conference today

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Elder Holland is apparently a crowd favorite.  When his name was announced, there was a collective buzz from, the audience, followed by a gentle chuckle at the buzz.

He quotes the Beatitudes, notes how lofty those ideals are and how "beyond our reach" they are.  

Many members feel discouraged, like they do not and will never measure up.

He does not want to diminish the importance of the commandments, but we shouldn't be beating ourselves up.  God does not want His children to do that, as we are all "trying to be like Jesus."

Jesus did not intend his words to be a verbal hammer, but instead a tribute to our divine potential in the eternities.

I am God is merciful, and a peacemaker.  I need mercy, and the world needs peace.

We still need to progress, so we can't "dumb down" the commandments.  Our only hope for salvation is grace.  That includes saving us from persistent self-criticism.

Quoted the parable of the servant who owed his master 10,000 talents (?) was forgiven of it, and who then berated a fellow servant who owed home 100 pence.  We should not be discouraged at our lack of 10,000-level perfection, but we should seek for 100-pence-level love and service to others.

Shared a GREAT item about am imperfect priest.

I loved how he said that God does not want us to beat ourselves up because that doesn't make us any better.  

[Avatar4321]

surprisingly my phone was actually streaming a bit. So I caught the end of Pres. Uctdorfs talk and it cut off at the beginning of Elder Hollands.

loved the Sisters talk (Oscarson?)

I found Elder Oaks account of the revelation guiding them in making the proclamation on the family illuminating.

saw an over all theme of Holiness this session and being patient with our weaknesses

much food for thought

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I really appreciated that he laid out how the proclamation came about.  I find it comforting that they prayed about the wording and worked on it for a year, always wanting to follow the Spirit's direction.

A perfect example of the pattern in the Church and the government of God: prayerful fact finding and deliberation by counsel preceding the receipt of revelation/inspiration.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Judd said:

I feel it's appropriate. There are many examples, ancient and modern, where people who have exercised great faith, both before and after times of weakness, who have that episode of faithlessness recorded and thus to the rest of history we have reduced the expanse of their eternal identity down to the personification of faithlessness, despite where their current spiritual stature may reside.

But without the milk strippings story how will I have any apostles to look down on?  

[The Nehor]

Enjoyed Sister Oscarson and President Uchtdorf. Found Elder Oaks message very informative. Loved Elder Holland's talk but am left deflated now that I no longer have that to look forward to.

Is it wrong that I wish Elder Holland was called to the First Presidency only so he would get an extra talk at conference?  

[Button Gwinnett]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Was lucky.  Got tickets.  Here's the view...

 

That's the VIP section reserved for GAs, their family and friends.  I've sat there as well, so I know.  You must be some important person

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A perfect example of the pattern in the Church and the government of God: prayerful fact finding and deliberation by counsel preceding the receipt of revelation/inspiration.

 I know it is going to be an upsetting or unpopular talk for some members (and non members who follow such things) but to know how the proclamation came about is a good thing.

[Button Gwinnett]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 I know it is going to be an upsetting or unpopular talk for some members (and non members who follow such things) but to know how the proclamation came about is a good thing.

I'm one of those who is slightly disappointed. The process, that Elder Oaks shared, while having taken a very lengthy thoughtful process that he called revelatory and inspirational, seems more like a lawyerly, researched and calculated process to protect the church than a revelatory one.  I can't image how we would process Joseph's revelations in the D&C if God had revealed each section over the course of a year to 18 months through a committee of men who labored and prayed over each word.  For those who have always believed that it came about through direct revelation, Elder Oaks provided room for disappointment that it came about through a long lengthy but thoughtful committee process instead of from God's mouth to his prophets ear.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I'm one of those who is slightly disappointed. The process, that Elder Oaks shared, while having taken a very lengthy thoughtful process that he called revelatory and inspirational, seems more like a lawyerly, researched and calculated process to protect the church than a revelatory one.  I can't image how we would process Joseph's revelations in the D&C if God had revealed each section over the course of a year to 18 months through a committee of men who labored and prayed over each word.  For those who have always believed that it came about through direct revelation, Elder Oaks provided room for disappointment that it came about through a long lengthy but thoughtful committee process instead of from God's mouth to his prophets ear.

I think it’s interesting that you see it that way because for me, his talk reinforced that the proclamation came from God’s mouth to his prophets’ ears.  

[Rain]

Headed home after our date - last chance to go before my husband leaves the country for a couple of weeks. Will need to watch the first few talks in this session later. 

 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I think it’s interesting that you see it that way because for me, his talk reinforced that the proclamation came from God’s mouth to his prophets’ ears.  

