts of wealth, and used that wealth to build some buildings that are absolutely huge, and quite spacious.  And even invested in worldly places like a huge, upscale mall in Salt Lake City that caters to materialism.  Obviously, most LDS have no problem with the Church building huge buildings and malls that are "great" and "spacious".  It is just an unfortunate (and to some, ironic) part of the story that the wicked people in Lehi's dream were identified by the size and openness of the building they occupied, when it was their attitudes and actions and not their choice of real estate that indicated their worthiness.

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Did he provide some specific examples that compare 2016 with the mocking and persecution the Church faced in the 1840s, 1880s, or the 1910s?  Or was it just supposed to be self evident?

It's self-evident to me.

But then, I do visit this board on a daily basis.

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

With all due respect, Steve, I think any discussion group is going to be a terrible place to learn about the LDS Church. 

If you want to learn about the Church, then there is no better way than to read the Church's own official publications (including class curriculum that is freely available on the website).  These are the teachings that the Church leaders have reviewed and promote as the best representation of Church teachings.  As mentioned in the other thread, the absolute best resource to start with is the Gospel Principles manual.  If you want to know more about LDS Church history, then there is no better and quicker way to get started than the Truth Restored manual.  Obviously, these books are short, faith-promoting overviews of the teachings and history, but they will give you a good starting point to understand the less faith-promoting (faith-demoting?) stuff that can be found elsewhere. 

Interesting that you don't include the recent Church history essays that expand this simplistic history..... which we have been told to know "like the back of our hands."

[Buckeye]

35 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Did he provide some specific examples that compare 2016 with the mocking and persecution the Church faced in the 1840s, 1880s, or the 1910s?  Or was it just supposed to be self evident?

If you think the Church is being persecuted now, just wait till next year. And the year after that. Oh, and 2019 is going to be plain horrible. But ... not as bad as 2020. 2021 will be the worst, though. Unless you consider 2022.

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The ironic part of the story (and I think what tickles critics of the Church) is that the imagery used was given to Nephi during their nomadic period in the desert, and then delivered to Joseph Smith when he was a poor farmer.  And the Church was pretty poor for the first few decades of its existence.  So a "great and spacious building" fostered an idea of the rich, outside world in their cities and edifices, looking down and persecuting the poor, humble Nephite-LDS and LDS-LDS Christians meekly finding their way along the iron rod.

Fast forward a century and now we have a Church that has amassed huge amounts of wealth, and used that wealth to build some buildings that are absolutely huge, and quite spacious.  And even invested in worldly places like a huge, upscale mall in Salt Lake City that caters to materialism.  Obviously, most LDS have no problem with the Church building huge buildings and malls that are "great" and "spacious".  It is just an unfortunate (and to some, ironic) part of the story that the wicked people in Lehi's dream were identified by the size and openness of the building they occupied, when it was their attitudes and actions and not their choice of real estate that indicated their worthiness.

For all of the mockery Mormons get for their literal interpretations of scripture, this has to be about the most literal I have seen. The point of that parable was not a lesson in righteous architecture. It is about those who seek good fruit and those who mock. The only problem I find with it from a Gospel Doctrine view is that the members invariably assume they are not the ones in the great and spacious "building." It was really refreshing to hear some condemnation of the intolerance some members have when it comes to politics, etc.

[cinepro]

37 minutes ago, juliann said:

For all of the mockery Mormons get for their literal interpretations of scripture, this has to be about the most literal I have seen. The point of that parable was not a lesson in righteous architecture. It is about those who seek good fruit and those who mock. The only problem I find with it from a Gospel Doctrine view is that the members invariably assume they are not the ones in the great and spacious "building." It was really refreshing to hear some condemnation of the intolerance some members have when it comes to politics, etc.

I guess the question is whether or not the clothing and building were relevant to the meaning of the dream.  If it is relevant, then what is it supposed to say?  If it isn't relevant, then it should have been clarified.  Why were the people wearing nice clothes in a "great and spacious" building?  Were the people making their way to the tree of life also wearing "exceedingly fine" clothes, and if so, why was that not mentioned?  And if not, why not (and what does that mean for LDS today who would wear "exceedingly fine clothing"?)

 26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.

 27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/8.26?lang=eng#25

[cinepro]

51 minutes ago, juliann said:

Interesting that you don't include the recent Church history essays that expand this simplistic history..... which we have been told to know "like the back of our hands."

Just to be clear, are you seriously suggesting that someone without even a basic understanding of LDS Church history and doctrines should start by reading about the multiple accounts of the first vision, polygamy, the priesthood/Temple ban against black members of the Church,  and the problems with the Book of Abraham?

Edited April 4, 2016 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Just to be clear, are you seriously suggesting that someone without even a basic understanding of LDS Church history and doctrines should start by reading about the multiple accounts of the first vision, polygamy, the priesthood/Temple ban against black members of the Church,  and the problems with the Book of Abraham?

