Sounding the Retreat?

[Robert F. Smith]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

..............................................................  
So I say again, there is only one way back to God's presence.  No other means or new traditions will be efficacious.  This makes the Church supremely significant.
And there is nothing in holy writ that would lead one to believe otherwise.

Jesus is the only Truth, Way, and Life.  It is only through Him that we may find our way back.  His Gospel is the content of that Way.  The details behind those observations are manifold, and it is LDS doctrine that God speaks to those both in and out of the LDS Church in furtherance of His goals.  God's priesthood (which includes both LDS ordination and Jewish lineage holders) has full authority to devise ways in which to bring His purposes to pass as they are moved by the Holy Ghost.

One of the most important signs of the times that indicates the Latter Days (Eschaton) are upon us, is the active existence of the State of Israel since 1948, and its possession of old Jerusalem since 1967 -- done without any consideration for LDS authority, opinion, or desire.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it was not cultural expectations (in that case resisting changes in the new church rather than pushing for change...simplified summary in both cases, of course) creating contention in the Church that led to early massive apostasies, what do you see as causing them?

Well one of the largest apostasies in Church history was over money (Kirtland).  Not that the American culture of the time changed and the Church didn't "adapt".
Polygamy caused another large apostasy, in that case the Church moved away from cultural expectations instead of society.

Any time our societal culture begins to differ significantly from what the Church is promoting a large apostasy seems to occur.  Had the 1978 revelation not come I think you'd see very few members still in the Church.  Being considered racist is one of the worst labels to receive in today's society.  Homophobic and sexist are two labels growing in popularity among membership.  Eventually people will choose to leave the Church rather than endure those labels from their neighbors.

But that's kind of an aside from your question.
Other major apostasies since the restoration have come because of sex, money, and power.  Sometimes they have been cultural, sometimes due to circumstance.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jesus is the only Truth, Way, and Life.  It is only through Him that we may find our way back.  His Gospel is the content of that Way.  The details behind those observations are manifold, and it is LDS doctrine that God speaks to those both in and out of the LDS Church in furtherance of His goals.  God's priesthood (which includes both LDS ordination and Jewish lineage holders) has full authority to devise ways in which to bring His purposes to pass as they are moved by the Holy Ghost.

One of the most important signs of the times that indicates the Latter Days (Eschaton) are upon us, is the active existence of the State of Israel since 1948, and its possession of old Jerusalem since 1967 -- done without any consideration for LDS authority, opinion, or desire.

All true.
God works in many ways to lead us to the one way.  But rejection of the one way is always a dead end.

[stemelbow]

54 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You stated:
"I don't know why it's sad though, because in truth God doesn't see the Church as that significant or that important, obviously.  He has far too many other means to inspire and instruct people it seems.  Our goals of reaching out to the world is probably not commensurate with what God intends.  We're likely too stuck in tradition, afraid of change, afraid of others to be much more than a backwater religion influencing next to no one. "

1. The Church is not that significant or important.
2. God has other means to inspire and instruct.
3. Church is stuck in tradition and may not be able to influence anyone.

So I say again, there is only one way back to God's presence.  No other means or new traditions will be efficacious.  This makes the Church supremely significant.
And there is nothing in holy writ that would lead one to believe otherwise.

What in holy writ do you have in mind when you think the modern Church is as essential as you say?  I'm not saying you're wrong, but I want to consider what your saying more fully.

thanks.

[stemelbow]

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not significant or important to God?  I hope you are just being facetious.  God bestowed the keys of the kingdom to this church and you think that not significant or obvious that it is important to Him?  This church is important to God for more reasons than just inspiration and instruction.

That may be.  But I'm speaking about the Church in terms of reaching people. 

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you recognize that our goals and efforts are not commensurate with what God intends, then you acknowledge that this church is significant and important in the eyes of God.  I think you are probably right about this though, that it is man and not God who's perception of the church is less than it should be.  

k.

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What in holy writ do you have in mind when you think the modern Church is as essential as you say?  I'm not saying you're wrong, but I want to consider what your saying more fully.

thanks.

The ordinances performed by authorized priesthood authority. While our theology allows for people to accept these post-humously by proxy, even these ordinances still must be done. And they are only done . . . through the modern Church.

I don't think it gets any more essential than that.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

The ordinances performed by authorized priesthood authority. While our theology allows for people to accept these post-humously by proxy, even these ordinances still must be done. And they are only done . . . through the modern Church.

I don't think it gets any more essential than that.

Let me go back to help with the context I had in mind here.  I suggested God doesn't seem to hold the Church as significant as we often tend to think in terms of a source of inspiration and instruction.  I haven't put into consideration the ordinances we are told are essential for exaltation.

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That may be.  But I'm speaking about the Church in terms of reaching people.

 

Oh, I see.  Not important as far as God reaching people.  I would agree with that.  God can reach people with or without the Church.
The problem is people cannot return to his presence without the Church.  That makes it supremely important don't you think?

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Let me go back to help with the context I had in mind here.  I suggested God doesn't seem to hold the Church as significant as we often tend to think in terms of a source of inspiration and instruction.  I haven't put into consideration the ordinances we are told are essential for exaltation.

