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

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it's present in the JST that He did baptize, what does it matter that it's not recorded elsewhere?

You think there is nothing to be learned or derived from the fact that nobody else thought it was significant enough to record?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't want to rehash old topics.  But you know full well which items of eternal origin the Church has changed.  You accept those as a result of changing conditions.  I think they are unauthorized.

No, I have no idea what you're referring to.

 

[UtahTexan]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

If that wasn't one of the reasons it was done, then that only increases the likelihood that I'm right about the low probability.  

I did not ask for a back peddle.  You made a statement.  Please provide the definitive proof...

if you have no proof, then admit you over spoke and say it is simply another of your opinions.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You think there is nothing to be learned or derived from the fact that nobody else thought it was significant enough to record?

If anything, it's an item of curiosity, nothing more.

Certainly not significant enough for you to raise it as a argument for having missionaries spend less time on baptizing and more time cleaning up city parks or whatever.

Edited to add:

 

Please see UtahTexan's post. Turns out it's also stated in John 3:22 (KJV) that Jesus baptized.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I the John 21...I have always thought that this pertained to a multitude of miracles performed by the Savior.  For all the gatherings in the NT..it doesn't mention where there was baptism.  If I am wrong ..I will concede if you can point that out to me.  The crowds that followed Jesus would surely have written of baptisms???

Has anyone mentioned John 3:22?

John 3:22King James Version (KJV)

²² After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would love to know what Joseph was thinking when he altered John 4 to read the opposite of how it reads.  I wonder what was going on historically at that time.  Do we have any good books or essays that go through the timeline of the JST changes and make any attempts to understand some of the influences that might have been happening at the time that Joseph and Sidney were working on it?  This is one area that I haven't done much reading about.  

To even entertain this question, one would have to deny the divinity of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. This I will not do.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

Has anyone mentioned John 3:22?

John 3:22King James Version (KJV)

²² After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

Hadn't noticed this. Very good.

And in the LDS edition of the Bible it's cross-refernced with John 4:1-2 and the JST of John 4:1-4.

So rockpond, it turns out there is reference elsewhere in the Bible to Jesus baptizing, not just in the JST.

 

[UtahTexan]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hadn't noticed this. Very good.

And in the LDS edition of the Bible it's cross-refernced with John 4:1-2 and the JST of John 4:1-4.

So rockpond, it turns out there is reference elsewhere in the Bible to Jesus baptizing, not just in the JST.

 

Even more importantly, John 3:22 then validates the JST of John 4.  Because it clarifies to make it consistent.....

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

Even more importantly, John 3:22 then validates the JST of John 4.  Because it clarifies to make it consistent.....

Indeed.

And so in response to hope-for-things, there's really no need for us to construct some sort of fanciful hypothesis as to what was going on in Joseph Smith's milieu that would have led to the change in the JST of John 4. All it really does is bring consistency to the text where there was internal contradiction before.

Nor is there any great need for rockpond to agonize over why there's not a record in the King James Bible of Jesus baptizing. It turns out there is such a record.

Thanks again for bringing John 3:22 to our attention.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If anything, it's an item of curiosity, nothing more.

Certainly not significant enough for you to raise it as a argument for having missionaries spend less time on baptizing and more time cleaning up city parks or whatever.

Edited to add:

 

Please see UtahTexan's post. Turns out it's also stated in John 3:22 (KJV) that Jesus baptized.

Good.  I'm glad we got both of those verses out there.  Both in John.  So, one of the four gospels.

For me, the differences in the accounts of Christ's ministry are far more than a curiosity.  

But, I didn't ask that original question as an argument to have missionaries spending more time in meaningful service (reducing to to "cleaning up city parks" shows a lack of vision that probably explains some of your opposition). I brought it up as a means of countering your argument about the grand commission of Christ somehow meaning that service can't be a significant part of their time. 

[Duncan]

From one of my favourites, Elder Gene R. Cook, 

"We do not visit the active just to "visit," or the less active just to get them out to church, although that may be part of what happens. In essence, we visit to help the heads of those homes, male or female, to become the spiritual leaders in their homes, to lead their families to Christ, to pray, to fast, and to read the scriptures together. If that happens in our visits, all else will take care of itself." ("Inviting Others to 'Come unto Christ,' " Ensign, Nov. 1988, 37-38)

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is no contradiction at all in my reasoning. While "external influences" or something else might have acted as a catalyst for changes, I don't believe they are implemented ordinarily without seeking and receiving the will of God.

