Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Also, she can ask questions in seminary, but if the teachers aren't knowledgeable enough to know the answers, that's just one more of the problems.  I do believe this could be remedied rather quickly, but I feel the leaders are moving very slowly at getting information out there.  But at lease they are moving now 

Yes...I keep giving the church the big 'E' for effort...

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

No, I'm not familiar with that. Last time I ever heard of a sacrament meeting disrupted was when some Evangelicals stood up and started shouting anti-Mormon slurs in a testimony meeting in Huntsville, Texas, which was in our stake. That was about 10 years ago.

Believe it or not, I hardly ever pay attention to what is going on in the church. It's kind of nice not to have the emotional investment.

10 years ago we had a lady stand up in F&T meeting and declared she was a prophet. She commanded the saints to ignore the church leadership in SLC and follow her instead. She was clearly nuts so it didn't have a positive impact for her.

These kinds of situations have always occurred but I don't think it's common. There are policies and counsel given about how to deal with disruptive people so there's really nothing new.

Regarding the 12 year old girl who shared her testimony about how God loves her even though she is gay; I find it sad and disgraceful that people use that as an example of apostasy being promulgated in F&T meeting.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

Attached are my notes from a recent local conference. In attendance were 2 general authorities, 2 temple presidents, a mission president, an area authority, and local stake presidencies, bishops, elders quorum presidents, and ward mission leaders. I tried pasting it, but you know how this site is sometimes . . . it won't let me paste the text. So, Word doc. it is.

It really was a good conference. I wish these things happened more often.

Enjoy!

Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference.docx

If you're trying to paste text that has embedded formatting, the site will balk at that. One way to get around this is to paste the text into Notepad (or Notepad++, an even better choice), or use PureText to strip it of formatting first.  I've been using PureText for years: http://stevemiller.net/puretext/

[Button Gwinnett]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The iPhone comparison is laughable. 

Which is more laughable? The Brother of Jared placing rocks for the finger of the Lord to touch there by making them glow in the dark or a rock found by Joseph while digging a well that when placed in his hat helps him produce the Book of Mormon?  Scratch too deep and any religion will fall apart which is why all religion at some point requires faith in stories that don't necessarily promote faith.  For example did Jonah really live in the belly of a whale?  Did Moses really divide the Red Sea?  Did Daniel really survive being thrown into the Lions den?  On the surface each of these example are laughable.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK. I pick the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Hasn't changed since the Restoration in 1830.

Who Jesus Christ IS has changed since 1830. Understanding Jesus could play into how the Atonement is applied, ie Talmage's Jesus the Christ- Jesus is Jehovah teaching

Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins is another.

Agree

And faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Agree- But again, understanding of Jesus has changed so faith in Him could be seen differently

And salvation for the dead. (There may have been something of a false start with the "law of adoption," but once that was ironed out, things have been on an even keel.)

Totally disagree, at least in the application of doctrine regarding temple work. There have been so many changes it's hard to keep them straight.

Or any of the other temple doctrines revealed during the Nauvoo period.

Um...no. I suggest you read the Development of LDS Temple Worship by Devry Anderson

Or the corporeal nature of God.

No. Lectures on Faith. "Q- Is God a spirit? A- Yes, God is a spirit"

Or  Sabbath Day observance.

Sabbath Day observance has certainly changed with the times. Modern issues like shopping, working, etc has been a focus in more recent years when it didn't really apply much back then. Was a Mormon in 1830's Missouri discouraged from outdoor activities we might consider recreational today? Did they attend church weekly on the Sabbath?

Or the latter-day gathering of Israel and the grand commission to take the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people.

Yeah, the literal gathering of the lost tribes just isn't mentioned anymore. When's the last time we had a talk in conference about that one. If it is talked about they change the definition of "gathering".

Or the law of chastity, prohibiting non-marital or extramarital sexual relations.

Clearly the LoC was applied differently back then, if for no other reason than by redefining marriage. Of course arguments can be made about Joseph's relationships with Fanny Alger and whether or not he was really sealed to her before the sealing keys were restored in 1836. Marrying and having sex with other mens wives also wouldn't fly by the church's modern understanding of living the LoC.

Or the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

Or the doctrine of revelation.

This certainly evolved a great deal in the early days of the church as individuals attempted to assert their claims at revelation. It is natural for clarity and understanding of who can receive revelation for what, to evolve over time.

Or the doctrine of the resurrection.

