Elder Hales Has Died

[jkwilliams]

Sorry to hear this. I met him only once, but he seemed like a very nice man. My friend who left the church about the same time I did and had far more interaction with the GAs said, "He was one of the good ones." I asked him what he meant, and he said, "Some of the Brethren would demand to be treated like royalty, some were harsh and dogmatic, and others put kindness and love above everything else--that was my experience with Elder Hales."

[Five Solas]

On 10/2/2017 at 1:29 AM, Stargazer said:

I do believe that saying Peter's momentary lack of fortitude and Thomas' momentary lack of faith cancel's out all their previous faithfulness is a bit much. Especially since Jesus knew in advance ...

I suppose to defend Hales' comments (and perhaps Mormonism generally) you have to dismiss John 18:13-27 and John 20:25 and their respective denials of the person and work of Christ as "momentary" and ultimately inconsequential events.  You have to suppose that despite their words, they were still good people in the balance and thereby met Hales' threshold to "behold the savior's presence."  Good people can have a bad day--that's the LDS takeaway.  What really matters is whether the credits exceed the debits on the P&L statement.   

But I think one could be forgiven for thinking such reasoning trivializes those passages.  

--Erik

______________________________________

Leather elbows on a tweed coat, oh
Is that the best you can do?

--Morrissey "Alsatian Cousin"

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I suppose to defend Hales' comments (and perhaps Mormonism generally) you have to dismiss John 18:13-27 and John 20:25 and their respective denials of the person and work of Christ as "momentary" and ultimately inconsequential events.  You have to suppose that despite their words, they were still good people in the balance and thereby met Hales' threshold to "behold the savior's presence."  Good people can have a bad day--that's the LDS takeaway.  What really matters is whether the credits exceed the debits on the P&L statement.   

But I think one could be forgiven for thinking such reasoning trivializes those passages.  

--Erik

______________________________________

Leather elbows on a tweed coat, oh
Is that the best you can do?

--Morrissey "Alsatian Cousin"

Here is what Elder Andersen said as it is on lds.org  “When we choose to have faith, we are prepared to stand in the presence of God. … After the Savior’s Crucifixion, He appeared only to those ‘who had been faithful in the testimony of [Him] while they lived in mortality.’ [D&C 138:12.] Those ‘who rejected the testimonies … of the … prophets [could not] behold [the Savior’s] presence, nor look upon his face.’ [D&C 138:21.] … Our faith prepares us to be in the presence of the Lord.”

I notice there are some lines missing and wonder what the whole quotation is. I wonder if Elder Hales was meaning that Christ didn't visit people who rejected him, I don't see Peter or Thomas rejecting him. IIRC Pres. Kimball threw it out there that perhaps Peter denied knowing him but not denying his identity or maybe Christ told him to deny him as possibly Peter could have been rubbed out, who knows though. Recall when Christ visited the Americas he visited the group assembled at the Temple in Bountiful and he told them, among other things, to repent. So, he knows no one is perfect but those people were trying to worship him in truth and spirit and not rejecting him. For me, I broaden out the quotation to mean i'd be interested to see what the whole quotation says and maybe Elder Hales was saying that Christ didn't visit people who rejected him, like the leaders and the haters.

[Five Solas]

On 10/2/2017 at 1:32 PM, Calm said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliban_upon_Setebos

Victorian era poetry, resurrected & put into service against contemporary critics.  Gotta love it!

;0)

--Erik

______________________________________________________

It's the latest wave that you've been craving for
The old ideal was getting such a bore
Now you're back in line
Going not quite as far
But in half the time
Everyone's happy, they're finally all the same
Because everyone's jumping everybody else's train

--The Cure, 1979

[Five Solas]

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Pres. Kimball threw it out there that perhaps Peter denied knowing him but not denying his identity or maybe Christ told him to deny him as possibly Peter could have been rubbed out...

But wouldn't that be at least a little incongruous--Jesus commanding a lie, Duncan?  Would you really worship a god like that?  Serious question. 

--Erik 

[sheilauk]

53 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I suppose to defend Hales' comments (and perhaps Mormonism generally) you have to dismiss John 18:13-27 and John 20:25 and their respective denials of the person and work of Christ as "momentary" and ultimately inconsequential events.  You have to suppose that despite their words, they were still good people in the balance and thereby met Hales' threshold to "behold the savior's presence."  Good people can have a bad day--that's the LDS takeaway.  What really matters is whether the credits exceed the debits on the P&L statement.   

But I think one could be forgiven for thinking such reasoning trivializes those passages.  

--Erik

______________________________________

Leather elbows on a tweed coat, oh
Is that the best you can do?

--Morrissey "Alsatian Cousin"

They were momentary lapses, as we all have. Both men repented and confessed their faith. The beauty and strength of those passages is that if apostles who have been in Christ's presence, can falter, repent and be forgiven, so can all of us. By appearing to them, Christ surely judged them as faithful despite their lapses and he used their experience to teach us.   Elder Hales and Elder Anderson's comments don't dismiss those passages or trivalize them, they give hope that, even though we falter, we can still return to Christ's presence, through our (renewed) faith in Him.  

