President Nelson: Goal is not to increase the number of Church members

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think there is any substantial difference in the kind of revelation that I described and the kind of revelation that is typically talked about in church.  I also shared a few examples.  I think you're looking for a faith promoting example, but that goes against the point I was trying to make about studying out something to the extent that you change your mind about an idea that you thought you knew was right already.   Certainly, the principle can work both ways.  

Whether they are substantially the same or not (but I am not thinking that they are much the same at all), I am only asking for an example where you experienced a 180-degree turnaround that found you in alignment with a Church teaching. It’s OK to say you haven’t, in which case the principle hasn’t been proven to work both ways for you.

Nor has it for President Kimball in the example you used: he was always in alignment with Church policy (first with the priesthood ban, then with the new policy). He believed he needed a revelation to change the policy; there was no change in that belief. It can be argued that the change in policy (from a ban on blacks to no ban on anyone) is not a 180-degree change; nor is the disavowal of teachings used to support it, since the teachings used for the disavowal have always been in place (no new revelation there).

Edited October 10, 2016 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

On Saturday, October 08, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Tacenda said:

 we Mormons don't own our religion.

Some of us do.

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Nor has it for President Kimball in the example you used: he was always in alignment with Church policy (first with the priesthood ban, then with the new policy). He believed he needed a revelation to change the policy; there was no change in that belief. It can be argued that the change in policy (from a ban on blacks to no ban on anyone) is not a 180-degree change; nor is the disavowal of teachings used to support it, since the teachings used for the disavowal have always been in place (no new revelation there).

I can't respect someone trying to spin the Kimball revelation as not a 180 degree change in position.  As for my personally having an opinion outside of the mainstream church, and then praying to come back in alignment with the church, I honestly can't remember a time where that occurred.  In my orthodox days I was very good at aligning myself with everything that was being preached, as I believed it was all divinely inspired.  Ideas that made no sense to me, I just put on my shelf and didn't try to reconcile them.  But there weren't many things that I had on my shelf.  I was very good as toeing the line.  

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I can't respect someone trying to spin the Kimball revelation as not a 180 degree change in position.  As for my personally having an opinion outside of the mainstream church, and then praying to come back in alignment with the church, I honestly can't remember a time where that occurred.  In my orthodox days I was very good at aligning myself with everything that was being preached, as I believed it was all divinely inspired.  Ideas that made no sense to me, I just put on my shelf and didn't try to reconcile them.  But there weren't many things that I had on my shelf.  I was very good as toeing the line.  

I wasn’t asking you to explain yourself or your history, just provide an example of coming into alignment with the Church from a 180-degree position to the contrary (and only if you had one; I'm a convert so it is easy for me to provide examples). And as I pointed out, since you haven’t seen it working both ways, then others (like President Kimball) may not have either, and his experience with revelation was not a case of making a 180-degree turn for him, either.

Now was the revelation itself a 180-degree reversal of prior revelations? Doesn’t seem to be; no prior revelation was disavowed. Was the change in policy/practice a 180-degree reversal?  Doesn’t seem to be (except on the most superficial of spin); “priesthood bans” have come and gone with various dispensations, and the language of OD-2 is far more expansive than merely addressing a “ban.”

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I wasn’t asking you to explain yourself or your history, just provide an example of coming into alignment with the Church from a 180-degree position to the contrary (and only if you had one; I'm a convert so it is easy for me to provide examples). And as I pointed out, since you haven’t seen it working both ways, then others (like President Kimball) may not have either, and his experience with revelation was not a case of making a 180-degree turn for him, either.

 

Now was the revelation itself a 180-degree reversal of prior revelations? Doesn’t seem to be; no prior revelation was disavowed. Was the change in policy/practice a 180-degree reversal?  Doesn’t seem to be (except on the most superficial of spin); “priesthood bans” have come and gone with various dispensations, and the language of OD-2 is far more expansive than merely addressing a “ban.”

 

It was absolutely a 180 degree change in policy/practice.  I believe it was an example of the process of revelation, a development over time, that culminated in a change in practice.  It was a disavowal of prior teachings, if you want to call those prior teachings revelation, I don't have a problem calling them that, because to me, revelation is an evolution, not a discovery of some universal law, but a gradual progression towards the divine.  

 I don't want to get into details about it on this thread, it has been debated many times before on this message board and elsewhere.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Some of us do.