I mostly agree, and I can't remember which prophet taught it, but one of the Smiths (I think) taught that only those in the highest level of the CK would have reproductive organs after the resurrection. So even there, details of resurrection may have shifted before shifting back to what we have today.

Or the doctrine that those who remain faithful will be exalted and dwell with God and inherit jointly with Christ all that the Father has.

Only if they are also polygamist. Wait, polygamy is no longer a test of faithfulness. That changed.

Or the other doctrines associated with the plan of salvation: the pre-mortal existence, mortality as a probationary perioid, the spirit world, the preaching to the spirits in prison, the final judgment, the three degrees of glory, etc.

Probationary period and final judgment have meant different things over time depending on whether or not the prophet believed in eternal progresson between kingdoms

The above have remained unchanged in the last 100 years.

Who cares about 100 years. They've changed at various times throughout the history of the church. Limiting it to 100 years is an attempt to build a straw man

Do you need more examples, or have I made my point?

If we don't apply your artificial 100 year timetable, then we can see that most of these doctrines have changed substantially since the inception of the church. I don't know what value there is to limiting these changes only to the past 100 years (and yes, I realize Hope was suggesting things will change in the next 100 years- but that hardly means we shouldn't consider other changes.

I suspect you'll argue about what doctrine is and is not. So it's hard to say that doctrine has or hasn't changed when we can't even agree on a consistent doctrine about doctrine.

 

ETA- This should be obvious but these are all my personal opinions based on my own understanding.

Edited September 20, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Very good question!  I'm the YW's president in my ward, but of course I hold no priesthood keys.  Does that mean that I have no ability to receive revelation for those under my stewardship?  

Those under your stewardship have parents, and an exclusive right at right.  If a YW president had told my daughter that she had received a revelation for her, then I would have a problem with that. Her (your) jurisdiction does not extend that far. Neither does my high priests group leader's jurisdiction, OR my bishop's for that matter, extend to telling me he had received a revelation for me.  As far as I understand it, anyway.

The jurisdiction in your calling is for receiving revelation and inspiration for yourself in connection with your calling in guiding and teaching these young women -- not for receiving revelation and inspiration for them personally.

As for priesthood keys, the keys belong to certain presiding authorities. Those who serve under those authorities do not hold priesthood keys, because the authority cannot delegate his keys.  He can delegate authority and responsibility by virtue of those keys, however. So, you don't hold keys, but by virtue of the bishop's delegation you may use his keys in connection with your calling.  And that is how you have the right to receive revelation in connection with your calling.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You have the right to counsel her in her calling but not to declare the will of the Lord in regards to it in an authoritative sense.

You should of course teach her and advise her and seek the spirit with which to counsel her and others well.

Precisely! 

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The rock didn't have a backlit screen, definitely not an OLED screen, more like those really faint LCDs you had on early watches, hard to see in the daylight.  

I wish there were an LOL button. I would have used it in this case. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm guessing if an average Mormon from 1870 was plucked from his place and plopped down in 2017 and told "these are the Mormons."  He'd say, "hell no they aren't".  Likely the same response would come from one from 1917 as well. 

My grandparents were born in 1894 and 97, they died 1990ish...they had no problem with any evolutions of the doctrines from the way they talked.  I don't think the changes were as dramatic as you think.  The biggest one was the Priesthood Ban revelation and their gentle, if condescending response with that was "how nice for the colored family in our ward, they certainly deserve it".

[Button Gwinnett]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Very good question!  I'm the YW's president in my ward, but of course I hold no priesthood keys.  Does that mean that I have no ability to receive revelation for those under my stewardship?  

While you have not, as a woman been given the priesthood, you have been set apart by the priesthood and have been given all the rights and privileges pertaining to the success of your calling to receive inspiration/revelation pertinent to your calling.

[Button Gwinnett]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

My grandparents were born in 1894 and 97, they died 1990ish...they had no problem with any evolutions of the doctrines from the way they talked.  I don't think the changes were as dramatic as you think.  The biggest one was the Priesthood Ban revelation and their gentle, if condescending response with that was "how nice for the colored family in our ward, they certainly deserve it".

Are you familiar with the frog in the pot of water on the stove analogy?  You're grandparents are analogists to the frog with could not detect changes in the water as it heated and changed, they eventually are cooked. However Stemelbow is describing the frog who is dropped into the hot water, that frog will immediately detect the hot water and jump out.