Or do you think that despite all their faith and their actions, Peter and Thomas are not with God?   That His Grace is not sufficient to save them, even though they accepted Him as their Saviour after their lapse?

And, your comments notwithstanding, the Church teaches that in the end we need God's Grace to save us, whatever our "credits and debits" .  Of course you know that. 

[sheilauk]

32 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

But wouldn't that be at least a little incongruous--Jesus commanding a lie, Duncan?  Would you really worship a god like that?  Serious question. 

--Erik 

Who told Abraham to claim Sarah was his sister? 

[Five Solas]

3 minutes ago, sheilauk said:

Who told Abraham to claim Sarah was his sister? 

Kindly provide the Bible verse, sheilauk. 

--Erik

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I suppose to defend Hales' comments (and perhaps Mormonism generally) you have to dismiss John 18:13-27 and John 20:25 and their respective denials of the person and work of Christ as "momentary" and ultimately inconsequential events.  You have to suppose that despite their words, they were still good people in the balance and thereby met Hales' threshold to "behold the savior's presence."  Good people can have a bad day--that's the LDS takeaway.  What really matters is whether the credits exceed the debits on the P&L statement.   

But I think one could be forgiven for thinking such reasoning trivializes those passages.  

--Erik

______________________________________

Leather elbows on a tweed coat, oh
Is that the best you can do?

--Morrissey "Alsatian Cousin"

Actually, I could have sworn that Christ's atonement cancels out all sin and all mistakes. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but I do tend to rely upon the scriptures for such things. And it was known well before Jesus ever walked upon the earth:

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah 1:18)

And after:

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." 1 John 1:7

There is only one sin that cannot be forgiven:

"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Matt. 12:31-32

If you want to rail against Elder Hales, or Peter, or Thomas, have at it. No doubt that's forgivable, although there are a few scripture verses that tend to suggest that those who cannot forgive others deserve no forgiveness themselves.  Just sayin'.  Not that Elder Hales did anything to kick over your apple cart, of course.

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 07/10/2017 at 4:14 PM, Five Solas said:

What really matters is whether the credits exceed the debits on the P&L statement. 

No, what really seems to matter is whether this or that totally depraved man is randomly elected by a monstrous but completely irresistible god.

Which is no doubt what the Saviour meant to say each time he assured people that their faith had made them whole.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Victorian era poetry, resurrected & put into service against contemporary critics.  Gotta love it!

I certainly do! Though I suspect 'resurrected' is a bit inaccurate; good poetry, as you should know, never dies ... just like certain heresies and false gods.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Duncan]

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

But wouldn't that be at least a little incongruous--Jesus commanding a lie, Duncan?  Would you really worship a god like that?  Serious question. 

--Erik 

it's not a lie if you believe it I am looking through that talk by Pres. Kimball and I am not finding what I was reffering too, that's odd, I must have remembered it wrong then. I don't think I would worship a God would tell someone to lie, but I would imagine there would be so many moving parts in that scenario

https://www.lds.org/manual/the-life-and-teachings-of-jesus-and-his-apostles/appendix-section/appendix-d?lang=eng

[Kenngo1969]

Condolences to all of Elder Hales's family, friends, and colleagues on his loss.  I hope they all find comfort in a life well-lived, trials well-borne, and in the promise of a life to come.  I think this is a pretty cool account of how Elder Hales, though he was, no doubt, very busy, didn't get so busy ad-ministering that he neglected to minister on a more personal, intimate, individual level.  While, undoubtedly, this young man misses Elder Hales, how wonderful to be able to have such fond memories of their friendship to hold onto.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-l-andersen/the-kindness-of-elder-robert-d-hales-the-story-of-tie-buddies/820214838153719/

 

[Five Solas]

On 10/6/2017 at 11:35 PM, sheilauk said:

They were momentary lapses, as we all have. Both men repented and confessed their faith. The beauty and strength of those passages is that if apostles who have been in Christ's presence, can falter, repent and be forgiven, so can all of us. By appearing to them, Christ surely judged them as faithful despite their lapses and he used their experience to teach us.   Elder Hales and Elder Anderson's comments don't dismiss those passages or trivalize them, they give hope that, even though we falter, we can still return to Christ's presence, through our (renewed) faith in Him.  

Or do you think that despite all their faith and their actions, Peter and Thomas are not with God?   That His Grace is not sufficient to save them, even though they accepted Him as their Saviour after their lapse?

And, your comments notwithstanding, the Church teaches that in the end we need God's Grace to save us, whatever our "credits and debits" .  Of course you know that. 

You appear to be deliberately changing the subject, sheilauk.  Hales told us--"He [Jesus] appeared only to those who had been faithful in the testimony of Him."  Hales statement is what's at issue here.  Is it, strictly speaking, true or is it false according to Scripture? 

It's not about the lives Peter and Thomas led following their encounter with the risen Christ.  It's not about repentance.  It's not about whether they are now "with God."  Please don't, for the sake of some rhetorical effect, pretend I've suggested or implied otherwise. 

