Bill Reel's Sunstone Presentation and a Path to the Disavowal of D&C 132

[Johnnie Cake]

33 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I think we agree and disagree.  The savior's life and teachings seem to take a back seat to family history, food storage, indexing, pioneer heritage, and missionary farewells and returns.  The Savior is an appendage to the church in so many wards and stakes.

The last time I attended a church meeting...Joseph Smith was mentions twice as many times as Jesus Christ...and would have been even less had I not included His name being mentioned in the opening and closing prayer...but I'm guessing that this is an exception and not the norm

[Jeanne]

If it wasn't for primary and perhaps some time in seminary, I would not know a lot about the Savior other than closings of prayer and the sacrament.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The last time I attended a church meeting...Joseph Smith was mentions twice as many times as Jesus Christ...and would have been even less had I not included His name being mentioned in the opening and closing prayer...but I'm guessing that this is an exception and not the norm

It is the exception.
It is not a problem in ONE meeting.  The gospel centers around Christ, but there are many elements that orbit around Christ.  There is nothing wrong with teaching on them too.

[Tacenda]

I guess the bearing of testimony in church under the age of eight is okay again. My ward has several young children, that have to be held and whispered to, giving their testimonies. Or their parents testimonies. Last fast Sunday it took nearly 15 minutes of the Sacrament meeting. And one person gave a sermon, so another 10 minutes. Of course we had the trek recently so that took up part of it. But still, I remember the day a previous bishop mentioned that testimony's only be given by those that are baptized on up. Or something like that. This is a monthly thing. The child doesn't even know what half the words mean, isn't this brain wash a little culty? Sorry if this derailed.

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess the bearing of testimony in church under the age of eight is okay again. My ward has several young children, that have to be held and whispered to, giving their testimonies. Or their parents testimonies. Last fast Sunday it took nearly 15 minutes of the Sacrament meeting. And one person gave a sermon, so another 10 minutes. Of course we had the trek recently so that took up part of it. But still, I remember the day a previous bishop mentioned that testimony's only be given by those that are baptized on up. Or something like that. This is a monthly thing. The child doesn't even know what half the words mean, isn't this brain wash a little culty? Sorry if this derailed.

I no the chruch is twoooooo!  IMO, this is not a good thing.  This seems to be something that parents do for themselves.  This would be great if they little ones had a little time in primary to develop small testimonies and learning not to be afraid of public speaking.  But I tend to look at it like parents are saying..see my child? 

[Okrahomer]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess the bearing of testimony in church under the age of eight is okay again. My ward has several young children, that have to be held and whispered to, giving their testimonies. Or their parents testimonies. Last fast Sunday it took nearly 15 minutes of the Sacrament meeting. And one person gave a sermon, so another 10 minutes. Of course we had the trek recently so that took up part of it. But still, I remember the day a previous bishop mentioned that testimony's only be given by those that are baptized on up. Or something like that. This is a monthly thing. The child doesn't even know what half the words mean, isn't this brain wash a little culty? Sorry if this derailed.

I don't think anything has changed--please see the 2013 statement from the First Presidency here.  The fact that this just happened in your ward probably just means that it's time for the Bishopric to remind and/or "re-teach" the members:

• ”Parents and teachers should help children learn what a testimony is and when it is appropriate for them to express it. It may be best to have younger children learn to share their testimonies at such times as family home evening or when giving talks in Primary until they are old enough to do so in fast and testimony meeting.  We encourage bishoprics to teach these important principles to priesthood and auxiliary leaders and to all ward members.“

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I don't think anything has changed--please see the 2013 statement from the First Presidency here.  The fact that this just happened in your ward probably just means that it's time for the Bishopric to remind and/or "re-teach" the members:

• ”Parents and teachers should help children learn what a testimony is and when it is appropriate for them to express it. It may be best to have younger children learn to share their testimonies at such times as family home evening or when giving talks in Primary until they are old enough to do so in fast and testimony meeting.  We encourage bishoprics to teach these important principles to priesthood and auxiliary leaders and to all ward members.“

Don't get me wrong, it's cute to see these young children, but some of these children got scared once they were up there and went blank. And I do remember the feeling, because I did this as a child. 

[UtahTexan]

On 8/1/2016 at 8:22 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

In Bill's Sunstone presentation http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/07/sunstone-presentation-july-2016-handshakes-drawn-swords/ Bill offers a path by which faithful members of the church who are disturbed by Section 132 of the D&C can maintain faith and yet still disavow it's offending parts.