If you look at the priesthood ban as a case example, what we saw with President Kimball, is that he was willing to go to his grave, I believe is the quote that I'm thinking of, defending the priesthood ban.  He was completely willing to entrench and defend the status quo, but the external and internal pressures were so strong, that he was compelled to think more openly about the issue, and hence "revelation" was received.

Revelation sometimes is a realization that despite prideful human nature that assumes we are right, when a person is able to recognize they are wrong, revelation is received.  This seems to happen at a personal level quite often, as we get informed about something, as we research and think and pray about something, we often change our position entirely from our preconceived notions.  It also happens at an institutional level, although it seems to take much longer when multiple parties are involved as in the LDS hierarchy.  

The perception that revelation always goes through the hierarchy, is that they have to give their stamp of approval on the change that is bubbling up from other sources.  Once the leadership finally gets on board, as with the priesthood change or many other changes, then they announce that a revelation was received.  Reality is that the revelation was also received many years earlier by all those people pursuing the change.  Only it took many years for the hierarchy to finally get on board.  Revelation isn't a one time event, its a process sometimes taking years, decades or millennia to come into being.  

 

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I do agree with some.
But I think the idea of Christ being all about love and tolerance only looks at a small part of his ministry.
And we're all lost souls until we put aside our wills and biases and follow what God and Christ say.

I can agree with this in concept, I would also say that it is very difficult if not impossible to know the will of God.  Perhaps its our weakness that keeps us from understanding the mind and will of God?  Some people would say that its God's fault for not communicating clearly.  I'm not sure that is the case, but I wonder how we as mortals can ever be confident that our limited understanding properly represents the will of deity.  I see a lot of mistakes made when people believe they are on God's side on any particular subject.  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

If you look at the priesthood ban as a case example, what we saw with President Kimball, is that he was willing to go to his grave, I believe is the quote that I'm thinking of, defending the priesthood ban.  He was completely willing to entrench and defend the status quo, but the external and internal pressures were so strong, that he was compelled to think more openly about the issue, and hence "revelation" was received.

Revelation sometimes is a realization that despite prideful human nature that assumes we are right, when a person is able to recognize they are wrong, revelation is received.  This seems to happen at a personal level quite often, as we get informed about something, as we research and think and pray about something, we often change our position entirely from our preconceived notions.  It also happens at an institutional level, although it seems to take much longer when multiple parties are involved as in the LDS hierarchy.  

The perception that revelation always goes through the hierarchy, is that they have to give their stamp of approval on the change that is bubbling up from other sources.  Once the leadership finally gets on board, as with the priesthood change or many other changes, then they announce that a revelation was received.  Reality is that the revelation was also received many years earlier by all those people pursuing the change.  Only it took many years for the hierarchy to finally get on board.  Revelation isn't a one time event, its a process sometimes taking years, decades or millennia to come into being.  

 

This is an excellent point.

I think many members look at the temple/priesthood ban as having come from God and we had to wait for God to end it in His time.

But, I tend to think along the lines that you have outlined here.  And I think that's also what will happen down the road with respect to gay unions.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I can agree with this in concept, I would also say that it is very difficult if not impossible to know the will of God.  Perhaps its our weakness that keeps us from understanding the mind and will of God?  Some people would say that its God's fault for not communicating clearly.  I'm not sure that is the case, but I wonder how we as mortals can ever be confident that our limited understanding properly represents the will of deity.  I see a lot of mistakes made when people believe they are on God's side on any particular subject.

I agree with this in concept too. 
My problem comes from those who refuse to look at the whole of Christ's life, teachings, commandments, and example.
Instead you get the watered down, hippie love-in, law ignoring Christ.  A Christ that doesn't exist, even in the NT.

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To even entertain this question, one would have to deny the divinity of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. This I will not do.

Julie Smith has nice blog post about a framework for the JST that Robert J. Matthews constructed.  http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/01/what-role-should-the-jst-play-in-lds-biblical-studies/

Quote

JST contains four types of material:

(1) restoration of the text to the way that it originally read

(2) material that was not originally part of the biblical text

(3) Joseph Smith’s commentary

(4) material added for doctrinal harmonization

If you consider what Joseph was trying to accomplish in John 4, perhaps he was giving commentary on the scripture or attempting doctrinal harmonization.  You might also realize that scripture contains context, perspectives of the authors including individual and cultural biases.  