At issue is simply whether we should take Hales' statement at face value in light of the explicit denials of the person and work of Christ made by these men (John 18:13-27 and John 20:25)--immediately prior to their beholding Christ.  At issue here is God's sovereignty.  And you really can't have grace (a word that means unmerited favor) without sovereignty.  Peter and Thomas received grace--of that their can be no doubt if Scripture is our guide. 

--Erik

PS.  You still owe a Scripture reference, from a question earlier on page 2.  It's coming soon, I trust. 

:0)

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Five Solas said:

You appear to be deliberately changing the subject, sheilauk.  Hales told us--"He [Jesus] appeared only to those who had been faithful in the testimony of Him."  Hales statement is what's at issue here.  Is it, strictly speaking, true or is it false according to Scripture? 

It's not about the lives Peter and Thomas led following their encounter with the risen Christ.  It's not about repentance.  It's not about whether they are now "with God."  Please don't, for the sake of some rhetorical effect, pretend I've suggested or implied otherwise. 

At issue is simply whether we should take Hales' statement at face value in light of the explicit denials of the person and work of Christ made by these men (John 18:13-27 and John 20:25)--immediately prior to their beholding Christ.  At issue here is God's sovereignty.  And you really can't have grace (a word that means unmerited favor) without sovereignty.  Peter and Thomas received grace--of that their can be no doubt if Scripture is our guide. 

--Erik

PS.  You still owe a Scripture reference, from a question earlier on page 2.  It's coming soon, I trust. 

:0)

No, see, Erik, I think it's you who is confused about the subject of this thread.  If you would like to take issue with anything Elder Hales has ever written or anything he has ever taught, you're certainly welcome to do that.  Start another thread.  (I suspect the reason you're reluctant to do so is because such a thread isn't likely to garner much interest, and you know that, so you would rather derail this one.)  But in case you're confused, this thread was started specifically to mourn Elder Hales's passing and to celebrate his life.

And, no, since you didn't start this thread, since you have no right to drag it on irrelevant tangents or otherwise to dictate the terms of the discussion, no one owes you anything.  If you don't start the thread, you don't get to dictate the terms of the discussion.  That's the cyber-equivalent of me barging into your house and suddenly laying down new house rules for everyone who lives there.  I don't think you or anyone else who lives in your house would like that very much, and for good reason.  Neither do we. Where the account of God telling Abraham to tell his wife to say that she's actually his sister can be found in the Latter-day Saint canon is of absolutely no consequence to us.  Don't have an open canon?  Fine.  Don't believe in continuing revelation?  Fine.  Want to believe that Latter-day Saints are playing tennis with the net down by referring to passages in books you don't accept as scripture?  Fine.  But in case you're confused, this is a Mormon board.  You don't get to set the rules of discussion to match your religious leanings.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Five Solas]

You're not being fair, Kenngo.  I'm not taking issue with just anything Hales "has ever written" and/or "ever taught"--I'm taking issue with a quote on the 9th post of this thread (see page 1).  Apparently it's one of the last ideas the late gentleman expressed.  For good or ill, it's now an inescapable part of his legacy. 

If you believe Hales words and legacy are out-of-bounds for alternative points of view to be expressed--then this thread should have been posted/moved to "Social Hall"--not left in "General Discussions."  But since that wasn't the case, I suggest we honor the purpose & intent of this particular forum.  Let's have some actual discussion. 

And if I believe a respondent has gone outside the immediate topic and is thereby scoring points (or "likes"), I'm entitled to call her out & redirect, as I have done.  And if truth is my object, I'm not merely entitled--I'm obligated.  

So let's keep cool and see what she has to say. 

:0)

--Erik

PS.  Inspired by your somewhat dramatic line "no one owes you anything" (complete with bolded words), I offer for your on-topic listening pleasure--a real gem, actually--The Smiths "I Don't Owe You Anything"

Did I really walk all this way
Just to hear you say :
'Oh, I don't want to go out tonight' ?
'Oh, I don't want to go out tonight'

But you will
For you must

I don't owe you anything, no
But you owe me something
Repay me now

[thesometimesaint]

Sophistry. No  knowledgeable LDS claims any mortal but Jesus was perfect. We are  good men/women trying to do our best to understand and become like God.

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Five Solas said:

 

So let's keep cool and see what she has to say. 

--Erik

 

OK.  By all means, let's keep cool.  

I wasn't aware that anyone had lost his cool, but, by all means, let's keep cool.  I don't think your interlocutor feels she is as bound to give you an explanation as you think she should feel, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one if I were you, but yes, by all means, let's keep cool.  And I'll reiterate:

Quote

Where the account of God telling Abraham to tell his wife to say that she's actually his sister can be found in the Latter-day Saint canon is of absolutely no consequence to us.  Don't have an open canon?  Fine.  Don't believe in continuing revelation?  Fine.  Want to believe that Latter-day Saints are playing tennis with the net down by referring to passages in books you don't accept as scripture?  Fine.  But in case you're confused, this is a Mormon board.

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Kenngo1969