While this post won't do his presentation justice and I certainly hope Bill's weighs in this post, the jest of the presentation is that prophets are fallible and make mistakes and just as Brigham's Adam God doctrine, D&C Section 109 which originally stated that a man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again; and the removal of the Lectures on Faith, have all been either removed from scriptural status or disavowed...so can Section 132.  That basically Joseph got it wrong, that the angel with drawn sword was not a messenger from God but from Satan and that Joseph was deceived by said angel and succumbed to his baser instincts when he introduced polygamy.  While I found his reasoning compelling I just can not imagine a day when the church would disavow D&C 132, but maybe Bill has found a logical path whereby faithful members can reject 132 and still remain faithful-believers in all else.  This post is best understood after listening to Bill's podcast...to get his full reasoning and argument.

Is Cafeteria Mormonism where the future of the Church lays?

 

Hi Craig,

I think most Churches have members who are "cafeteria".  I saw it a LOT when I was Catholic.  I have not seen it as much as a Mormon, but that does not mean it is not so.

There will always be some who fit into that category, so it is incumbent on active members to be there for those who struggle. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess the bearing of testimony in church under the age of eight is okay again. My ward has several young children, that have to be held and whispered to, giving their testimonies. .

One parent orkid starts it, the others think it is only fair if they can too and you soon start losing testiomony meeting to whatever is the latest fad.  One of the drawbacks and benefits of human community is we mold our own behaviour on what see.  It works great when it is service projects, not so much when it is kids not ready yet tospeak in front of adults.  

Sounds like whoever is conducting needs to be more proactive on this.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Indeed. It's impossible to be anything but a Cafeteria Mormon. 

As long as you are choosing the basic building blocks of life (good quality protein, carbs and fats) and avoiding the empty calorie offerings, this is not a bad thing.  If you do the reverse, it can create a very unhealthy testimony.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

As long as you are choosing the basic building blocks of life (good quality protein, carbs and fats) and avoiding the empty calorie offerings, this is not a bad thing.  If you do the reverse, it can create a very unhealthy testimony.

Sure. Of course one person's chocolate pudding is another person's grilled salmon. 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sounds like whoever is conducting needs to be more proactive on this.

I agree.  Every month in our ward, the member of the Bishopric who is conducting, announces that the testimony portion is for those of baptism age or older.  It's done in a very nice manner and a reminder is given for parents to encourage their children to bear their testimonies in their homes (during FHE for example) or when their child is giving a talk in primary.  We've never had anyone object or say they are offended, but many adults have expressed gratitude for consistently announcing this.

.

Edited August 9, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

Even chocolate pudding if well made is not bad for occassional partaking.

It is not as easy perhaps to figure out good quality doctrine and beliefs, but even choosing food appears not to be just commonsense and instead, people have to be educated in how to do it.

[stemelbow]

Most testimony meetings I wish we'd just fill it up with the kids going up and saying stuff, even if their parents are whispering to them.  Most kids have some amount of cuteness, even if they come off as overly pretend in front of everyone saying stuff they couldn't possible "know".  Then again, most grown-ups are up there claiming things they can't possible know. 

Whose brainwashing who here? 

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Most testimony meetings I wish we'd just fill it up with the kids going up and saying stuff, even if their parents are whispering to them.  Most kids have some amount of cuteness, even if they come off as overly pretend in front of everyone saying stuff they couldn't possible "know".  Then again, most grown-ups are up there claiming things they can't possible know. 

Whose brainwashing who here? 

CFR please on people claiming what they do not know.....how do you know what someone does not does not know?

[stemelbow]

Just now, CountryBoy said:

CFR please on people claiming what they do not know.....how do you know what someone does not does not know?

I don't know.  But how do you know my uncertainty of not knowing what they can't possibly know really means I do know they can't possible know?

I was just being cheeky in that response.  I'm fine thinking many grown-ups know things even if I question whether they possibly could know the things they say they know. 

[Jeanne]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I don't know.  But how do you know my uncertainty of not knowing what they can't possibly know really means I do know they can't possible know?

I was just being cheeky in that response.  I'm fine thinking many grown-ups know things even if I question whether they possibly could know the things they say they know. 

It is a sad day when I almost understand this post.

[UtahTexan]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know.  But how do you know my uncertainty of not knowing what they can't possibly know really means I do know they can't possible know?