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Are you familiar with the frog in the pot of water on the stove analogy?  You're grandparents are analogists to the frog with could not detect changes in the water as it heated and changed, they eventually are cooked. However Stemelbow is describing the frog who is dropped into the hot water, that frog will immediately detect the hot water and jump out.

That boiling frog thing has apparently been tested and proved to be false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

Now, as to whether frog boiling and doctrine evolution have anything to do with another, well, I don't know about that.  I have been a member of the church since 1966, that's a half-century, and I can tell you that unless I'm a frog, nothing much has changed, doctrinally. And I've read plenty of much older material, and I've not seen much changing from then, either.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Are you familiar with the frog in the pot of water on the stove analogy?  You're grandparents are analogists to the frog with could not detect changes in the water as it heated and changed, they eventually are cooked. However Stemelbow is describing the frog who is dropped into the hot water, that frog will immediately detect the hot water and jump out.

Yeah, my grandparents weren't exactly the type who moved with the times much.  I think she got her living room professionally decorated in the 1940s or early 50s and it was that way until they moved 40 years later.  The rest of the house stayed the same as well save for a new TV ever 10 years or so and a recliner for Grandpa as well...but it was always in the same spot.  When their branch became a ward, my grandma opposed the calling of a new bishop because the branch president deserved the fruits of his decades long stewardship of their once tiny, now significant community.  She was still insisting she was right 30 years later.  She also talked about the change of appearance, growing to individual cups instead of a communal sacrament cup and how she was debating over moving on to two piece, which were so much more comfortable, but just not quite right.  But never a word about being troubled by doctrinal changes.

Their main TV fare in the 70s and 80s were Lawrence Welk, I love Lucy, and Perry Mason reruns.

She did take us to Godspell and went on the rollarcoaster at Great America, she was a good sport.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Calm

[Button Gwinnett]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That boiling frog thing has apparently been tested and proved to be false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

Now, as to whether frog boiling and doctrine evolution have anything to do with another, well, I don't know about that.  I have been a member of the church since 1966, that's a half-century, and I can tell you that unless I'm a frog, nothing much has changed, doctrinally. And I've read plenty of much older material, and I've not seen much changing from then, either.

Your honor, I direct your attention to People’s exhibit number one.  Clearly you have been in the pot since 1966 if you haven't detected any changes in doctrine (said with love)

[Button Gwinnett]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, my grandparents weren't exactly the type who moved with the times much.  I think she got her living room professionally decorated in the 1950s and it was that way until they moved 40 years later.  When their branch became a ward, my grandma opposed the calling of a new bishop because the branch president deserved the fruits of his decades long stewardship of their once tiny, now significant community.  She also talked about the change of appearance, growing to individual cups instead of a communal sacrament cup and how she was debating over moving on to two piece, which were so much more comfortable, but just not quite right.

Their main TV fare in the 70s and 80s were Lawrence Welk, I love Lucy, and Perry Mason reruns.

Sound like my kind of people...

[Danzo]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

It doesn't really bother me, but it does make me wonder, what's the point of having missionary correlation meeting and why am i expected to go to it as well as ward council, when we are covering everything in the one meeting?  

What we are doing is have one quorum or auxiliary presidency member meet with the missionary correlation meeting each week. We rotate the organisations so each one gets meet with us every seven weeks. That seems to cut down on the extra meetings and allows us to focus on the one organisation when we meet with them. Seems to be working pretty good for right now.  

 

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

10 years ago we had a lady stand up in F&T meeting and declared she was a prophet. She commanded the saints to ignore the church leadership in SLC and follow her instead. She was clearly nuts so it didn't have a positive impact for her.

These kinds of situations have always occurred but I don't think it's common. There are policies and counsel given about how to deal with disruptive people so there's really nothing new.

Regarding the 12 year old girl who shared her testimony about how God loves her even though she is gay; I find it sad and disgraceful that people use that as an example of apostasy being promulgated in F&T meeting.

Again, I don't know anything about this girl, but it doesn't sound like apostasy to me, either. And I'm an apostate. 😊

[rongo]

6 hours ago, blueglass said:

please send more context on how the seer stone and hat translation things came up?  Why did he get into this?  

