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

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, UtahTexan said:

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.

The key part here is in how you define murmurings.  That is where Scott and I differ... if someone here proposes something that is contrary to mainstream LDS thought, I don't see it as a complaint or as murmuring.  It would seem that you and Scott do.  Nearly everyone on this board is a member or is somehow sympathetic to Mormonism.  It's childish to categorize their contributions here as "complaining and murmuring" rather than engage the discussion. 

[UtahTexan]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The key part here is in how you define murmurings.  That is where Scott and I differ... if someone here proposes something that is contrary to mainstream LDS thought, I don't see it as a complaint or as murmuring.  It would seem that you and Scott do.  Nearly everyone on this board is a member or is somehow sympathetic to Mormonism.  It's childish to categorize their contributions here as "complaining and murmuring" rather than engage the discussion. 

I suppose that, when faced with being wring, it helps to choose a definition that suits your agenda.

I checked the DICTIONARY definition...

[mur-mer] 

Spell Syllables

noun

1.

a low, continuous sound, as of a brook, the wind, or trees, or of low,indistinct voices.

2.

a mumbled or private expression of discontent.

 

We can also check the Bible Dictionary

 

MURMUR; MURMURINGS

mur'-mur, mur'-mur-ingz:

The Hebrew word (lun) denotes the semi-articulated mutterings of disaffected persons. It is used in connection with the complaints of the Israelites in the desert against Yahweh on the one hand, and against Moses and Aaron on the other hand (Exodus 16:7,8; Numbers 14:27,36; 16:11; 17:5). In three places (Deuteronomy 1:27; Psalms 106:25; Isaiah 29:24), "murmur" translates a Hebrew word (raghan) which suggests the malicious whispering of slander.

In the New Testament "murmur" renders two different words, namely, gogguzo, and embrimaomai. The latter word suggests indignation and fault-finding (Mark 14:4 the King James Version). The former word (or a compound of it) is generally used in connection with the complainings of the Pharisees and scribes (Matthew 20:11; Luke 5:30; 15:2; 19:7).

 

So, I stand by my original comment.  You are picking and choosing what you call murmurings and then changing the definition to justify said usage.

 

 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

I suppose that, when faced with being wring, it helps to choose a definition that suits your agenda.

I checked the DICTIONARY definition...

[mur-mer] 

Spell Syllables

noun

1.

a low, continuous sound, as of a brook, the wind, or trees, or of low,indistinct voices.

2.

a mumbled or private expression of discontent.

 

We can also check the Bible Dictionary

 

MURMUR; MURMURINGS

mur'-mur, mur'-mur-ingz:

The Hebrew word (lun) denotes the semi-articulated mutterings of disaffected persons. It is used in connection with the complaints of the Israelites in the desert against Yahweh on the one hand, and against Moses and Aaron on the other hand (Exodus 16:7,8; Numbers 14:27,36; 16:11; 17:5). In three places (Deuteronomy 1:27; Psalms 106:25; Isaiah 29:24), "murmur" translates a Hebrew word (raghan) which suggests the malicious whispering of slander.

In the New Testament "murmur" renders two different words, namely, gogguzo, and embrimaomai. The latter word suggests indignation and fault-finding (Mark 14:4 the King James Version). The former word (or a compound of it) is generally used in connection with the complainings of the Pharisees and scribes (Matthew 20:11; Luke 5:30; 15:2; 19:7).

 

So, I stand by my original comment.  You are picking and choosing what you call murmurings and then changing the definition to justify said usage.

 

 

So anyone who disagrees with you and Scott and tries to join in on a discussion here is murmuring? 

This is a Mormon dialogue and discussion board.  If you are going to look at people who disagree and deem them to be murmuring it doesn't foster the discourse that is the reason for this board to exist.

It's not murmuring.  It's not complaining.  It's just discussion and dialogue.  There are supposed to be differing points of view.

Edited October 8, 2016 by rockpond

[UtahTexan]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So anyone who disagrees with you and Scott and tries to join in on a discussion here is murmuring? 

This is a Mormon dialogue and discussion board.  If you are going to look at people who disagree and deem them to be murmuring it doesn't foster the discourse that is the reason for this board to exist.

It's not murmuring.  It's not complaining.  It's just discussion and dialogue.  There are supposed to be differing points of view.

Rock, first, it makes it a better conversation if you do not put words in my mouth.  First, I never said anything other than I like Scott's comments and then I gave a definition of "murmuring" when you were abusing the word to fit an agenda.

I have been around the block and worked and lived in situations where people debate and discuss for a very long time.  I absolutely can tell the difference between someone asking questions or making comments because they want to learn and/or discuss....and when a person makes comments with the intent of being negative.  Can't you?

Scott can.  I can.  I believe most people can.

Can't you?

Edited October 8, 2016 by UtahTexan

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, UtahTexan said:

Rock, first, it makes it a better conversation if you do not put words in my mouth.  First, I never said anything other than I like Scott's comments and then I gave a definition of "murmuring" when you were abusing the word to fit an agenda.

Well, first, do you know you have two firsts? 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, UtahTexan said:

Rock, first, it makes it a better conversation if you do not put words in my mouth.  First, I never said anything other than I like Scott's comments and then I gave a definition of "murmuring" when you were abusing the word to fit an agenda.

I have been around the block and worked and lived in situations where people debate and discuss for a very long time.  I absolutely can tell the difference between someone asking questions or making comments because they want to learn and/or discuss....and when a person makes comments with the intent of being negative.  Can't you?

Scott can.  I can.  I believe most people can.

Can't you?

I can.  And I don't believe I have abused the word murmur. 

Why don't you provide some real examples of murmuring that go on here and let's analyze. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 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.

 

5 hours ago, Rich Hansen said:

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.

 

I was referring here to the notion that the Book of Mormon has no historical authenticity at all, that it is entirely fictional, that it was invented out of whole cloth by Joseph Smith or someone else, that the Nephites and Lamanites and Jeredites and Mulekites never existed. I'm saying this belief is totally at odds with what the prophets and apostles teach.

That said, I think it important to bear in mind that Book of Mormon as it has come to us today was essentially prepared by three individuals: Nephi, who founded the civilization of God's people in the western hemisphere; Mormon, who abridged most of the record; and his son Moroni, who finished the record and sealed it up to come forth in latter-days. My impression of these men is that they acted under the guidance of God and whatever errors that may exist in the book in its present form were minimized by that divine guidance.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[UtahTexan]

57 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, first, do you know you have two firsts? 

yep...but they were equal......I could not make one SECOND...sheesh

[UtahTexan]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I can.  And I don't believe I have abused the word murmur. 

Why don't you provide some real examples of murmuring that go on here and let's analyze. 

Based on your definition, you did...you altered it to fit your agenda.

and no....if you know, as you claim...and I know...then we both know....and we can be honest..there is a lot of "murmuring"

[rockpond]

Just now, UtahTexan said:

Based on your definition, you did...you altered it to fit your agenda.

and no....if you know, as you claim...and I know...then we both know....and we can be honest..there is a lot of "murmuring"

Your inability to identify murmuring and how I "abused" the definition is noted. 

[rockpond]

Just now, UtahTexan said:

Based on your definition, you did...you altered it to fit your agenda.

and no....if you know, as you claim...and I know...then we both know....and we can be honest..there is a lot of "murmuring"

Your inability to identify murmuring and how I "abused" the definition is noted. 

[UtahTexan]

56 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your inability to identify murmuring and how I "abused" the definition is noted. 

There you go again...putting words in my mouth and, in a typical move for you, you take things out of context to further your agenda.

I can just as easily say, "your inability to recognize it, shows you have no clue"

But then, I would be you

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

There you go again...putting words in my mouth and, in a typical move for you, you take things out of context to further your agenda.

I can just as easily say, "your inability to recognize it, shows you have no clue"

But then, I would be you

I didn't accuse you of abusing a definition to further an agenda.  If you are going to make an accusation, you ought to be willing to back it up. 

What I think is happening is that Scott is hearing opinions that differ from his and calling those murmuring and complaints. 

[UtahTexan]

Just now, rockpond said:

I didn't accuse you of abusing a definition to further an agenda.  If you are going to make an accusation, you ought to be willing to back it up. 

What I think is happening is that Scott is hearing opinions that differ from his and calling those murmuring and complaints. 

I know you didn't.  because I didn't.  You claimed a definition of "murmuring" that suited your agenda and I posted the definitions that showed your error.  hence my comments.

Then, to add to your agenda-defining definitions, you put words in my mouth and claimed a refusal to list the plethora of murmurings was an admission of sorts.

That kind of stuff just makes your arguments look weak.  And it does not add to an adult discussion.

 

[Rich Hansen]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I was referring here to the notion that the Book of Mormon has no historical authenticity at all, that it is entirely fictional, that it was invented out of whole cloth by Joseph Smith or someone else, that the Nephites and Lamanites and Jeredites and Mulekites never existed. I'm saying this belief is totally at odds with what the prophets and apostles teach.

That said, I think it important to bear in mind that Book of Mormon as it has come to us today was essentially prepared by three individuals: Nephi, who founded the civilization of God's people in the western hemisphere; Mormon, who abridged most of the record; and his son Moroni, who finished the record and sealed it up to come forth in latter-days. My impression of these men is that they acted under the guidance of God and whatever errors that may exist in the book in its present form were minimized by that divine guidance.

You seem to leave open the possibility that while the Nephites, Lamanites, Jaredites and Mulekites existed, there might be some factual errors contained in the Book of Mormon about these people.  IOW, one could believe in the historicity of these groups, but not necessarily complete accuracy as to how their history is portrayed?  Can you allow for that possibility?

What is your view of the Book of Abraham?  Need it be historically correct?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

I know you didn't.  because I didn't.  You claimed a definition of "murmuring" that suited your agenda and I posted the definitions that showed your error.  hence my comments.

Then, to add to your agenda-defining definitions, you put words in my mouth and claimed a refusal to list the plethora of murmurings was an admission of sorts.

That kind of stuff just makes your arguments look weak.  And it does not add to an adult discussion.

 

Several posts up you wrote: "...you were abusing the word to fit an agenda."  Did you not?

The definitions you posted weren't contrary to what I had written. 

So, what I asked for is proof to support your accusation that I have abused the word to fit my agenda. 

[UtahTexan]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Several posts up you wrote: "...you were abusing the word to fit an agenda."  Did you not?

The definitions you posted weren't contrary to what I had written. 

So, what I asked for is proof to support your accusation that I have abused the word to fit my agenda. 

ah..you have selective reading and reasoning.

Noted.

When you understand murmurings, we can have a better discussion.  Until then, have an awesome weekend

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

ah..you have selective reading and reasoning.

Noted.

When you understand murmurings, we can have a better discussion.  Until then, have an awesome weekend

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. 

Edited October 8, 2016 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Rich Hansen said:

You seem to leave open the possibility that while the Nephites, Lamanites, Jaredites and Mulekites existed, there might be some factual errors contained in the Book of Mormon about these people.  IOW, one could believe in the historicity of these groups, but not necessarily complete accuracy as to how their history is portrayed?  Can you allow for that possibility?

 

Because of God's hand in its coming forth, I trust that the Book of Mormon is substantially correct, and I see no need to doubt it in any particular.

Quote

What is your view of the Book of Abraham?  Need it be historically correct?

Not precisely sure what it is you're asking here, but I believe the Book of Abraham to be what it purports to be.

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

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?

One word.  Polygamy.  A word they avoid if at all possible and most especially when it's associated with one of our current leaders.

Edited October 8, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

One word.  Polygamy.  A word they avoid if at all possible and most especially when it's associated with one of our current leaders.

So his beliefs about the sealing power and the next life are strong enough to compel him to condemn gays but not strong enough to get him to acknowledge his two wives?

 

Edited October 8, 2016 by rockpond

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

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?

According to Greg Prince, he was told by Helen Whitney who produced, directed and wrote the PBS show "The Mormons", we Mormons don't own our religion. 

http://www.mormonstories.org/helen-whitney-on-mormons-owning-their-history-and-doctrine/

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So his beliefs about the sealing power and the next life are strong enough to compel him to condemn gays but not strong enough to get him to acknowledge his two wives?

 

Apparently so.  

They really, really, really do not want members taking a closer look at the topic of polygamy. That one issue alone has caused more people to leave the church than any other, IMO.

.

Edited October 8, 2016 by ALarson

[cinepro]

On 10/7/2016 at 2:02 PM, UtahTexan said:

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.

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.

[hope_for_things]

On 10/7/2016 at 4:55 PM, CV75 said:

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?

 

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.