I was just being cheeky in that response.  I'm fine thinking many grown-ups know things even if I question whether they possibly could know the things they say they know. 

lol

 

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Most testimony meetings I wish we'd just fill it up with the kids going up and saying stuff, even if their parents are whispering to them.  Most kids have some amount of cuteness, even if they come off as overly pretend in front of everyone saying stuff they couldn't possible "know".  Then again, most grown-ups are up there claiming things they can't possible know. 

Whose brainwashing who here? 

Huh..your perspective here really is like some universal truth.  Never looked at it that way. 

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Huh..your perspective here really is like some universal truth.  Never looked at it that way. 

It seems you believe something is universal truth if it is something you like or already believe.

That is pretty handy

[Jeanne]

All this reminds me of little ones who get away in aisles from Mom and Dad and go play the piano for awhile..gosh..I miss those days.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I think we agree and disagree.  The savior's life and teachings seem to take a back seat to family history, food storage, indexing, pioneer heritage, and missionary farewells and returns.  The Savior is an appendage to the church in so many wards and stakes.

 

12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The last time I attended a church meeting...Joseph Smith was mentions twice as many times as Jesus Christ...and would have been even less had I not included His name being mentioned in the opening and closing prayer...but I'm guessing that this is an exception and not the norm

These claims do not at all typify my experience.

"Missionary farewells and returns" have not been routine in the Church for well over a decade, maybe two. As a matter of policy these days, when missionaries speak in sacrament meeting prior to departure or just after returning home, they are assigned to speak on whatever the topic is for sacrament meeting that day. And they are part of a roster that includes other speakers. This claim doesn't pass the smell test to me.

I don't remember the last time I attended a sacrament meeting where the focus was on food storage. Family history and indexing are incidental to the doctrine of salvation for the dead, which is just as much a part of the gospel of Christ as missionary work, helping the poor and needy, rescuing lost souls, the principles and ordinacnes of the gospel, etc. Are you sure that wasn't the topic of the meeting? And pioneer heritage has to do with the latter-day restoration of the gospel and the gathering of Israel as decreed by Jesus Christ in preparation for the Second Coming.

As for the claim that Joseph Smith is mentioned twice as many times as Jesus, that is very foreign to my own experience. I once did a word count of the published proceedings of a general conference to test this claim that Joseph is mentioned more frequently than Christ. The occurences of the name of Joseph Smith were not even close to the frequency of the mention of the names of Christ. It was something like 10 percent or less, as I recall.

I suspect that holds true with a typical sacrament meeting as well.

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

These claims do not at all typify my experience.

"Missionary farewells and returns" have not been routine in the Church for well over a decade, maybe two. These days, when missionaries are assigned to speak in sacrament meeting prior to departure or just after returns, they are assigned to speak on whatever the topic is for sacrament meeting that day. And they are part of a roster that includes other speakers. This claim doesn't pass the smell test to me.

I don't remember the last time I attended a sacrament meeting where the focus was on food storage. Family history and indexing are incidental to the doctrine of salvation for the dead, which is just as much a part of the gospel of Christ as missionary work, helping the poor and needy, rescuing lost souls, the principles and ordinacnes of the gospel, etc. Are you sure that wasn't the topic of the meeting? And pioneer heritage has to do with the latter-day restoration of the gospel and the gathering of Israel as decreed by Jesus Christ in preparation for the Second Coming.

As for the claim that Joseph Smith is mentioned twice as many times as Jesus, that is very foreign to my own experience. I once did a word count of the published proceedings of a conference to test this claim that Joseph is mentioned more frequently than Christ. The occurences of the name Joseph were not even close to the frequency of the mention of the names of Christ. It was somehting like 10 percent or less, as I recall.

I suspect that holds true with a typical sacrament meeting as well.

 

Missionary Farewells and Homecomings were going on when I LDS the first time-----in fact, I gave a farewell and a homecoming   1984-1986

Edited August 9, 2016 by CountryBoy

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The last time I attended a church meeting...Joseph Smith was mentions twice as many times as Jesus Christ...and would have been even less had I not included His name being mentioned in the opening and closing prayer...but I'm guessing that this is an exception and not the norm

In my ward Joseph Smith is very rarely mentioned. However, if I had to guess I would say the most frequently discussed topic is "the Church". But, Jesus is probably a close second. 

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

It seems you believe something is universal truth if it is something you like or already believe.

That is pretty handy

It is..and that is a universal truth!