conference today

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

True, but it's an issue of stewardship.  Brigham Young taught:

"were I to be asked whether I have any experience in this matter, I can tell the people that once in my life I felt a want of confidence in brother Joseph Smith, soon after I became acquainted with him. It was not concerning religious matters—it was not about his revelations—but it was in relation to his financiering—to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook. A feeling came ever me that Joseph was not right in his financial management, though I presume the feeling did not last sixty seconds, and perhaps not thirty. But that feeling came on me once and once only, from the time I first knew him to the day of his death. 

Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.

I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called “Mormonism.” He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.

It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer Joseph to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still."

Interesting! Do you have the reference to this?  I should like to read the whole thing.

It actually cleared up one thing for me, that I had wondered about for years. The Kirtland Safety Society mess was a bit of a puzzle, but I had never bothered to read about it. I was aware that many members of the Church left it because of disaffection with Joseph over the KSS, or were excommunicated, for murmuring or rebelling over it. I am of the opinion and belief that the Lord tests the Saints from time to time, causing the wheat to separate from the chaff. And it appears that the matter of the KSS was one of those winnowing tests. History tells the tale that the KSS was not the only financial entity to go down during that particular period of time, and it doesn't appear that Joseph's alleged mismanagement of it was not responsible for its failure. In any case, he was only the Cashier, and others had greater responsibility. But the affair proved to be a test of faith for many -- including, apparently, Brigham Young.

So, too, it seems that the Family Proclamation is a test of faith.  

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I just don't think that's it.  Rather we need to accept our pluralistic society and respect those who make choices which we would not make, be they non-traditional marriage (SSM, polygamy, etc.), abortion, adultery, taking recreational drugs (nicotine, reefer, booze, etc.) where legal, and cavorting on the sabbath (Muslim Friday, Jewish Saturday, and Christian Sunday).  We may disapprove of those things, but our doctrine is very specific about free agency for all, come what may. Just because we wish to obey the Lord does not mean that others should be required by law to do so.  In fact, it is given unto them to choose for themselves.  That is part of what life on Earth is all about: Making choices.  Of course there are pressures.  There wouldn't be any real choices without pressures from all sides -- God wants to test us under real conditions.  This life is not a game of let's pretend.  At least not for us adults.

So do you believe all laws wrongly keep people from exercising their angency, or just some laws?

[thesometimesaint]

We certainly don't want individuals getting to decide which laws apply to themselves and no one else. The other side of that coin is that we don't want laws that overly restrict what we can do.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So do you believe all laws wrongly keep people from exercising their angency, or just some laws?

We cannot legislate morality.  We have seen the folly of that in Prohibition, or the Blue Laws once so common, and in the U.S. government attack on LDS polygamy in the 19th century.  Our wonderful Constitution sets up a system in which we as Americans can decide what is legal and what is illegal, but only as long as we are willing to extend equal protection of the law to all.  We should take Articles of Faith ##11 & 12 as a general guide.

[Stargazer]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So do you believe all laws wrongly keep people from exercising their angency, or just some laws?

I'd like to provide a brief answer to this.

Laws forbidding things which are "wrong in themselves" or "mala in se" and providing punishment for their violations do not wrongly keep people from exercising their agency.  Laws which forbid things that are only "wrong because we say so" or "mala prohibita" may wrongly keep people from exercising their agency.  An example of the former is a law forbidding murder.  An example of the latter is a law forbidding religious observance, such as occurs in the so-called Peoples Republic of China.  Some mala prohibita is reasonable, however, such as the traffic laws, and do not tread on free agency. 

Edited to add: Robert gives some additional (and perhaps better) examples of mala prohibita that affect agency negatively.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Stargazer

[JimB]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So do you believe all laws wrongly keep people from exercising their angency, or just some laws?

What is agency and how does agency relate to the laws of imperfect mortals?   As for showing basic dignity (respect) to a person that  participates in behaviours I regard as sinful, the message is clear,  

1. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength;
2. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

 

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Interesting! Do you have the reference to this?  I should like to read the whole thing.

JofD 4:296-297

[cdowis]

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It actually cleared up one thing for me, that I had wondered about for years. The Kirtland Safety Society mess was a bit of a puzzle, but I had never bothered to read about it.

See https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705378466/Kirtland-Safety-Society-myths-dispelled.html

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We cannot legislate morality.  We have seen the folly of that in Prohibition, or the Blue Laws once so common, and in the U.S. government attack on LDS polygamy in the 19th century.  Our wonderful Constitution sets up a system in which we as Americans can decide what is legal and what is illegal, but only as long as we are willing to extend equal protection of the law to all.  We should take Articles of Faith ##11 & 12 as a general guide.

We do, however, enact laws to protect our society.  There is no one, for example, that we wish to legalize murder, robbery, or the use of alcohol by minors on the grounds that people should be able to choose for themselves.  Should we not then be in favor of laws that help our society function in a harmonious manner?  Does not the consumption of alcohol take countless lives every year and damage thousands of homes?  Should we not then be in favor of laws that would remove this or other similar scourges from our midst?  It seems that many of our laws do nothing more than protect our ability to commit collective self destruction.

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, cdowis said:

See https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705378466/Kirtland-Safety-Society-myths-dispelled.html

and this:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2017/finances-and-faith

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, cdowis said:

See https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705378466/Kirtland-Safety-Society-myths-dispelled.html

 

15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

and this:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2017/finances-and-faith

Here's a piece I wrote a while back. 

https://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/62382/Kirtland-Safety-Society.html

Here's another:

https://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/62061/Majority-faithful-after-Kirtland-crisis.html

Edited October 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We cannot legislate morality.  We have seen the folly of that in Prohibition, or the Blue Laws once so common, and in the U.S. government attack on LDS polygamy in the 19th century.  Our wonderful Constitution sets up a system in which we as Americans can decide what is legal and what is illegal, but only as long as we are willing to extend equal protection of the law to all.  We should take Articles of Faith ##11 & 12 as a general guide.

I agree, but it seems like the problem comes in trying to find the line between morality and protecting others.  Some things, like murder or stealing, are obvious.  Other things, like abortion, are not as clear cut.  That's why i don't think sayings like 'we cannot legislate morality' are very practical, on the ground (so to speak).

[rongo]

52 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Interesting! Do you have the reference to this?  I should like to read the whole thing.

It actually cleared up one thing for me, that I had wondered about for years. The Kirtland Safety Society mess was a bit of a puzzle, but I had never bothered to read about it. I was aware that many members of the Church left it because of disaffection with Joseph over the KSS, or were excommunicated, for murmuring or rebelling over it. I am of the opinion and belief that the Lord tests the Saints from time to time, causing the wheat to separate from the chaff. And it appears that the matter of the KSS was one of those winnowing tests. History tells the tale that the KSS was not the only financial entity to go down during that particular period of time, and it doesn't appear that Joseph's alleged mismanagement of it was not responsible for its failure. In any case, he was only the Cashier, and others had greater responsibility. But the affair proved to be a test of faith for many -- including, apparently, Brigham Young.

So, too, it seems that the Family Proclamation is a test of faith.  

I don't think God does things like the KSS, the Proclamation, or other things specifically to test us. I think the nature of life, things, and people is that there are naturally going to be innumerable opportunities for people to take offense or lose faith --- on their own, without being sent by God to test.

"Let's have them set up a bank that will go awry to see how people react," or "Let's give this proclamation specifically to upset people and see how they will react." I can see God knowing that these things would happen, but not designing them specifically to bring to pass the test.

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'd like to provide a brief answer to this.

Laws forbidding things which are "wrong in themselves" or "mala in se" and providing punishment for their violations do not wrongly keep people from exercising their agency.  Laws which forbid things that are only "wrong because we say so" or "mala prohibita" may wrongly keep people from exercising their agency.  An example of the former is a law forbidding murder.  An example of the latter is a law forbidding religious observance, such as occurs in the so-called Peoples Republic of China.  Some mala prohibita is reasonable, however, such as the traffic laws, and do not tread on free agency. 

Edited to add: Robert gives some additional (and perhaps better) examples of mala prohibita that affect agency negatively.

Of course, what is wrong in themselves and what is wrong because we say so is problematic because everything is actually wrong only because we say so....there have been cultures, after all, who have believed murder is appropriate.  In our culture some believe abortion is a wrong in itself, others do not.

[Scott Lloyd]

Elder Ballard is paying tribute to Jane Elizabeth Manning James, an early, African American Mormon pioneer who lived a life of stalwart faith in the Church of Jesus Christ despite not being able to enjoy the blessings of the temple in her lifetime. 

"Keep the doctrine of Christ pure and do not listen to those who tamper with the doctrine."

Wow, he's especially pointed this time: Snufferism, get-rich-quick schemes, quackery. Much-needed admonishment. 

Decrying racism, sexism, nationalism. 

I love Elder Ballard. He's like the apostle James in his practical approach to gospel living. 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Brother Tad R. Callister, Sunday School general president, is taking the Book of Mormon critics head on. 

"God's fingerprints are all over the Book of Mormon."

Edited October 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

Elder Ballard

Highlight of Jane Manning James. 