I think Button has a good point, though. "The revelatory process" seems, in our day, to only consist of years of careful weighing of every word. Anyone who thinks that Kirton McConkie and Public Affairs don't play a big role in this lengthy weighing by committee is . . . what? 

It's tempting at any age to wish for bygone golden eras, but our revelations today seem to all be policy moves. Not doctrinal exposition or expansion. I can understand why people notice this and are concerned about it. 

[juliann]

17 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I'm one of those who is slightly disappointed. The process, that Elder Oaks shared, while having taken a very lengthy thoughtful process that he called revelatory and inspirational, seems more like a lawyerly, researched and calculated process to protect the church than a revelatory one.  I can't image how we would process Joseph's revelations in the D&C if God had revealed each section over the course of a year to 18 months through a committee of men who labored and prayed over each word.  For those who have always believed that it came about through direct revelation, Elder Oaks provided room for disappointment that it came about through a long lengthy but thoughtful committee process instead of from God's mouth to his prophets ear.

So you aspire to the fax machine model of revelation?  I'm trying to figure out why you consider careful deliberation and revelation mutually exclusive.

Meanwhile, back to the topic, Elder Cook is attacking arrogance, specifically by those who consider themselves superior based on race, nationality, language, etc. They are morally wrong.

[Button Gwinnett]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it’s interesting that you see it that way because for me, his talk reinforced that the proclamation came from God’s mouth to his prophets’ ears.  

Through a lengthy year long committee process.  Which is fine, it's just new information I'm going to have to process

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think Button has a good point, though. "The revelatory process" seems, in our day, to only consist of years of careful weighing of every word. Anyone who thinks that Kirton McConkie and Public Affairs don't play a big role in this lengthy weighing by committee is . . . what? 

It's tempting at any age to wish for bygone golden eras, but our revelations today seem to all be policy moves. Not doctrinal exposition or expansion. I can understand why people notice this and are concerned about it. 

Whether involving one person or a group of people (a council) the pattern for receiving revelation most often involves careful, sometimes lengthy, deliberation beforehand. That was what happened before Joseph received the First Vision.

Those who express disappointment that prayerful deliberation by councils nearly always precedes revelation to the president of the Church fail to understand God's manner and dealing with his anointed servants.

One of the things that came out of the publication of the Council of Fifty minutes is that the Prophet Joseph Smith said he did not want to be forever surrounded by a bunch of "dough heads" ( or yes-men). he wanted them to freely speak their minds and, presumably under God's inspiration, arrive at a consensus with the chaff being blown away and kernels of truth remaining.

Those who think the role of the Prophet in the Church is a dictator who, on his own part, pronounces divine edicts from time to time simply don't get it. Perhaps this needs to be better taught among our people.

A good place to start would be Elder M. Russell Ballard's speeches and writings on "counseling with councils."

 

[Button Gwinnett]

41 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you aspire to the fax machine model of revelation?  I'm trying to figure out why you consider careful deliberation and revelation mutually exclusive.

Meanwhile, back to the topic, Elder Cook is attacking arrogance, specifically by those who consider themselves superior based on race, nationality, language, etc. They are morally wrong.

Listen, I understand the need to study it out in your mind, ponder and pray.  But this , to me alone evidently, just seemed more calculated,  I guess we can add "revelation" to the list of things that are like making sausage that we shouldn't watch being made.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think Button has a good point, though. "The revelatory process" seems, in our day, to only consist of years of careful weighing of every word. Anyone who thinks that Kirton McConkie and Public Affairs don't play a big role in this lengthy weighing by committee is . . . what? 

It's tempting at any age to wish for bygone golden eras, but our revelations today seem to all be policy moves. Not doctrinal exposition or expansion. I can understand why people notice this and are concerned about it. 

I think that's a consequence of the world we live in, where a lot of people are very anxious to make people 'offenders for a word'.  We live in a culture and society that is vastly different than it was when JS was prophet.  I think that some of the differences in how revelation comes to us now is just a result of that change.

I think it's also a consequence of previous statements, which were declared to be the will of God but which turned out later to be not so much.  I think our leaders are more careful to separate revelation from scripture in our day, recognizing that all scripture is revelation, but not all revelation is scripture.  

I also think it makes sense that there is a difference between revelatory experiences where a document is produced that supports and/or clarifies church doctrine (such as the proclamation), and revelatory experiences that produce a change in church doctrine (such as the end of the priesthood ban).  

And lastly, the scriptures set a precedent for this kind of revelation when the Lord taught that He does not give revelation or inspiration just because someone asks for it.  Sometimes it takes effort and thought first.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

That's the VIP section reserved for GAs, their family and friends.  I've sat there as well, so I know.  You must be some important person

Or it might have been a zoomed-in view.

