Scrutinizing general conference

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So is 3 Nephi 9:19 also a revelation? It claims to be the words of Jesus Christ.

And how about circumcision, to pick another? Or a seventh-day Sabbath?

Comparing the Mosaic law vs the New Covenant is not an example of God changing.  And I think you know that.  The eternal laws didn't change.  Blood and death is required to pay for sin.  Broken law must be paid for.  We are still required to enter the Abrahamic covenants.  We are still required to rest on the Sabbath and dedicate it to the Lord.

These eternal laws don't change.  God cannot contradict them.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Comparing the Mosaic law vs the New Covenant is not an example of God changing.

We weren't talking about God changing. You were insisting that one revelation cannot contradict a previous revelation without one of the revelations being false. That simply does not match the God of the Latter-day Restoration, in my opinion. The whole point of revelation is to take people places the previous revelations have not. That means sometimes a change in direction, including a reversal.

According to you, one of the following must therefore be a false revelation:

Quote

And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence. And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. 

 

Quote

And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings.

 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

One of the easiest ways to be misled is when the revelation tells you exactly what you want to hear and you feel good.
I worry people have pondered, prayed, felt good about doing exactly what they wanted to in the beginning, and called that revelation.

Unless we give up our will and seek God's will only, no matter how it makes us feel, there really is no reason for God to bother speaking to us.

 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I personally struggle with the opposite a lot of the time.  I tend to assume that the answer is what I don't want to do--that it's the more difficult option--and that has gotten in my way before when trying to receive personal revelation.

I do think we can be easily misled when we hear exactly what we want to hear, and yet I think a lot of things don't matter in the eternal plan and he wants us to have what will make us happy in this life, not just the next one.

For example, getting married. I can see Him saying, "get to know that man a little better," but I don't see him saying (at least not very often), "I know you don't like him, but he will be the best husband for you." 

 

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Every time I have a revelation I always try to remember what Joseph Said :

The trick is in being able to tell the difference.

There is a good chance that Joseph didn't say that though:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Attempt_to_sell_copyright#Question:_How_did_the_erroneous_story_of_the_attempt_to_sell_the_Book_of_Mormon_copyright_develop_over_time.3F

 

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, if we are to believe as was recently claimed at General Conference that the Proclamation came by revelation then any subsequent revelation allowing homosexuality can be dismissed as false.  At least according to the Prophet Joseph. God cannot contradict himself or prior revelation.

Doesn't guarantee that it won't happen.  Only that we can label it as a false revelation of it does.

So if an apostle declares something to be the revealed will of God it cannot later he changed?

Sorry... study the teachings of the prophets regarding the race-based temple ban and you’ll see that we’ve already disavowed the revealed will of God. 

[Button Gwinnett]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is a good chance that Joseph didn't say that though:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Attempt_to_sell_copyright#Question:_How_did_the_erroneous_story_of_the_attempt_to_sell_the_Book_of_Mormon_copyright_develop_over_time.3F

 

 

Yes I've read this.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

I disagree that playing devil's advocate serves no purpose but confusion.
Merely repeating official positions without acknowledging any challenges to maintaining that position is lazy.  Not addressing issues caused problems in the past.
Something can be true, god given, and still have issues surrounding it.  (This reminds me so much of the Woodruff Manifesto situation.)

I agree that the law of chastity forbids homosexual marriage.  I agree that the contents of the Proclamation are true and correct principles stated by a prophet of God.
Isn't that enough?  Does it mean we don't look at the other issues?

I think it is wrong for us to say there's no issue with the current administration of the temple covenant of chastity versus its previous iteration in relation to homosexuality.
I think it is wrong for us to say the Proclamation is a direct revelation from God when that is not how it is laid out or how President Hinckley labelled it, it is not written as the word of God, and is at best the work of inspired men.

A little honesty instead of ignoring issues is all the DA is meant to produce.  It's the same problem the Church had for many years.
 

Honesty does not entail petty and trivial nitpicking of phrasing when the meaning is obvious. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, if we are to believe as was recently claimed at General Conference that the Proclamation came by revelation then any subsequent revelation allowing homosexuality can be dismissed as false.  At least according to the Prophet Joseph. God cannot contradict himself or prior revelation.

Doesn't guarantee that it won't happen.  Only that we can label it as a false revelation of it does.

I thought you and I agreed that it needed to be the President of the Church who declared new revelation, not an apostle two decades later?

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

1978.  1995 if you count the Proclamation.

How often did the original 12 apostles receive new revelations?