Yes you do.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It was absolutely a 180 degree change in policy/practice.  I believe it was an example of the process of revelation, a development over time, that culminated in a change in practice.  It was a disavowal of prior teachings, if you want to call those prior teachings revelation, I don't have a problem calling them that, because to me, revelation is an evolution, not a discovery of some universal law, but a gradual progression towards the divine.  

 I don't want to get into details about it on this thread, it has been debated many times before on this message board and elsewhere.  

I can be flexible with your secular use of the word "revelation." But that is not the kind of revelation our canon and teachings talk about. I think you could benefit from reading the link on what revelation is in the context of understanding the perspective of those removing the ban. You've only experienced your own definition, and you've only taken it in one direction.

You keep asserting OD-2 represents a 180 degree change in policy/practice, but you can't explain how (on the other hand, I can explain how it isn't). Who is calling the prior teachings revelation? Not me, and not President Kimball. You don't seem to know what you're talking about when you impose a narrow and rigid view of revelation on people who don't see it the same way, and say you disrespect them for that while not having experienced how it works for them in the process of making an about-face in belief and behavior.

Exactly what has been debated many times before?

Edited October 10, 2016 by CV75

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I can be flexible with your secular use of the word "revelation." But that is not the kind of revelation our canon and teachings talk about. I think you could benefit from reading the link on what revelation is in the context of understanding the perspective of those removing the ban. You've only experienced your own definition, and you've only taken it in one direction.

You keep asserting OD-2 represents a 180 degree change in policy/practice, but you can't explain how (on the other hand, I can explain how it isn't). Who is calling the prior teachings revelation? Not me, and not President Kimball. You don't seem to know what you're talking about when you impose a narrow and rigid view of revelation on people who don't see it the same way, and say you disrespect them for that while not having experienced how it works for them in the process of making an about-face in belief and behavior.

Exactly what has been debated many times before?

The priesthood ban has been discussed many times on this board, I'm happy to discuss it, but not in detail in this thread, its too much off topic.  Also, I'm not imposing anything on anyone, and I don't think my view is narrow or rigid, quite the opposite, it allows for a broad definition of what people can consider revelation.  

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The priesthood ban has been discussed many times on this board, I'm happy to discuss it, but not in detail in this thread, its too much off topic.  Also, I'm not imposing anything on anyone, and I don't think my view is narrow or rigid, quite the opposite, it allows for a broad definition of what people can consider revelation.  

I agree the priesthood ban isn't the issue or this thread, but you did use it to stage your "observation" that the LDS prophets use secular revelation (the kind you described for yourself) to develop the scriptural canon upon which policy is changed. So what are we to do if we can't use your own examples to demonstrate your points? A broader view would allow the Prophet(s) the regulatory experience as they describe it, so yes, your view is functionally narrow because you haven't experienced revelation both ways or in both directions. To assert that the Prophet(s) operate the same way is rigid and imposing, as passive and as unintentional as that may have seemed at the time.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I agree the priesthood ban isn't the issue or this thread, but you did use it to stage your "observation" that the LDS prophets use secular revelation (the kind you described for yourself) to develop the scriptural canon upon which policy is changed. So what are we to do if we can't use your own examples to demonstrate your points? A broader view would allow the Prophet(s) the regulatory experience as they describe it, so yes, your view is functionally narrow because you haven't experienced revelation both ways or in both directions. To assert that the Prophet(s) operate the same way is rigid and imposing, as passive and as unintentional as that may have seemed at the time.

How someone describes their revelatory experience will vary as widely as there are humans that exist on this earth.  My view is not rigid and imposing, its allowing for the possibility of all kinds of factors, not just religiously orthodox ones.  Its precisely the opposite, I'm not sure why you don't understand that point, but so be it.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

How someone describes their revelatory experience will vary as widely as there are humans that exist on this earth.  My view is not rigid and imposing, its allowing for the possibility of all kinds of factors, not just religiously orthodox ones.  Its precisely the opposite, I'm not sure why you don't understand that point, but so be it.  

While everyone is different, you used a description of revelation for a Prophet and a Church that they, according to the documentation, don’t share. That’s about as narrow as you can get: reframing OD-2 to look just like your personal mortgage decision. Now no one is going to take away your description, but how can you expect any concurrence in a world of 7.3 billion possibilities facing all kinds of factors? How can you expect OD-2 to have followed suit? Is that why it is so odd that one would agree with their version of things?

Edited October 10, 2016 by CV75

[UtahTexan]

On 10/7/2016 at 11:56 PM, rockpond said:

I quoted you directly.  Are you denying the accusation you leveled at me?