Both general authorities quoted extensively from the Book of Mormon during the four hour meeting (it was broken up by a cookie/brownie/peanut M&M/ice water break). On the order of 50+ BoM scriptures, with D&C to a lesser, but still significant, extent. They were clearly modeling without pointing out using the BoM and D&C to answer questions, teach doctrine, and exhort, without calling explicit attention to it. In the course of this, he spent some time talking about translation method (I don't remember the specific context or drift of discussion). It seemed clear to me that bringing it up and exposing us to it with more than a passing mention was intended, and it sounds like this is happening elsewhere (cf. bluebell's last stake conference). As it was emphasized that these meetings are supposed to be pretty uniform, then this should be emphasized elsewhere.

Although I don't believe tight translation/reading words to dictate, it didn't bother me at all that this was his explanation. I like hearing people confidently discuss their views, and think that we are too diplomatic in setting the table with "this is just my view, but we really don't know." That's a given with a lot of these things ---- in spades for translation method. 

That's why I like the old stuff, all of which would be heavily and carefully correlated away. We get the rich stuff when people share the "Mormonism that is inside them" (Brigham Young's phrase), and it's actually not a problem when it is sometimes contradictory or controversial. Especially with the open questions.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, I don't know anything about this girl, but it doesn't sound like apostasy to me, either. And I'm an apostate. 😊

The apostasy was the parents, in my view. The girl was a tool. I mean, they filmed it for viral distribution, for crying out loud! She read a prepared statement that clearly was not written by her. F&T meeting is not the venue for manifestos ---- least of all when using a child for viral sympathy and attack points.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If we don't apply your artificial 100 year timetable, then we can see that most of these doctrines have changed substantially since the inception of the church. I don't know what value there is to limiting these changes only to the past 100 years (and yes, I realize Hope was suggesting things will change in the next 100 years- but that hardly means we shouldn't consider other changes.

I suspect you'll argue about what doctrine is and is not. So it's hard to say that doctrine has or hasn't changed when we can't even agree on a consistent doctrine about doctrine.

 

ETA- This should be obvious but these are all my personal opinions based on my own understanding.

Thanks.

So not a great deal of change then.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

The apostasy was the parents, in my view. The girl was a tool. I mean, they filmed it for viral distribution, for crying out loud! She read a prepared statement that clearly was not written by her. F&T meeting is not the venue for manifestos ---- least of all when using a child for viral sympathy and attack points.

Well, I hadn't heard that part. I agree that it's not a venue I would choose if I were coming out. It's awfully hard to judge based on the amount of information given here. 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Which is more laughable? The Brother of Jared placing rocks for the finger of the Lord to touch there by making them glow in the dark or a rock found by Joseph while digging a well that when placed in his hat helps him produce the Book of Mormon?  Scratch too deep and any religion will fall apart which is why all religion at some point requires faith in stories that don't necessarily promote faith.  For example did Jonah really live in the belly of a whale?  Did Moses really divide the Red Sea?  Did Daniel really survive being thrown into the Lions den?  On the surface each of these example are laughable.

Moses had a staff that turned into a snake.  BUT so did the magicians of Pharaoh.

[Button Gwinnett]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, I hadn't heard that part. I agree that it's not a venue I would choose if I were coming out. It's awfully hard to judge based on the amount of information given here. 

It is my understanding the the girl wrote her own comments and that it was an adult friend and not the parents who caught the moment on their iPhone. That said it does seem that there was some advanced planning.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Those under your stewardship have parents, and an exclusive right at right.  If a YW president had told my daughter that she had received a revelation for her, then I would have a problem with that. Her (your) jurisdiction does not extend that far. Neither does my high priests group leader's jurisdiction, OR my bishop's for that matter, extend to telling me he had received a revelation for me.  As far as I understand it, anyway.

The jurisdiction in your calling is for receiving revelation and inspiration for yourself in connection with your calling in guiding and teaching these young women -- not for receiving revelation and inspiration for them personally.

As for priesthood keys, the keys belong to certain presiding authorities. Those who serve under those authorities do not hold priesthood keys, because the authority cannot delegate his keys.  He can delegate authority and responsibility by virtue of those keys, however. So, you don't hold keys, but by virtue of the bishop's delegation you may use his keys in connection with your calling.  And that is how you have the right to receive revelation in connection with your calling.

I think you have misunderstood me.  I meant receiving revelation for those under my stewardship in regards to their church responsibilities.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

While you have not, as a woman been given the priesthood, you have been set apart by the priesthood and have been given all the rights and privileges pertaining to the success of your calling to receive inspiration/revelation pertinent to your calling.