Why not? Might be an interesting case study in how supposed "problems" (there's a use of your revered scare quotes) associated with Church doctrine and history are really not problems when presented within a proper framework of understanding.

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't mean to suggest -- and I don't think I did suggest -- that the G&SB was the focus of his talk. I merely presented the quote as outstanding and, for me, very memorable. I repeat, it is one of my favorite quotes of the conference.

I like it because it is so pithy and rings so true.

To take another example, what Elder Oaks said about "the loyal opposition" was not the focus of his talk either. But it is a good and memorable part. So I started a thread about it.

No, you didn't. Yet that is what we are focusing on here at MD&D. I find it likely that if you hadn't said something, someone else would have. 

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I guess the question is whether or not the clothing and building were relevant to the meaning of the dream.  If it is relevant, then what is it supposed to say?  If it isn't relevant, then it should have been clarified.  Why were the people wearing nice clothes in a "great and spacious" building?  Were the people making their way to the tree of life also wearing "exceedingly fine" clothes, and if so, why was that not mentioned?  And if not, why not (and what does that mean for LDS today who would wear "exceedingly fine clothing"?)

 

 

I do think the clothing is part of it  - sometimes literal and sometimes not.

Not so much the building unless I am missing something.  It is great and spacious so it can hold the many people in it,  not because it represents wealth.  I can see why others might not think of it the way I do.  

[juliann]

Finery goes along with pride in the BOM. That is a sign of wealth and wealth is, you know. I think the size of the building only indicates how many people there are...and there is plenty of room for great crowds. I find the suspension of the building interesting. It has a closed in feeling like a sealed in box, despite its spaciousness. Those on the ground are going somewhere. The onlookers are merely standing about pointing fingers while lookin' good and feelin' fine.

I don't find gutting this parable to make lame jokes about buildings very intellectually stimulating.

As for what we teach, I think Elder Ballard kind of settled that in his CES talk, didn't he?

[provoman]

17 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I have only been here a few days, but it is becoming evident to me that this is not the best place to learn about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In a previous post Storm Rider brought up the wide range of both LDS & non-LDS heterodoxy here. I have also been cautioned about this from another member through private messaging.  I joined under the assumption that I would be mostly interacting with "mainstream" Mormons. Boanerges mentioned in that same thread that LDS.net would be a better place for getting an orthodox LDS viewpoint (he wrote "heterodox," but I think he meant orthodox). So I will primarily be interacting over there. From what I've seen thus far there are some solid LDS folks here who know their stuff. I don't know if that is the case over there. I may chirp in from time to time here, but probably not a whole lot. Thanks.

 

DO NOT visit MESSAGE BOARD to find out what the Church teaches.

All you will find on a message is WHAT the particular poster personal understanding/misunderstanding of what the LDS Church teaches.  No on here has the authority to answer for the Church.  If you want to know what is taught by the LDS Church there are several pages on LDS to provide you with information. If you are looking to find about what individuals who claim to members of the LDS believe, then message boards are a place to find that out. Just be prepared to find contradiction, contortion, and sometimes denial from individuals who claim to follow the LDS teachings and faith.

[mtomm]

13 hours ago, canard78 said:

I help to run a junior music and drama club. The other day we were asking the juniors what songs they'd like. One said: "I don't mind, I only like the 80s music my dad listens to. Y'know... like the Beatles."

I wasn't sure to cry more at the fact that 80s is now synonymous with 60s for a teenager or that several other kids in the group turned round and said: "who?"

When I sang a few bars of Yellow Submarine they mostly responded with "oh, that song..."

Tragic

I hope it is some consolation to you that my 18 year old daughter is by far the greatest Beatle fan that has existed on earth. And I just dare you to even  imply to her that she is not.  We even eaten birthday cake on George and John's birthdays. Lucky for my waistline we don't have to celebrate the birthdays of the wives, girlfriends and children. 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why not? Might be an interesting case study in how supposed "problems" (there's a use of your revered scare quotes) associated with Church doctrine and history are really not problems when presented within a proper framework of understanding.

 

I'm not sure what you think would happen if someone not familiar without knowledge (let alone a testimony) of Church doctrine and history read about the issues presented in the essays, or how the polygamy, Priesthood/Temple ban and Book of Abraham issues could in any way give someone positive feelings towards Church history. 

But I'm certainly not going to argue the point.  Steve Noel, if you're still here, it is recommended that you go to this page and read Church-produced essays that talk about how Joseph Smith married 30+ women, many without his first wife's knowledge or consent (and one who was "several months" shy of her fifteenth birthday), how the Church denied black members of presumed African descent from holding the priesthood (men) or entering the Temples where ceremonies necessary for exaltation are performed (men and women) for decades without even knowing why they were doing it, and how Joseph told the story of his "First Vision" (one of the epochal events in early LDS history) several times with basic elements of the story varying between tellings.  Also how Joseph Smith claimed to translate the then-unknown language of Egyptian into the Book of Abraham, but subsequent review has found many questions about what Joseph knew about Egyptian.