Our church ancestors were not perfect, but they enrich our lives with their examples. 

The trek through life continues for each of us. Some of us are on a trek to enlightenment. Some to sorrow and despair. Where are we?  

Don't be deceived by those who tamper with the doctrine.

The priesthood quorems and relief society provide for temporal and spiritual needs of our members. 

Brother Callister

If the BoM is true then Joseph is a prophet. 

He shares many of the things that critics would have to explain. 

Friend told him when he quit focusing on all the history, geographical etc points of the BoM and focused on the teachings of Christ he found the BoM to be true.

Elder Koch

In the church and in spite of our differences we should be one. We should concentrate on our common spiritual objectives. 

How we act when we are apart from fellow church members makes a difference in our unity. What do we say about each other when we are apart?

We have no right to portray others as a badly finished product. We should instead consider how the gospel finishes us through the atonement  

As we decide to be one with the members of the church we will become one with the Lord.

Elder/Brother Ellis

The Lord trusts us in many ways. Do we trust him?

It has become clear that hard is good.  It strengthens us.

Hard is the constant. The variable is our reaction to it being hard.

Don't fear. Go forward with faith.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Rain

[rongo]

I don't remember. Did Elder Ballard mention that Jane Manning James was black, or that she was asking for temple blessings? It seems from the context like it would have fit, but I don't remember that he did. It seems like it was simply dropping a name as a pioneer.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't remember. Did Elder Ballard mention that Jane Manning James was black, or that she was asking for temple blessings? It seems from the context like it would have fit, but I don't remember that he did. It seems like it was simply dropping a name as a pioneer.

He mentioned that she was the daughter of a freed slave. And a photo of her was displayed on television screens in the Conference Center and on the transmission when he mentioned her. These two things combined would have made it clear to those not already aware of it that she was African American. 

(As I write this, I have a copy of the talk text before me.)

He did not mention her desire for temple blessings. I knew about this already, so I mentioned it in my post by way of background. 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't remember. Did Elder Ballard mention that Jane Manning James was black, or that she was asking for temple blessings? It seems from the context like it would have fit, but I don't remember that he did. It seems like it was simply dropping a name as a pioneer.

I love her story. I couldn't watch (taping it as my mom is ill and I had to go take care of her).  Did he talk about her sealing to Joseph after years of faithfulness?

Edited October 1, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He mentioned that she was the daughter of a freed slave. And a photo of her was displayed on television screens in the Conferencc Center and on the transmission when he mentioned her. These two things combined would have made it clear to those not already aware of it that she was African American. 

(As I write this, I have a copy of the talk text before me.)

Thanks! We're listening to it, so no video.

[rongo]

Just now, JulieM said:

I love her story. I couldn't watch (taping it as my mom is ill and I had to go take care of her).  Did he talk about her sealing to Joseph after years of faithfulness?

It seemed more an opportunity to mention her and show a picture, without getting into any of why she holds out interest (in the general context of us being modern pioneers, with earlier pioneers like Jane being exemplars. Very general reference). 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I love her story. I couldn't watch (taping it as my mom is ill and I had to go take care of her).  Did he talk about her sealing to Joseph after years of faithfulness?

He didn't go into that much detail. 

He did quote her very moving testimony given later in life. 

[Rain]

Elder Parrella

God calls prophets to teach, warn and lead us. By following their counsel we will receive choice blessings.  We should always act when our living prophets speak.  

Elder Ardern

We need to deepen or spiritual roots in order to protect ourselves. Unless we lay down a sure foundation with our redeemer we will be bound. 

Our desire to follow Christ means we must act on his teachings. 

Don't extinguish the flame of faith that flickers within us.  

Elder Alonso

Love one another. Key phrase, "As I have loved you."

Love is a combination of actions and deep feelings.

Being able to forgive is as sweet as being forgiven. 

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Rain

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We cannot legislate morality.  [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] We have seen the folly of that in Prohibition, or the Blue Laws once so common, and in the U.S. government attack on LDS polygamy in the 19th century.  Our wonderful Constitution sets up a system in which we as Americans can decide what is legal and what is illegal, but only as long as we are willing to extend equal protection of the law to all.  We should take Articles of Faith ##11 & 12 as a general guide.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks (who, I should point out, at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, since in the past, you've ridiculed my allegedly-tenuous grasp of legal concepts, Robert, knows a thing or two about law ) disagrees:

Quote

Some reach the pro-choice position [on abortion] by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so that our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.

Source: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/01/weightier-matters?lang=eng

Edited October 1, 2017 by Kenngo1969
Added bracketed explanation to Oaks quote for clarity