Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 4 minutes ago, juliann said: Otherwise known as virtue signalling. Have to remember that one. It's a new one for me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
rongo Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Joseph Smith went through a period deep pondering and study -- even turmoil -- before ultimately seeing angels. But sometimes they appear (or visions occur) without lengthy periods of pondering and study. I think faith in this basic Article of Faith is waning in the Church. People pay lip service to it, but they don't really believe in it. And they don't look for or expect it. And, they are uncomfortable with those who do, and wish they wouldn't. Spiritual gifts are okay as long as they are safely in the distant past. Quote 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." We all know, or have the ability to know, what revelations and policies the Church presents to the Church and the world. Many of us even get letters. Unless people are arguing about inability to disprove a negative (there are probably lots of revelations the Brethren don't share or talk about) . . . Quote I'm not one who views the policy of November 2015 as anything shameful or even astonishing. I'm not, either. I fully support the spirit and the law of it. But, I acknowledge, too, that the rolling-out of it was ham-handed and clumsy. And driven by PR considerations. Edited September 30, 2017 by rongo
Rain Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 Elder Haleck Widows mite story. Story about a family who were willing to give all to follow the Lord and how they were blessed. Story about a leader willing to let missionaries come teach his people. Story about families giving to build the Samoan temple. All these gave with their widow's hearts. The widow's heart senses light and truth and is willing to do and give. Pres. Nelson Told about the Book of Mormon to a king. Then he gave the Book of Mormon to the king. The king felt this was a better gift than jewels. Which would you choose? Diamonds, rubies or the BoM? Something powerful when a child learns about God and his son. He has invited groups to consider 3 related questions: 1. What would your life be like without the BoM? 2. What would you not know? 3. What would you not have? The BoM answers questions. Provides fullest understanding of the atonement. Study the BoM every day to get strength from it. 2
Duncan Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 1 hour 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 have missed most of conference today, except for tonite but I was hoping someone would address that topic 1
Button Gwinnett Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: 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. In his 2010 conference address Elder Packer called the declaration on the family a revelation also. His words however calling it a revelation were later redacted from the official online version on his address. I guess they've changed their minds and are now back to calling it a revelation again. Edited September 30, 2017 by Button Gwinnett
bluebell Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: In his 2010 conference address Elder Packer called the declaration on the family a revelation also. His words however calling it a revelation were later redacted from the official online version on his address. I guess they've changed their minds and are now back to calling it a revelation again. I actually thought of that when I was listening to the talk, but I don't see it as a change of mind. I might be remembering wrong, but I don't think that Elder Oaks called it a revelation this time either. That seemed like an important omission to me, but i don't interpret the omission to be at odds with the other things he said about it.
JLHPROF Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 54 minutes ago, rongo said: 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? Woodruffs manifesto was still edited by committee for publishing. 1
ksfisher Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: I actually thought of that when I was listening to the talk, but I don't see it as a change of mind. I might be remembering wrong, but I don't think that Elder Oaks called it a revelation this time either. That seemed like an important omission to me, but i don't interpret the omission to be at odds with the other things he said about it. I believed he called it the "revealed word of the Lord." 3
bluebell Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: I believed he called it the "revealed word of the Lord." Thanks! That's what i was thinking. I don't think that the church will be comfortable actually calling the proclamation a revelation until or unless it get's made scripture and added to the D&C. I guess we'll have to wait and see...
Button Gwinnett Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 55 minutes ago, juliann said: 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. I'm all for pray, ponder and study it out in your mind and I acknowledge that it's just me, but what Elder Oaks described just came off to me as a very man made , though thoughtful, process. I've just never thought of revelation as being made by committee, studies, conducting surveys and seeking legal advice before. I just need to process this new information.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rongo said: 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? I presume you are quoting from OD1 in the Doctrine and Covenants, the "excerpts from three addresses." I note that part of the wording in the paragraph you quote from is "I have had this spirit upon me for a long time," indicating it was not something that came to President Woodruff of a sudden and, presumably, not without a great deal of personal pondering if not deliberation with some of his Brethren in the leading councils of the Church (the passage in OD1 is, itself ellipsized, so it's hard to know what other content might have been present). Only, as you have quoted here, after "the hour came" and he "was commanded to do that" did President Woodruff act. Edited September 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 7 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: I'm all for pray, ponder and study it out in your mind and I acknowledge that it's just me, but what Elder Oaks described just came off to me as a very man made , though thoughtful, process. I've just never thought of revelation as being made by committee, studies, conducting surveys and seeking legal advice before. I just need to process this new information. I'll have to check the text when I get hold of it, but I don't recall Elder Oaks mentioning "seeking legal advice" or "conducting surveys" in connection with the drafting of the family proclamation. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 22 minutes ago, bluebell said: I actually thought of that when I was listening to the talk, but I don't see it as a change of mind. I might be remembering wrong, but I don't think that Elder Oaks called it a revelation this time either. That seemed like an important omission to me, but i don't interpret the omission to be at odds with the other things he said about it. 19 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I believed he called it the "revealed word of the Lord." 16 minutes ago, bluebell said: Thanks! That's what i was thinking. I don't think that the church will be comfortable actually calling the proclamation a revelation until or unless it get's made scripture and added to the D&C. I guess we'll have to wait and see... I've made this point before, but it bears repeating. I would love to see the family proclamation become part of the scriptural canon. But my theory on why it has not is that the proclamation's content itself did not break new ground. What it did do was to reiterate and reaffirm doctrinal truth that was already had among the Latter-day Saints and had been entrenched through generations of gospel teaching. On the other hand, it's my firm conviction that the decision to draft and publish the proclamation was a directive from the Lord. So, in that sense, the proclamation is, in my view, a revelatory document. 2
Button Gwinnett Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 29 minutes ago, bluebell said: I actually thought of that when I was listening to the talk, but I don't see it as a change of mind. I might be remembering wrong, but I don't think that Elder Oaks called it a revelation this time either. That seemed like an important omission to me, but i don't interpret the omission to be at odds with the other things he said about it. Arnt we arguing (not in the traditional definition) over Symantec's he described its coming about as an inspirational and revelatory process. Isn't that the same thing as declaring it a revelation? Maybe we'll have to wait and see if those words are redacted from the online version (relax I'm trying to be funny here) 1
Button Gwinnett Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'll have to check the text when I get hold of it, but I don't recall Elder Oaks mentioning "seeking legal advice" or "conducting surveys" in connection with the drafting of the family proclamation. I'll save you some time, he didn't, it just felt like he did.
SmileyMcGee Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I loved the "humble brag" observation. Superiority complexes have many flavors, it seems. I wish I would have heard that talk live. I'm the idiot who didn't wake up in time to see it...gotta remember the time difference when in the middle of a three week vacation to Hawaii 2
Raingirl Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 19 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: I'm all for pray, ponder and study it out in your mind and I acknowledge that it's just me, but what Elder Oaks described just came off to me as a very man made , though thoughtful, process. I've just never thought of revelation as being made by committee, studies, conducting surveys and seeking legal advice before. I just need to process this new information. And I, along with scores of others, clearly understood what Elder Oaks was actually saying, that the Family Proclamation was revealed to the Prophets by Heavenly Father, and most definitely not a "man-made process". Perpetual critics won't understand that, as they won't believe any revelations not given to the prophets in a manner that they demand, rather than the manner Heavenly Father chooses. Especially if the revelation doesn't meet with their own self-focused needs. 2
smac97 Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 3 hours 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 Nah. My sister's father-in-law is a 70. He had some additional tickets and offered them to me. 1
rongo Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Woodruffs manifesto was still edited by committee for publishing. Yes, but how would the turnaround times of the two committees compare? And, did they have the equivalent of Kirton McConkie and Public Affairs in the process?
Rain Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I've made this point before, but it bears repeating. I would love to see the family proclamation become part of the scriptural canon. But my theory on why it has not is that the proclamation's content itself did not break new ground. What it did do was to reiterate and reaffirm doctrinal truth that was already had among the Latter-day Saints and had been entrenched through generations of gospel teaching. Yes. I remember him saying it was a "surprise" that the things were not known better. Quote On the other hand, it's my firm conviction that the decision to draft and publish the proclamation was a directive from the Lord. So, in that sense, the proclamation is, in my view, a revelatory document. Edited October 1, 2017 by Rain 1
SmileyMcGee Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 3 hours ago, bluebell said: I know it is going to be an upsetting or unpopular talk Indeed, it is the only talk mentioned so far on some other forums...
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said: I'll save you some time, he didn't, it just felt like he did. I'm not saying such things would not from time to time enter into the deliberative process preceding revelation. I wouldn't see a thing amiss if they did.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 54 minutes ago, rongo said: Yes, but how would the turnaround times of the two committees compare? And, did they have the equivalent of Kirton McConkie and Public Affairs in the process? John Taylor? And Alexander Doniphan? Thomas L. Kane?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2017 Posted September 30, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said: Indeed, it is the only talk mentioned so far on some other forums... Yeah, few things spin up the residents of the great and spacious building like the family proclamation, I suppose. Edited October 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
bluebell Posted October 1, 2017 Posted October 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said: Arnt we arguing (not in the traditional definition) over Symantec's he described its coming about as an inspirational and revelatory process. Isn't that the same thing as declaring it a revelation? Maybe we'll have to wait and see if those words are redacted from the online version (relax I'm trying to be funny here) I think it can mean that, but I don't think it has to. Something can be revealed by God without being an official revelation, for example.
Recommended Posts