Edited October 7, 2016 by hope_for_things

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Revelation sometimes is a realization that despite prideful human nature that assumes we are right, when a person is able to recognize they are wrong, revelation is received.  This seems to happen at a personal level quite often, as we get informed about something, as we research and think and pray about something, we often change our position entirely from our preconceived notions.  It also happens at an institutional level, although it seems to take much longer when multiple parties are involved as in the LDS hierarchy.

Please provide an example where you have done this on a personal level and it happens to align with a Church teaching. Thank you!

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But, I tend to think along the lines that you have outlined here.

Since you agree, please also provide an example where you have done this on a personal level and it happens to align with a Church teaching. Thanks!

Edited October 7, 2016 by CV75

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Repentance and baptism certainly seemed to be on Christ's mind as he taught the Nephites.

These quotes can be contrasted against the ministry of Jesus in the NT, his service to others, the healing of the sick and afflicted, the parables about caring for the down trodden and the marginalized in society, the way he pushed against the establishment, the way he condemned the pharisees and their focus on strict observance of specific rules.  

Personally, I don't believe the BoM is a historical account, so I look at the 3 Nephi scriptures as representing the way Joseph Smith envisioned a message that Jesus would give to a group of people, rather than actual words of Jesus to ancient native Americans.  

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

Personally, I don't believe the BoM is a historical account, so I look at the 3 Nephi scriptures as representing the way Joseph Smith envisioned a message that Jesus would give to a group of people, rather than actual words of Jesus to ancient native Americans.  

Well then I guess you're free to imagine the church being anything you want.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Well then I guess you're free to imagine the church being anything you want.

As is anyone.

The problem comes, of course, when one tries to supplant the revelations and teachings of apostles and prophets with one's own quirky vision of what the Church of Jesus Christ should say/do.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As is anyone.

The problem comes, of course, when one tries to supplant the revelations and teachings of apostles and prophets with one's own quirky vision of what the Church of Jesus Christ should say/do.

And the other problem comes when one thinks that their "quirky vision" isn't quirky but is the one true and correct vision.

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

These quotes can be contrasted against the ministry of Jesus in the NT, his service to others, the healing of the sick and afflicted, the parables about caring for the down trodden and the marginalized in society, the way he pushed against the establishment, the way he condemned the pharisees and their focus on strict observance of specific rules.

The way he commanded us to be baptized.
The way he commanded the apostles to proselyte.
The way he commanded the apostles to be washed by him or lose salvation.
The way he rebuked the apostles when they said the expensive ointment should be sold so more could be given to the poor.
The way he commanded that the sacrament be taken.
The way he rebuked those that would worship him instead of the Father.
The way he promised to set families against each other.
The way he set the apostles to judge their fellow men.
The way he promised that many would be cast from his presence when he returned.
The way he cast those of a different belief out of the temple and taught against their doctrines, insults included.
The way he required the keeping of his commandments as proof of our love.
Shall I continue?

Christ's ministry was about more than just love and charity work.  Those were key messages, but not the only ones.

Edited October 7, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And the other problem comes when one thinks that their "quirky vision" isn't quirky but is the one true and correct vision.

I agree with this but probably not in the way you intended it.

 

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Please provide an example where you have done this on a personal level and it happens to align with a Church teaching.

Happens all the time to me, honestly.  Last month I wanted to refinance my home loan.  I made the decision to move forward with the support of my wife and then we moved forward on the process.  As I continued to evaluate things, I still wanted to move forward, even though a couple things were nagging at me, the fact that our appraisal came in lower than anticipated, the closing costs, etc.  The long term prospects of this refinance made sense financially, I even calculated our break even point on closing costs and it all made sense and felt right.  I scheduled the closing with the title company. 

However, the weekend before the closing, I went over the logic with my wife again and this time we talked only about short term considerations.  What if we had to move for some reason in the next 2-3 years?  After thinking more about short time things which honestly we hadn't considered when this decision was made earlier, because we assumed we wouldn't be moving and assumed nothing might come up, we decided to hold off on refinancing.  I think it was the consideration of these short term possibilities that caused us to change our minds about a refinance, even though I had already sunk all the time and effort into the process, including the money for the appraisal.  It was a complete 180 degree turn in and it came about by looking at things differently.  

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Well then I guess you're free to imagine the church being anything you want.

Sure, just like you imagine the church to be what you want.  We all do this.