Apparently it is important that you read up on these subjects in order to fully understand Mormon doctrine and history. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/4/2016 at 4:35 PM, cinepro said:

I'm not sure what you think would happen if someone not familiar without knowledge (let alone a testimony) of Church doctrine and history read about the issues presented in the essays, or how the polygamy, Priesthood/Temple ban and Book of Abraham issues could in any way give someone positive feelings towards Church history. 

But I'm certainly not going to argue the point.  Steve Noel, if you're still here, it is recommended that you go to this page and read Church-produced essays that talk about how Joseph Smith married 30+ women, many without his first wife's knowledge or consent (and one who was "several months" shy of her fifteenth birthday), how the Church denied black members of presumed African descent from holding the priesthood (men) or entering the Temples where ceremonies necessary for exaltation are performed (men and women) for decades without even knowing why they were doing it, and how Joseph told the story of his "First Vision" (one of the epochal events in early LDS history) several times with basic elements of the story varying between tellings.  Also how Joseph Smith claimed to translate the then-unknown language of Egyptian into the Book of Abraham, but subsequent review has found many questions about what Joseph knew about Egyptian.

Apparently it is important that you read up on these subjects in order to fully understand Mormon doctrine and history. 

See, the problem comes about when somebody uglifies and horriblizes matters by putting them in the worst possible light (as you have done here to make your point). Someone going to the "Gospel Topics" essays would not encounter that sort of presentation. And if the person were to learn about those subjects in tandem with learning about the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Restoration -- and being guided and helped to obtain a spiritual witness --  he might not be so inclined to be thrown into a tailspin.

It would be an interesting study; that's all I'm saying.

 

Edited April 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[6EQUJ5]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

Did he provide some specific examples that compare 2016 with the mocking and persecution the Church faced in the 1840s, 1880s, or the 1910s?  Or was it just supposed to be self evident?

The Church is mocked and defamed more now than it ever has been.  The Church stands up for its principles despite what the world has to say.  It is self-evident.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, mtomm said:

I hope it is some consolation to you that my 18 year old daughter is by far the greatest Beatle fan that has existed on earth. And I just dare you to even  imply to her that she is not.  We even eaten birthday cake on George and John's birthdays. Lucky for my waistline we don't have to celebrate the birthdays of the wives, girlfriends and children. 

Love this..yeh..yeh..yeh.!

[Steve Noel]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure what you think would happen if someone not familiar without knowledge (let alone a testimony) of Church doctrine and history read about the issues presented in the essays, or how the polygamy, Priesthood/Temple ban and Book of Abraham issues could in any way give someone positive feelings towards Church history. 

But I'm certainly not going to argue the point.  Steve Noel, if you're still here, it is recommended that you go to this page and read Church-produced essays that talk about how Joseph Smith married 30+ women, many without his first wife's knowledge or consent (and one who was "several months" shy of her fifteenth birthday), how the Church denied black members of presumed African descent from holding the priesthood (men) or entering the Temples where ceremonies necessary for exaltation are performed (men and women) for decades without even knowing why they were doing it, and how Joseph told the story of his "First Vision" (one of the epochal events in early LDS history) several times with basic elements of the story varying between tellings.  Also how Joseph Smith claimed to translate the then-unknown language of Egyptian into the Book of Abraham, but subsequent review has found many questions about what Joseph knew about Egyptian.

Apparently it is important that you read up on these subjects in order to fully understand Mormon doctrine and history. 

As I mentioned earlier, I am actually quite aware of all of this already. I have read books in the past by Evangelical critics of Mormonism (e.g. Walter Martin, James White, Marvin Cowon, Richard Abanes, Ed Decker, Ron Rhodes, Janis Hutchinson, etc.) In recent years I have been exposed to Evangelical critics of these critics (e.g. Greg Johnson, Richard Mouw, Craig Blomberg, Paul Owen, Carl Mosser, Roger Olson, etc.). The latter of these usually scold the former for their sinful disposition, accuse them of misrepresenting the Latter-day Saints, and criticize the shallow nature of their objections. The former accuse the latter of being gullible pawns of a LDS PR campaign intended to bring Mormonism out of cult status into the mainstream of Christianity. So I am determined to look into the LDS Church for myself. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It would be an interesting study; that's all I'm saying.

About a month ago, we had an in-depth lesson on Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy with one of our investigators by his request. When we were finished, he said he had no more concerns. For what it may be worth...

Edited April 5, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan