Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That God loves her and accepts her as is?

This is false (to put it bluntly).  While God does love all of us he is continually calling on all of his children to repent.  He is asking every one of us to be something more than we are now. 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. I don't except your "ambushed" or "torpedoed" metaphor. People stand up on open mike Sunday and say all kinds of things. It's not unusual to hear quirky or strange comments during testimonies. If you've never experienced that, you must be attending a different church. Leaders have options for how they can appropriately handle a situation they consider to be inappropriate. It's not like this is the first time a leader had to correct a testimony, doctrine or talk.

I've never seen a mike cut in the middle of someone speaking and then telling that person to go sit down. What I have seen is a presiding leader stand up and gently put a hand on a shoulder and whisper into an ear asking someone to end and sit down. So saying there is nothing else they could have done is ridiculous because it is usually handled differently.

Or...

What I've seen most often is the person is allowed to finish, assuming they're not taking an inordinate amount of time (which this girl was not). Then the presiding leader stands up and reiterates the correct doctrinal teaching of the church. Easy peasy. No rudeness. No jerkiness. The leaders handled this terribly and they should be embarrassed by it as much as I believe the church was.

This is what I've seen too.  The situation I witnessed was a man got up from the audience and started preaching like hell fire and brimstone to us (calling us to repentance).  Everyone sat up and took notice of course and started looking around at each other.  He did settle down , but then started up again.  At that point (it had been many minutes), the Bishop got up, put his arm around him and kindly asked him to close his remarks.  The man did and sat down.

I honestly would have probably just allowed this young girl to finish.  Her remarks were from her heart even if they were prepared in advance.  However, if she'd continued on and on (repeating herself), I may have put my arm around her and asked her to close so others would have time to get up and bear their testimonies.  

Handled differently, this could have been really good PR for the church.  Instead it was just the opposite.

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But this girl did not teach false doctrine. She wasn't teaching anything. She was bearing a testimony.

We've been over this.  She was bearing testimony of false doctrine.  And she knew going in that she was expressing a view contrary to the Church's teaching.  Or at the very least her mother knew full well.

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That God loves her and accepts her as is?

There's that confusion of love and acceptance again.

OFF TOPIC

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This is false (to put it bluntly).  While God does love all of us he is continually calling on all of his children to repent.  He is asking every one of us to be something more than we are now. 

And you know the spirit didn't testify that to her how? What exactly does this girl have to repent of?

 

OFF TOPIC

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

It can be difficult to notice changes going on around us. But even in the 90s I remember hearing a lot more talks about how perfection is possible and we should strive for it. Also a lot more talks about being saved by works and faith. Now I hear talks about how perfection is not required and more talks about grace.

When I read bits from the Journal of Discourses, it seems like a window into a totally different and alien church.

1

As for talks about how perfection is possible, I've never been under the impression that it was church doctrine. Are you talking about General Conference talks? As for myself, I've actually never heard any talk, sacrament meeting or otherwise, where this was claimed to be doctrine.  

Not even Christ called himself perfect until after the resurrection when he visited the people in the Americas. Perfection like unto our Father in Heaven is apparently unattainable in mortality, but is a feature of our resurrected and glorified state. My impression of that verse in Matthew (5:28) was that is was the ultimate goal, unattainable in this life, but still to be striven for. 

Well, maybe I should read somewhat in the JoD. 

ETA: On the other hand, I think that becoming perfect is something we can theoretically achieve if we work hard enough at it. Can I become perfect at paying tithing? I think so. As can I become perfect at not murdering anyone, not stealing, and so on. Having once sinned, we are lost but for Christ's atonement, but having once sinned, I think it is possible to stop sinning. At that point we are as perfect as we can get, in mortality.

Now, if you want to talk about being a perfect home teacher, or perfect sunday school teacher, and such, then perhaps that is a hopeless cause. But being an imperfect home teacher, for example, is not per se a sin. In my humble opinion, at least.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Stargazer

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We've been over this.  She was bearing testimony of false doctrine.  And she knew going in that she was expressing a view contrary to the Church's teaching.  Or at the very least her mother knew full well.

There's that confusion of love and acceptance again.

What confusion? Saying someone is loved and accepted is not the same as saying love = acceptance. And last I checked, what the spirit testifies to a person is between that person and the spirit. 

 

OFF TOPIC

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There's that confusion of love and acceptance again.

She's 12 years old.  I hope she believes that God loves and accepts her.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

And you know the spirit didn't testify that to her how? What exactly does this girl have to repent of?

I'm assuming she's like every other person who's ever lived on this planet, excepting Christ, and she does sin from time to time. 

[Bernard Gui]

50 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It seems pretty clear to me.

"Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people may “progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny.”

"Just as a child can develop the attributes of his or her parents over time, the divine nature that humans inherit can be developed to become like their Heavenly Father's."

"God’s loving parentage and guidance can help each willing, obedient child of God receive of His fulness and of His glory."

"In a revelation recorded in July 1843 that linked exaltation with eternal marriage, the Lord declared that those who keep covenants, including the covenant of eternal marriage, will inherit “all heights and depths.” “Then,” says the revelation, “shall they be gods, because they have no end.” They will receive “a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.”

God “was once as one of us” and “all the spirits that God ever sent into the world” were likewise “susceptible of enlargement.”

Joseph told the assembled Saints, “You have got to learn how to be a god yourself.”³⁹ In order to do that, the Saints needed to learn godliness, or to be more like God.

As Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote, “Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.”

And this explicit First Presidency declaration republished to the current Membership....

Quote

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

 

This thread is going to be closed if the 12 yr old girl debate starts up again. Everybody go back to the topic. Thanks, Bernard Gui.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I'm assuming she's like every other person who's ever lived on this planet, excepting Christ, and she does sin from time to time. 

Of course, but that's irrelevant as to whether we are justified and forgiven by God. You seem to be suggesting that the Atonement isn't enough to cover some unspecified sin that she's committed at 12 years old. Maybe I'm not understanding you. As quoted earlier in the thread, Elder Nelson said we are perfect insofar as we are doing our best and relying on the atoning blood of the Savior. If she's doing her best, she's "perfect" as is.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What confusion? Saying someone is loved and accepted is not the same as saying love = acceptance. And last I checked, what the spirit testifies to a person is between that person and the spirit. 

Of course spiritual testimonies are personal.  I would never say otherwise.

But can you really say "what confusion"?  You know as well as I do that in our current society it is stated that love requires acceptance.
Anyone who doesn't accept someone "exactly as they are" will always be accused of not loving them.
There are so many so-called "inspirational memes" stating this...it's the current socially accepted conflation of the two.

And so forth...

Countdown til closure . . . . . 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

And this explicit First Presidency declaration republished to the current Membership....

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

I think what has happened is that the teachings have become less specific (for lack of a better word, but I hope you know what I mean.....fewer specific details regarding what it means to become or live like God).  I think that is change too, but there have definitely been some things consistently taught that are still taught today.

Some teachings about having your own world, needing to live polygamy to populate those worlds, etc. are really no longer taught.

That's what has evolved and changed over the years, IMO.

This probably applies to many others on that original list given earlier on this thread.

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Maybe for you, but others have seen great changes and feel differently.   I don't know if he'd recognize it or not, but he'd for sure see changes have been made. He'd probably still recognize some things and other things would be different for him.

I've also heard the claim that Joseph Smith couldn't pass a current temple recommend interview.  Most likely that has to do with the WofW changes...

So yes, things have changed.  I don't see that as a negative but as a good thing and as progress.  Things will continue to change and evolve, IMO.

I've been working on a project involving the musical activities of my grandfather and great-grandfather in southern Colorado Mormon colonies from around 1890 to 1934. Part of the work includes reading first-person life stories they wrote, remembrances written by and interviews with them recorded by their children in which they may have remarked on their music. I have also been reading my great-uncle's missionary diaries from his mission in the southern states around 1900-1904. 

I have been struck at the consistency of their words and beliefs with what I hear in the Church today, even down to the details of their weekly family nights. They may be surprised by some changes in the Church since they were alive, but what I read is not much earth shatteringly different from what we do and what we believe today.I certainly would expect them to be very comfortable sitting in a modern chapel.

I think Joseph was enough of a man of God that he would be fine with the current temple recommend questions. Even Brother Brigham expressed frustrations with his and his generation's' difficulties discarding entrenched habits that prevented them from observing the Word of Wisdom fully. He stated his hope that with proper teaching the youth of the Church would be able to accept and live it fully. He suggested concentrating efforts on them and worked toward establishing it as a hallmark of the Saints.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think Joseph was enough of a man of God that he would be fine with the current temple recommend questions. 

No one today (that I know of), can drink wine and get a temple recommend.  I think that's what people mean.  Requirements and questions have changed.   That's what change means.  Not good always or bad always, but much has changed from the early days in the church.

Members probably weren't expected to not drink wine and beer in order to be worthy to go to the temple back then.  That has changed which is what I think this discussion is about.

Edited September 21, 2017 by JulieM

[Avatar4321]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No one today (that I know of), can drink wine and get a temple recommend.  I think that's what people mean.  Requirements and questions have changed.   That's what change means.  Not good always or bad always, but much has changed from the early days in the church.

Members probably we-rent expected to not drink wine and beer in order to be worthy to go to the temple back then.  That has changed which is what I think this discussion is about.

I've never been asked if I drink wine.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I've never been asked if I drink wine.

Now that's funny 

Maybe some are asked, but of course it's assumed now that members know abstaining from alcohol is a part of being worthy for a temple recommend.

I think that's the point.  Changes have happened over the years.

Edited September 21, 2017 by JulieM

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think what has happened is that the teachings have become less specific (for lack of a better word, but I hope you know what I mean.....fewer specific details regarding what it means to become or live like God).  I think that is change too, but there have definitely been some things consistently taught that are still taught today.

Some teachings about having your own world, needing to live polygamy to populate those worlds, etc. are really no longer taught.

That's what has evolved and changed over the years, IMO.

This probably applies to many others on that original list given earlier on this thread.

How the worlds are populated, whether one has a personal planet, how many wives....who cares? All will eventually be revealed to us.

Whatever our future holds, the implications of our destiny to become participants in "what has been done in other worlds" are astonishing. No one else believes anything even close this. This is perhaps Joseph's greatest doctrinal contribution.

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I've been working on a project involving the musical activities of my grandfather and great-grandfather in southern Colorado Mormon colonies from around 1890 to 1934. Part of the work includes reading first-person life stories they wrote, remembrances written by and interviews with them recorded by their children in which they may have remarked on their music. I have also been reading my great-uncle's missionary diaries from his mission in the southern states around 1900-1904. 

I have been struck at the consistency of their words and beliefs with what I hear in the Church today, even down to the details of their weekly family nights. They may be surprised by some changes in the Church since they were alive, but what I read is not much earth shatteringly different from what we do abs believe today.I certainly would expect them to be very comfortable sitting in a modern chapel.

I think some would and some would not.  As evidenced on this thread, some are very opposed to change of any kind (or at least admitting to any over the years).  Of course, change takes place and is very normal.  I've read many of my ancestors journals and I do admit that much of what their life was like in the church is very foreign to me (polygamy, law of consecration, and so on).  That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy reading about it and learning about it though.  But much has changed....and much stays the same.

I do love the old hymns and music, I agree with you there.  However, many of their words have been changed too over the years for different reasons.  Even primary songs have been updated or changed. 

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think Joseph was enough of a man of God that he would be fine with the current temple recommend questions. Even Brother Brigham expressed frustrations with his and his generation's' difficulties discarding entrenched habits that prevented them from observing the Word of Wisdom fully. He stated his hope that with proper teaching the youth of the Church would be able to accept and live it fully. He suggested concentrating efforts on them and worked toward establishing it as a hallmark of the Saints.

Yes, I've read that too.  I know the word of wisdom evolved and became more of an emphasis.  Once again....more change.....

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Avatar4321]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Now that's funny 

Maybe some are asked, but of course it's assumed now that members know abstaining from alcohol is a part of being worthy for a temple recommend.

I think that's the point.  Changes have happened over the years.

they just ask if you keep the word of wisdom. If you don't think wine violates that you could honestly answer yes you keep it.

you would just have to answer to the Lord for your conclusions

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How the worlds are populated, whether one has a personal planet, how many wives....who cares? All will eventually be revealed to us..

I understand having those feelings and having that attitude.  That works for some, but not for all from what I've seen.

But the point being made is that teachings have changed (or become less specific).  I think for sure the leaders have backed off the teaching that polygamy will have to be lived in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.  That one caused so many women in the church such anguish and grief (some men too most likely).  That is no longer taught.  Another change....

 

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No one today (that I know of), can drink wine and get a temple recommend.  I think that's what people mean.  Requirements and questions have changed.   That's what change means.  Not good always or bad always, but much has changed from the early days in the church.

Members probably we-rent expected to not drink wine and beer in order to be worthy to go to the temple back then.  That has changed which is what I think this discussion is about.

Of course, but to claim Joseph wouldn't qualify for a current temple recommend is absurd.  For an easy starter see....

http://www.mormonmonastery.org/papers-1-the-history-of-lds-temple-admission-standards-and-temple-recommend-questions/

Quote

Since I lack the time to post frequently, I’m going to begin calling attention to good papers that I think deserve wider circulation.

The first is Ed Kimball’s “History of LDS Temple Admission Standards” in The Journal of Mormon History, Spring (1998): 135-175. It has recently been made available both on the JMH DVD as well as on-line, from the University of Utah library, where you read it one page at a time from the menu on the left.

Kimball traces the requirements to enter the temple from Brigham Young’s day through today, the history of the Temple Recommend, and Temple Recommend interview questions.

In 1856, the Temple Recommend interview and questions had not yet been standardized to the semi-formal procedure it is today. The First Presidency sent a letter stating that those recommended by local leaders should

be those who pray, who pay their tithing from year to year; who live the lives of saints from day to day; setting good examples before their neighbors. Men and women, boys and girls over 16 years of age who are living the lives of saints, believer in the plurality [plural marriage], and do not speak evil of the authorities of the Church, and possess true integrity towards their friends.

Though the Word of Wisdom would not become a formal requirement to enter the Temple until the late 1920′s, in 1886 the First Presidency instructed, among other things, that it is”inconsistent to carry the smell of whiskey and tobacco into the sacred precincts of the Lord’s House.”

As the church grew, the interviews and requirements were standardized and refined, eventually giving us what we have today. While the specifics have varied, the primary requirements have changed little.

A fascinating and useful article for understanding the history behind Temple recommend interviews, listed in several places on the pages here at the Monastery. 4 thumbs up.

 

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

they just ask if you keep the word of wisdom. If you don't think wine violates that you could honestly answer yes you keep it.

you would just have to answer to the Lord for your conclusions

I agree.  But someone who drinks alcohol would not be worthy for a temple recommend today.  That's what the change is from the early days in the church.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

and I concluded that discussion means discussion rather than no discussion

Looking at the entire statement in context tells me that perhaps he felt like it was a discussion from his perspective, but I suspect it was seriously lacking.  

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I understand having those feelings and having that attitude.  That works for some, but not for all from what I've seen.

But the point being made is that teachings have changed (or become less specific).  I think for sure the leaders have backed off the teaching that polygamy will have to be lived in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.  That one caused so many women in the church such anguish and grief (some men too most likely).  That is no longer taught.  Another change....

 

Or, polygamy will be allowed for those who can abide it, but not required of those who can't. Or the Lord withdraws from us what we are unable to handle and adds when we are able. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. We will all know soon enough. In the mean time let's eschew tobacco and strong drink, treat our families nicely, and do our home teaching and temple work. 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

 

I've given you a list. Lets pick one randomly. Baptism for the remission of sins

Sounds good, I'll get that started.