If you'd like to retract the accusation, feel free.  Otherwise my request for you to back it up with facts, still stands. 

No...I was correct.

I stand by what I said.  And will wait for you to understand

 

[UtahTexan]

On 10/8/2016 at 5:30 PM, cinepro said:

How could an estimated probability be anything other than an opinion?  And how could someone make a "definitive statement" about a theoretically improbable event? 

If you disagree with my estimated likelihood of such a thing happening, then please do let me know.  This is, after all, a discussion board.  Not a "definitive statement" board.

Thank you for admitting your definitive statement was nothing more than another of your opinions.

I appreciate that.

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

No...I was correct.

I stand by what I said.  And will wait for you to understand

 

Okay.  So you admit that you accused me of abusing the definition of the word for my own agenda but you won't bother to support the accusation.  Got it.  

I understand quite well.  I'll give you one warning but next time you act with such a lack of integrity, I'll just block you. 

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  So you admit that you accused me of abusing the definition of the word for my own agenda but you won't bother to support the accusation.  Got it.  

I understand quite well.  I'll give you one warning but next time you act with such a lack of integrity, I'll just block you. 

I understand it if your fear of me causes you to block me.  You are not the first unable to deal with me and truth.  I told you...I will be glad to discuss when you gain an understanding of the word.  You clearly, by your comments, do not.

 

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

I understand it if your fear of me causes you to block me.  You are not the first unable to deal with me and truth.  I told you...I will be glad to discuss when you gain an understanding of the word.  You clearly, by your comments, do not.

 

Nothing to do with fear, I just have little desire to interact with people who do not operate with integrity.

Your baseless personal insults don't foster valuable dialogue.  You have been unable to explain what I have misunderstood.  You just keep repeating the same unsupported claim as if that makes it true.

[UtahTexan]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Nothing to do with fear, I just have little desire to interact with people who do not operate with integrity.

Your baseless personal insults don't foster valuable dialogue.  You have been unable to explain what I have misunderstood.  You just keep repeating the same unsupported claim as if that makes it true.

You are certainly free to justify your running in any way that makes you feel good.

YOU claimed the issue was your differing definitions of "murmuring"...I showed you that your definition was wrong.  You have been upset ever since.  I get it.

So..learn the definition, stop making up definitions to suit your agenda.....we can then have a conversation.  It is hard to have a conversation n a topic when you make up definitions to suit your needs.

Edited October 11, 2016 by UtahTexan

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

I can be flexible with your secular use of the word "revelation." But that is not the kind of revelation our canon and teachings talk about. I think you could benefit from reading the link on what revelation is in the context of understanding the perspective of those removing the ban. You've only experienced your own definition, and you've only taken it in one direction.

You keep asserting OD-2 represents a 180 degree change in policy/practice, but you can't explain how (on the other hand, I can explain how it isn't). Who is calling the prior teachings revelation? Not me, and not President Kimball. You don't seem to know what you're talking about when you impose a narrow and rigid view of revelation on people who don't see it the same way, and say you disrespect them for that while not having experienced how it works for them in the process of making an about-face in belief and behavior.

Exactly what has been debated many times before?

I know this is not addressed to me, but I not sure I understand what you are saying.  A simple Google search will reveal what leaders prior to 1978 though and taught about the priesthood ban.  I am sure you are familiar with much of this.  It is not pretty.  It is racist and it was officially taught as doctoring in conference, in books written by GA's  and and over the pulpit for many years.  IMO the 1978 change is a 180 change.  How could it not be?

Edited October 11, 2016 by sunstoned

[sunstoned]

 

 

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

You are certainly free to justify your running in any way that makes you feel good.

YOU claimed the issue was your differing definitions of "murmuring"...I showed you that your definition was wrong.  You have been upset ever since.  I get it.

So..learn the definition, stop making up definitions to suit your agenda.....we can then have a conversation.  It is hard to have a conversation n a topic when you make up definitions to suit your needs.

Does it look like I am running away?

I was using the definition you provided.  I've stated that.  I'm not upset but I don't enjoy being slandered (which is what you're doing).

I haven't made up a definition.  If you are going to accuse me of such, you need to back it up with data or withdraw the accusation.  It's just a matter of integrity.

[UtahTexan]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Does it look like I am running away?

I was using the definition you provided.  I've stated that.  I'm not upset but I don't enjoy being slandered (which is what you're doing).

