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

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I don't want to judge. I want to understand. I was looking for an example from your experience of the point you made about revelation (that it can significantly alter our view on a matter), but I didn't see any reference to / acknowledgement of revelation in the example you gave to support your statement that "Revelation …is received …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.” That you said it happens quite often and involves prayer caught my attention, and am wondering how your evidently frequent experience resulted in aligning with a Church teaching.

Ahh..  Ok, let me try to clarify.  I was saying that through the processes of research, study, prayer, contemplation, a person can come to a very different view on something than they originally had.  I call this process of realizing something is different than you originally thought it was, revelation.  

I wouldn't say that revelations need to align with church teachings.  Some will be about subject matters that the church has no teachings about, like refinancing my house, or a scientific or artistic endeavor.  Other areas where religion intersects, a person may find that their personal revelation conflicts with teachings of certain church leaders.  Ultimately, whether something is revelation or not, probably depends more on the individual and how they feel, than on some objective measurement.  

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What a convenient medium is an internet discussion board. With no requirement or expectation that we disclose our identity, we are free to state whatever we want, publish it to the world, and assure ourselves that we need take no responsibility for our words.

Bizzaro definitions by Scott Lloyd:

Opinion that BoM isn't historical = Supplanting the Brethren

Comment on obscure message board = Promulgating & Publishing to the world

Using a pseudonym on MDDB =  taking no responsibility for your words 

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One need not be insincere to be wrong.

That is your opinion (that Hope is wrong).  My experience with members in our ward, is that he's very accurate regarding what is taking place.  Each of us have our own experiences to draw from, and they can differ.  I believe he's also right about the outward indications from our leaders (and Maxwell and others).

.

.

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by ALarson

[UtahTexan]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

My statement was worded in the context of odds of something happening.  If you disagree with my guess and feel the odds should be higher or lower, let me know.

The initial post was made in response to Scott Lloyd's comment that the Church hadn't acknowledged young adult retention as one of the reasons for the age change.  I was just suggesting that the Church would never acknowledge that as one of the motivators, even if it were the case, because they would never, ever want to publicly acknowledge a serious problem with young adult retention in a place like General Conference (where the emphasis when it comes to things like growth and activity seems to tilt towards "all is well.")

As for "definitive proof", I can only assume you suggested that as an attempt at humor, this being an LDS-themed discussion board and all.

 

Not at all.  But, your long answer has a short answer:  you made a definitive statement for which you had no evidence.  It was just another of your opinions.

Thank you.

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you're harboring an image of the Book of Mormon as being fictional, you differ with the teachings of the apostles and prophets. 

Maybe the teachings , but maybe not their beliefs.  

As you've seen on other recent threads (if you followed them), many seem to believe that some leaders don't teach publicly what they privately believe (ie. the Adam/God doctrine).

Edited October 7, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that the leadership of the Church is caving in on the subject of Book of Mormon historicity and validating the false and and untenable notion that the Book of Mormon is not what it purports to be.

In fact, if being exposed to the murmuring from internal critics of the Church on this or any other message board ever makes me downcast in any degree, I need only immerse myself in the doctrine, teachings and wisdom of a general conference session, and my spirits are immediately lifted back up to where they need to be. (See the four quotes in my signature line, from general conference speakers. I was alert to each of them, partly due to content I had seen on Internet message boards and blogs.)

Hmm... nice goalpost change, Scott.

I don't really see much murmuring on these boards.  That's why I like them.  Do you have examples of people here murmuring?

But I know how you feel... sometimes your negativity and the false assumptions you make about people get me down.  But I too am lifted up when I attend my ward and serve in my calling -- I am reminded that the rest of the church doesn't think the same way as you.

 

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many seem to believe that some leaders don't teach publicly what they privately believe (ie. the Adam/God doctrine).

My ears are burning...
Seriously though, there is ample evidence of this.  Joseph Smith claiming only one wife while having many wives or telling people that he only proposed Hyrum lead the Church to test them would be two more examples.

You can call it lying if you like.  It really is keeping your pearls secret from those who would trample them like swine.
In Joseph's day secrets were kept by circulation of other teachings.  In our day I think personal secret beliefs are hidden behind the "we don't really know about that" answers.
 

[UtahTexan]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Hmm... nice goalpost change, Scott.

I don't really see much murmuring on these boards.  That's why I like them.  Do you have examples of people here murmuring?

But I know how you feel... sometimes your negativity and the false assumptions you make about people get me down.  But I too am lifted up when I attend my ward and serve in my calling -- I am reminded that the rest of the church doesn't think the same way as you.

 

odd that you would NOT see "murmurings" against the LDS Church and Doctrine on this board, but that you so clearly see Scott being negative about members.

Is that a case of blinders, selective vision, agenda-vision, or the need to be negative about the Church and its faithful members?

Just curious

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Maybe the teachings , but maybe not their beliefs.  

As you've seen on other recent threads (if you followed them), many seem to believe that some leaders don't teach publicly what they privately believe (ie. the Adam/God doctrine).

You're talking gibberish.

Saying the Brethren are attesting to beliefs that they do not hold is in effect accusing them of lying. Do you really want to go there?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Bizzaro definitions by Scott Lloyd:

Opinion that BoM isn't historical = Supplanting the Brethren

Not just having the opinion, but purveying it.

Quote

Comment on obscure message board = Promulgating & Publishing to the world

Someone in the know could confirm this, but my hunch is this message board gets thousands of page views a day and has hundreds of registered visitors.

Quote

Using a pseudonym on MDDB =  taking no responsibility for your words 

That's about the size of it. (Some here who use screen names have publicly disclosed their identity on a number of occasions. I'm not referring to them here. Nor am I referring to those who don't make a practice here of criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ or its doctrines, teaching, leaders, members, etc., or who don't engage in discourse that would tend to weaken the faith of members.)

Edited October 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're talking gibberish.

Saying the Brethren are attesting to beliefs that they do not hold is in effect accusing them of lying. Do you really want to go there?

I don't think they necessarily lie any more.
I think they understand PR and are well versed in public appearances so we get a whole bunch of "we don't know" statements when they personally hold an opinion.
I think they have learned that sharing their opinions publicly as doctrine is a foolish thing to do.

That's not a bad thing.
But if you think that all GA's only believe 100% official Church doctrines and hold no personal opinions on doctrines I think you may be being a bit naïve.

For example those apostles sealed to two wives may say they don't know that they will have those relationships in eternity but I guarantee you they believe they will.  People don't get sealed for eternity doubting the efficacy of the ordinance.
 

Edited October 7, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think they necessarily lie any more.
I think they understand PR and are well versed in public appearances so we get a whole bunch of "we don't know" statements when they personally hold an opinion.
I think they have learned that sharing their opinions publicly as doctrine is a foolish thing to do.

 

If you don't know but hold an opinion, it is not being untruthful to say you don't know.

 

Quote

But if you think that all GA's only believe 100% official Church doctrines and hold no personal opinions on doctrines I think you may be being a bit naïve.

I never said they have no personal, unexpressed opinions. That's not the same thing as expressing a belief while harboring a contrary belief. Which is what we're talking about here.

 

Quote

For example those apostles sealed to two wives may say they don't know that they will have those relationships in eternity but I guarantee you they believe they will.  People don't get sealed for eternity doubting the efficacy of the ordinance.

They "may say"? So you're talking hypothetically here. Let's be clear about that.

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

odd that you would NOT see "murmurings" against the LDS Church and Doctrine on this board, but that you so clearly see Scott being negative about members.

Is that a case of blinders, selective vision, agenda-vision, or the need to be negative about the Church and its faithful members?

Just curious

None of the above.  I'm not negative about the Church and faithful members.  Did you not read my post... the one you responded to wherein I described how uplifted I feel when I'm around my ward and serving in my calling.

What I am tired of is Scott's off-the-mark presumptions that if you don't agree with him, you are not faithful, supplanting the Brethren, an ark-steadier, etc.

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My ears are burning...
Seriously though, there is ample evidence of this.  Joseph Smith claiming only one wife while having many wives or telling people that he only proposed Hyrum lead the Church to test them would be two more examples.

You can call it lying if you like.  It really is keeping your pearls secret from those who would trample them like swine.
In Joseph's day secrets were kept by circulation of other teachings.  In our day I think personal secret beliefs are hidden behind the "we don't really know about that" answers.
 

I belong to a church that I thought I knew and believed was a certain way. But they don't believe that way at all.

Is there something else that will pop up again? Since becoming aware in the last 10 years about...Mountain Meadows Massacre, Second Annointing, Adam/God Theory, Joseph's 33 wives and polyandry, Brigham's polyandry, that we are going to be Gods and Godesses with millions/billions of spirit children in a world we created, King Follet's Discourse, BoA and BoM translantion process of a stone in a hat, different versions of the FV...the list goes on.

Am I going to find out something else that will make me stumble and fall? 

I guess it could be something that is current and not in the past too. What if I don't get the answer that any of this is from God? What then?  

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you don't know but hold an opinion, it is not being untruthful to say you don't know.

I never said they have no personal, unexpressed opinions. That's not the same thing as expressing a belief while harboring a contrary belief. Which is what we're talking about here.

 They "may say"? So you're talking hypothetically here. Let's be clear about that.

If you believe your opinion it is a belief.
If you keep that opinion/belief to yourself and voice an "I don't know" it is PR.

I guarantee that the GA's "believe" many things that they only say "we don't know" about publicly.

And as for the last point
"But for people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, “What will life be in the next life, when you’re married to more than one wife for eternity?” I have to say I don’t know. But I know that I’ve made those covenants, and I believe if I am true to the covenants that the blessing that’s anticipated here will be realized in the next life. How? Why, I don’t know. " - Elder Oaks

Do you really think Elder Oaks doesn't believe fully he will have two wives in the next world?  But he can't say that.  So he says he anticipates a blessing but he doesn't know what it will be.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

If you believe your opinion it is a belief.
If you keep that opinion/belief to yourself and voice an "I don't know" it is PR.

I guarantee that the GA's "believe" many things that they only say "we don't know" about publicly.

And as for the last point
"But for people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, “What will life be in the next life, when you’re married to more than one wife for eternity?” I have to say I don’t know. But I know that I’ve made those covenants, and I believe if I am true to the covenants that the blessing that’s anticipated here will be realized in the next life. How? Why, I don’t know. " - Elder Oaks

Do you really think Elder Oaks doesn't believe fully he will have two wives in the next world?  But he can't say that.  So he says he anticipates a blessing but he doesn't know what it will be.

Why can't he say that he believes he'll have two wives?  Isn't that what the sealing promises?  This confuses me.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I belong to a church that I thought I knew and believed was a certain way. But they don't believe that way at all.

Is there something else that will pop up again? Since becoming aware in the last 10 years about...Mountain Meadows Massacre, Second Annointing, Adam/God Theory, Joseph's 33 wives and polyandry, Brigham's polyandry, that we are going to be Gods and Godesses with millions/billions of spirit children in a world we created, King Follet's Discourse, BoA and BoM translantion process of a stone in a hat, different versions of the FV...the list goes on.

Am I going to find out something else that will make me stumble and fall?

I guess it could be something that is current and not in the past too. What if I don't get the answer that any of this is from God? What then? 

I may not always show it here, but I am sorry for the trouble these things bring to your faith.

One of the things I try to gain from this board is to understand WHY these things trouble so much?  I don't experience any problem with these teachings but many do.
Take Adam/God.  Ok, most don't believe it, great.  But why is the very concept troubling?  What is the negative aspect of the doctrine if it were to be true?
Or the stone in a hat?  Or the King Follett doctrines?  Why are these SO troubling?  What is so negative about them to some people?

At least I understand why polygamy and the Mountain Meadows Massacre would trouble people.  That I can understand.
But some of the theological doctrines?  Why are they so problematic for many?

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why can't he say that he believes he'll have two wives?  Isn't that what the sealing promises?  This confuses me.

Me too.
But I think we both know why he won't say it clearly.

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're talking gibberish.

Saying the Brethren are attesting to beliefs that they do not hold is in effect accusing them of lying. Do you really want to go there?

No gibberish.  Read the other thread if you haven't already.  And, you can't possibly know what all of the church leaders believe.  All we can know is what they teach.

I'm not saying I agree with JLHPROF, but just pointing out what some believe.

Edited October 7, 2016 by ALarson

[UtahTexan]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

None of the above.  I'm not negative about the Church and faithful members.  Did you not read my post... the one you responded to wherein I described how uplifted I feel when I'm around my ward and serving in my calling.

What I am tired of is Scott's off-the-mark presumptions that if you don't agree with him, you are not faithful, supplanting the Brethren, an ark-steadier, etc.

Thank you for your response.

If you are tired of Scott's comments, fine.  I happen to enjoy them a lot.  Where you lose credibility is when you say you do not see the "murmurings" against the Church or Doctrine here.  A plethora of it exists.  If it didn't, you would have no complaints about Scott because all he does is defend.

Hope that makes sense.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ahh..  Ok, let me try to clarify.  I was saying that through the processes of research, study, prayer, contemplation, a person can come to a very different view on something than they originally had.  I call this process of realizing something is different than you originally thought it was, revelation.  

I wouldn't say that revelations need to align with church teachings.  Some will be about subject matters that the church has no teachings about, like refinancing my house, or a scientific or artistic endeavor.  Other areas where religion intersects, a person may find that their personal revelation conflicts with teachings of certain church leaders.  Ultimately, whether something is revelation or not, probably depends more on the individual and how they feel, than on some objective measurement.  

I think that is a different kind of revelation than what is referred to in General Conference and the link I provided earlier (for example, in the case of the OP talk, as used in the phrase, “a principle as revealed by the Lord: “Men are, that they might have joy.” Of course the kind of revelation you refer to (a surprising and previously unknown fact typically characterized as having been arrived at in a particularly dramatic manner) may or may not have much or little to do with aligning with Church teachings.

I was asking that you provide an example where, through your personal efforts to research, study, pray, and contemplate you experienced an about-face in your thinking so that you now align with a Church teaching. Even better if it involved the kind of spiritual revelation LDS leaders speak about in their talks. Do you have any to share?

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why can't he say that he believes he'll have two wives?  Isn't that what the sealing promises?  This confuses me.

Maybe he believes the Holy Spirit of Promise must ratify that before he believes it, and so cannot say that he believes it.

Edited October 7, 2016 by CV75

[Rich Hansen]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you're harboring an image of the Book of Mormon as being fictional, you differ with the teachings of the apostles and prophets. To the extent, if any, that you try to promulgate that view, you endeavor to supplant their teachings with your own interpretation.

Scott, are you saying that the position of the Church is that the Book of Mormon is 100% accurate in every way?  IOW, everything contained in the BofM happened as written?

This would mean that all the ancient BofM authors got everything correct with no bias or errors in memory or writing. Joseph Smith would have made a perfect translation as well, without bias or errors.

That would seemingly be an impossible achievement, given that the BofM covers a thousand year time period.

To the extent that any of the BofM contains errors or bias, it contains fiction.

I doubt the Church has taken that view.

 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think they necessarily lie any more.
I think they understand PR and are well versed in public appearances so we get a whole bunch of "we don't know" statements when they personally hold an opinion.
I think they have learned that sharing their opinions publicly as doctrine is a foolish thing to do.

That's not a bad thing.
But if you think that all GA's only believe 100% official Church doctrines and hold no personal opinions on doctrines I think you may be being a bit naïve.

For example those apostles sealed to two wives may say they don't know that they will have those relationships in eternity but I guarantee you they believe they will.  People don't get sealed for eternity doubting the efficacy of the ordinance.
 

I agree.

I still have doubts that many leaders today privately believe in the Adam/God doctrine, but then teach something else publicly.  But who knows?  There may be some who still believe in it and then choose to keep that belief private.

Which only supports what I expressed earlier.  None of us can really know what personal beliefs our leaders have and they are under no obligation to share them all with church members. 

.

Edited October 7, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Me too.
But I think we both know why he won't say it clearly.

No, I don't.  Why is he ashamed of our beliefs and doctrine?

Why will he go out and give speeches teaching things that many find extremely offensive but he won't fess up to this particular belief?