Just sayin'.

 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether involving one person or a group of people (a council) the pattern for receiving revelation most often involves careful, sometimes lengthy, deliberation beforehand. That was what happened before Joseph received the First Vision.

Those who express disappointment that prayerful deliberation by councils nearly always precedes revelation to the president of the Church fail to understand God's manner and dealing with his anointed servants.

One of the things that came out of the publication of the Council of Fifty minutes is that the Prophet Joseph Smith said he did not want to be forever surrounded by a bunch of "dough heads" ( or yes-men). he wanted them to freely speak their minds and, presumably under God's inspiration, arrive at a consensus with the chaff being blown away and kernels of truth remaining.

Those who think the role of the Prophet in the Church is a dictator who, on his own part, pronounces divine edicts from time to time simply don't get it. Perhaps this needs to be better taught among our people.

A good place to start would be Elder M. Russell Ballard's speeches and writings on "counseling with councils."

 

And sometimes revelation is instant and powerful. I'm basing this on my own experience, and many other people have had these experiences, too. Some involve visions, and some involve voices. Some even involve angels. 

I believe all (or nearly all) Church leaders have had these types of revelations, too. Yet, the only revelations the institutional Church gives today (and for some time, now) are policy driven, or extremely carefully worded.

Or, snuck quietly into the online handbook, and then announced in leader letters, not to the Church generally.  

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you aspire to the fax machine model of revelation?  I'm trying to figure out why you consider careful deliberation and revelation mutually exclusive.

Meanwhile, back to the topic, Elder Cook is attacking arrogance, specifically by those who consider themselves superior based on race, nationality, language, etc. They are morally wrong.

I loved the "humble brag" observation. Superiority complexes have many flavors, it seems.

 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Through a lengthy year long committee process.  Which is fine, it's just new information I'm going to have to process

In some ways, i trust that process more than a faster process.  I get what you are saying and where you are coming from though.

From my perspective, putting our own thoughts and feelings into a document is a fast and simple process, especially if the goal is to produce a document that won't seem at all controversial when it is presented.  Seeking the will of the Lord while reasoning things out together, despite feeling like you already know what God's will is, is a slow process.  I find it easier to trust slower processes when the end result is basically just a reiteration of what everyone already believed was the doctrine of God.  

To myself as an example, when I'm trying to know God's will and I think that my will and His are already synced, I move quickly.  When I'm trying to know God's will and I'm worried that my own desires are going to get in the way of that, I move much much more slowly.  And I put a lot more effort into 'double checking' what I think is the answer (for good and ill, i'm sure).

[juliann]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I loved the "humble brag" observation. Superiority complexes have many flavors, it seems.

 

Otherwise known as virtue signalling. 

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you aspire to the fax machine model of revelation?  I'm trying to figure out why you consider careful deliberation and revelation mutually exclusive. 

The process they describe is consistent with the creation of an inspired document.  That is a kind of revelation but is created by men inspired by God.  The "fax machine" revelation is what God says and man writes down.  If direct enough there is less opportunity for man's input.  A spectrum.

[juliann]

13 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Listen, I understand the need to study it out in your mind, ponder and pray.  But this , to me lone evidently, just seemed more calculated,  I guess we can add "revelation" to the list of things that are like making sausage that we shouldn't watch being made.

Again, why is revelation restricted to one mode? Why would watching revelation being made be problematic? This seems to be the very process Pres. Kimball worked up to lifting the priesthood ban. 

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, rongo said:

And sometimes revelation is instant and powerful. I'm basing this on my own experience, and many other people have had these experiences, too. Some involve visions, and some involve voices. Some even involve angels. 

Joseph Smith went through a period of deep pondering and study -- even turmoil -- before ultimately seeing angels.

Quote

I believe all (or nearly all) Church leaders have had these types of revelations, too. Yet, the only revelations the institutional Church gives today (and for some time, now) are policy driven, or extremely carefully worded.

Not sure any of us here today on this message board are privy enough to what goes on behind the scenes to speak with confidence about "the only revelations the institutional Church gives today."

Quote

Or, snuck quietly into the online handbook, and then announced in leader letters, not to the Church generally.  

I'm not one who views the policy of November 2015 as anything shameful or even astonishing.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

The process they describe is consistent with the creation of an inspired document.  That is a kind of revelation but is created by men inspired by God.  The "fax machine" revelation is what God says and man writes down.  If direct enough there is less opportunity for man's input.  A spectrum.

I know. I think of President Woodruff: ". . . and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …"

How long would such a thing take today? How many committees?