I haven't made up a definition.  If you are going to accuse me of such, you need to back it up with data or withdraw the accusation.  It's just a matter of integrity.

There has been no slander.  Slander must be 1.  Untrue and 2. Damage your reputation.   First, I have not said anything untrue.  Second, even if I had, your reputation is beyond damaging.  So, you need to learn THAT definition, too

Now, I told you, if you do not understand murmuring, then nothing I show you will make a difference.

If you DO understand murmuring, then I should not need to show you anything.

So, is there anything left to say on this?

 

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by UtahTexan

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, UtahTexan said:

There has been no slander.  Slander must be 1.  Untrue and 2. Damage your reputation.   First, I have not said anything untrue.  Second, even if I had, your reputation is beyond damaging.  So, you need to learn THAT definition, too

Now, I told you, if you do not understand murmuring, then nothing I show you will make a difference.

If you DO understand murmuring, then I should not need to show you anything.

So, is there anything left to say on this?

 

 

Yes, you should apologize for your false accusation.  You won't.   But you should. 

[CV75]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I know this is not addressed to me, but I not sure I understand what you are saying.  A simple Google search will reveal what leaders prior to 1978 though and taught about the priesthood ban.  I am sure you are familiar with much of this.  It is not pretty.  It is racist and it was officially taught as doctoring in conference, in books written by GA's  and and over the pulpit for many years.  IMO the 1978 change is a 180 change.  How could it not be?

Please see:

Posted 20 hours ago

Posted 18 hours ago

OD-2 is bigger than any teaching that explained or supported the withholding of priesthood to blacks, and the idea of a long-promised day for making known God’s will for blessing all His children was taught all along. OD-2 is a part of that and since it was put in place, the Church has “looked forward to the future” just as she has always done. That is the nature of faith and progress.

I don’t think OD-2 addressed the problem of racism per se. Neither did it eliminate racism, as that is an individual responsibility in becoming more Christlike, an obligation the Church promoted all along. For this reason, the disavowal and sifting out of “theories advanced in the past” is a reflection of OD-2 advancing the light we already had and the role of its expanded practices in eliminating inconsistent teachings.

Edited October 11, 2016 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

 the idea of a long-promised day for making known God’s will for blessing all His children was taught all along.

The interesting part of this statement is where this "promise" originated.
And what conditions were attached to that promise.

The ban became official under Brigham Young (some still think Joseph Smith believed it too, but Brigham made it official).
Brigham was also the first to make the referred to promise.
But we seem to ignore the conditions he placed on that promise.  OD2 removed the ban, but it didn't follow the conditions of the promise referred to.

I think falling back on the "long-promised" teaching ignores what that promise actually said.
 

[TOmNossor]

On 10/5/2016 at 6:53 PM, cinepro said:

Boss: "Bill, as a salesperson for 24 Hour Fitness, your goal isn't to increase the number of members of the gym.  Your goal is to increase the fitness level of people in the area.  Got it?"

Bill: "You bet boss!"

Boss: "Oh, by the way.  You didn't increase the fitness level for enough people last quarter.  You're fired."

Cinepro,

If I was the most brilliant, most inspired, most informed, ... social scientist and I presented two plans to the quorum of the twelve.

At the completion of my presentation, the leaders would agree with me that what I presented in plan 1 would result in what I claimed and what I present in plan 2 would result in what I claimed.  Those claims are:

Plan 1:

a. 10% growth for the church over the next 20 years (decreasing the percentage of humans who are LDS).

b. 50% increase across the world (in and out of the church) in love for God over the next 20 years.

c. 50% increase across the world (in and out of the church) in love for others with an emphasis upon families over the next 20 years.

d. 50% increase across the world (in and out of the church) in generic morality (as the church defines morality) over the next 20 years.

e. 50% increase across the world in true happiness (as opposed to some increase in the availability of pleasure) over the next 20 years.

Plan 2:

a. 100% growth for the church over the next 20 years with a doubling of tithing and other revenue.

b. A continued decrease in b-e for society in general offsetting the improvements for NEW church members such that net-net plan 2 didn't improve the world only the church.  In fact, while tithing and membership increases, righteousness among the Saints is fairly static due to us being in the world and too much of the world (just like today).

 

Lets further assume that the cost of both plans is identical and the proscriptions of both plans are so antithetical that only one can be chosen.

Which would they choose?

 

I think the leaders would choose Plan #1 (though like us all, I expect they would want both).

Charity, TOm