I agree with that. The Church doesn't have a monopoly on truth or "best practices."

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

True of course.  But you know as well as I do that there are many beliefs entering the Church membership today that are societal in nature and have no revelatory backing.  And that members embrace them because of their prevalence in the society.
Has it happened before?  Sure.  Has it cause huge numbers to waver?  Not like it is today.

The church has been influenced by outside philosophies from the founding until today. Whether or not we think of those as inspired is of course totally subjective. 

What philosophies in particular do you feel are currently influencing the church and causing huge numbers to waver? Certainly the nature of what we call revelation has changed significantly. Is that what you have in mind? 

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

The church has been influenced by outside philosophies from the founding until today. Whether or not we think of those as inspired is of course totally subjective. 

What philosophies in particular do you feel are currently influencing the church and causing huge numbers to waver? Certainly the nature of what we call revelation has changed significantly. Is that what you have in mind? 

"huge numbers" are wavering?  and the "nature of . . . revelation has changed significantly"?  Neither statement is true.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

The ordinances performed by authorized priesthood authority. While our theology allows for people to accept these post-humously by proxy, even these ordinances still must be done. And they are only done . . . through the modern Church.

I don't think it gets any more essential than that.

Are the ordinances you mention in holy writ? 

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Are the ordinances you mention in holy writ? 

Do they have to be?

[probablyHagoth7]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Are the ordinances you mention in holy writ? 

Depends on what you mean.

"Ordinance" in 21st-century LDS thought has mutated quite a bit from its broader meaning in the early 19th century

Edited May 18, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Are the ordinances you mention in holy writ? 

For those with eyes to see.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"huge numbers" are wavering?  and the "nature of . . . revelation has changed significantly"?  Neither statement is true.

The huge numbers was J's claim, I was just asking about it. I do think the concept of revelation is much different today than in the days of JS

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

................................................... I do think the concept of revelation is much different today than in the days of JS

Howso?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Are the ordinances you mention in holy writ? 

 

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Do they have to be?

No, they don't have to be.  After all, they are sacred/ secret ordinances -- esoterica.  However, they do appear in Holy Writ throughout the world.   Whole books have been written about them.  They are only visible to the discerning eye.

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Do they have to be?

I don't know.  Jlhprof is the one who said holy writ.  I asked him and Rongo chimed in with non holy writ stuff.  Took us all a little off course I guess

Edited May 19, 2017 by stemelbow

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Howso?

I think in the early day revelation was often couched in terms of discrete, verbal messages from God. Now we often talk about revelation as things like councils coming together and agreeing on something.  Essentially a church business meeting that ends eith everyone agreeing is revelation now. I don't offer that as criticism, just observation.

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think in the early day revelation was often couched in terms of discrete, verbal messages from God. Now we often talk about revelation as things like councils coming together and agreeing on something.  Essentially a church business meeting that ends eith everyone agreeing is revelation now. I don't offer that as criticism, just observation.

I think the other form is extremely common too. 

[Kenngo1969]

No, I don't think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sounded the retreat.  Changed its approach somewhat?  Adapted that approach with changing times?  Perhaps.  But sounded the retreat?  No.  With due respect, that sounds more like wishful thinking on your part, Erik.  I'm reminded of a verse from "Let Us All Press On" from the current Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints (1985) (emphasis mine):

Quote

 

We will not retreat though our numbers may be few

When compared with the opposite host in view

But an unseen power will aid me and you

In the glorious cause of truth.

Fear not, though the enemy deride

Courage, for the Lord is on our side.

We will heed not what the wicked may say

But the Lord, alone, we will obey.

 

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Kenngo1969
Deleted repeated line

[rongo]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know.  Jlhprof is the one who said holy writ.  I asked him and Rongo chimed in with non holy writ stuff.  Took us all a little off course I guess

I'll get back on this at some point, probably next week. We're off to go camping.

[Robert F. Smith]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think in the early day revelation was often couched in terms of discrete, verbal messages from God. Now we often talk about revelation as things like councils coming together and agreeing on something.  Essentially a church business meeting that ends eith everyone agreeing is revelation now. I don't offer that as criticism, just observation.

I don't think that is true, and it doesn't make any sense.  Perhaps you could address actual rather than purported "revelations."  That might help clarify the issue. Maybr start with the 1978 revelation.  In covering all aspects of it, does it appear to be a "church business meeting" with a strong dose of group think?  Or is something else arguably going on?

[clarkgoble]

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't think that is true, and it doesn't make any sense.  Perhaps you could address actual rather than purported "revelations."  That might help clarify the issue. Maybr start with the 1978 revelation.  In covering all aspects of it, does it appear to be a "church business meeting" with a strong dose of group think?  Or is something else arguably going on?

I don't think 1978 fits his criteria too well although that's usually what people point to as a business meeting with everyone feeling confirmation. 

The problem I have with this view is that the #1 example of revelation in the Church are priesthood blessings which are explicitly textual in nature. Not just healing blessings or giving a name blessings but apostolic blessings members of the 12 will occasionally give when prompted by the spirit.