 

My question was when was the last time the Prophet and President of the church declared new revelation?

I believe it was 1978.  If anyone can identify something else, please do. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 hours ago, llama said:

That was Joseph's mistake--he was too casual with God, and in so doing he set too high of expectations on the part of the members.  President Henry B. Eyring shows us how to have proper expectations in our prayers here:

 

He was too casual? How so? Was actually having a conversation, supposedly, with Deity, too pedestrian? Didn't God and Jesus start the conversation, supposedly? If so, how can one blame Joseph for listening and responding? Maybe the lack of the same today says a lot about reality? Maybe the leaders today don't get the same level of face time, as it were, due to internal problems? Or maybe the reason for the lack of JS type "revelation" is because of something else entirely?

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Same stuff we're reading right here on this thread... we're currently following the same pattern we followed with other teachings that were disavowed.  We're on track and on schedule.  Never fear - the restoration continues.

So, in your opinion, it is inevitable that the Church will fold? What is being restored by this?

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, in your opinion, it is inevitable that the Church will fold? What is being restored by this?

No.  I don’t think the church will fold.  Just that it will, eventually, change its position on homosexuality in the same way it has on other past teachings and doctrine. 

[llama]

11 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

He was too casual? How so? Was actually having a conversation, supposedly, with Deity, too pedestrian? Didn't God and Jesus start the conversation, supposedly? If so, how can one blame Joseph for listening and responding? Maybe the lack of the same today says a lot about reality? Maybe the leaders today don't get the same level of face time, as it were, due to internal problems? Or maybe the reason for the lack of JS type "revelation" is because of something else entirely?

1

 

Quote

We're dealing with God the Father, and He is so far above us in terms of their powers...I've been with people who chat as if they are chatting, when they pray, and I thought, ooh, you're a little more familiar than I am with that one because I am.  If you can just get the feeling that He is hearing you,... the conversation is not like [Holland] and I, we talk together and it's very personal, he and I, and we've had wonderful conversations, but I don't have conversations with Heavenly Father like that, at least I don't.

If our duly appointed leaders like President Eyring don't have conversational prayers, then how could we?

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

No.  I don’t think the church will fold.  Just that it will, eventually, change its position on homosexuality in the same way it has on other past teachings and doctrine. 

We shall see.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

We shall see.

Yep.

Here's the First Presidency in 1949 reassuring members that our ban that prevented them from receiving temple ordinances, being sealed, and having the priesthood was not a policy:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

29 years later it was changed ... or "all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood" thus ending the restriction.

And here is Oaks in 2017 reassuring members that our position regarding homosexuality is not a policy:

"Those who do not believe in or aspire to exaltation and are most persuaded by the ways of the world consider this family proclamation as just a statement of policy that should be changed. In contrast, Latter-day Saints affirm that the family proclamation defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur."

Will it take 29 years before this is proven wrong?

 

[JLHPROF]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

I thought you and I agreed that it needed to be the President of the Church who declared new revelation, not an apostle two decades later?

 

I do.  I am merely pointing out that IF it is a revelation then we shouldn't expect a contradictory one.

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

No.  I don’t think the church will fold.  Just that it will, eventually, change its position on homosexuality in the same way it has on other past teachings and doctrine. 

Which won't make it any more or less acceptable before the Lord.

[rockpond]

54 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I do.  I am merely pointing out that IF it is a revelation then we shouldn't expect a contradictory one.

Which won't make it any more or less acceptable before the Lord.

I think it's interesting to note that we can't identify a revelation that led the church to deny blacks the ability to be married and sealed in the temple.  But that restriction was lifted via a revelation that was canonized as such.

Similarly, we don't have a revelation (identified as such by the Prophet/President of the church or canonized) regarding gay marriage.  Perhaps we'll follow the same pattern and receive a revelation in the future that will welcome gay couples into the temple.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think it's interesting to note that we can't identify a revelation that led the church to deny blacks the ability to be married and sealed in the temple.  But that restriction was lifted via a revelation that was canonized as such.

Well if there was no revelation initiating the ban then the 1978 revelation didn't contradict it and was a course correction against the foolishness of men.  The Book of Abraham was sometimes identified as the initial revelation behind the ban, but that has been disavowed as a misinterpretation.

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Similarly, we don't have a revelation (identified as such by the Prophet/President of the church or canonized) regarding gay marriage.  Perhaps we'll follow the same pattern and receive a revelation in the future that will welcome gay couples into the temple.

Except the Church has dug their heels in and labelled the Proclamation as just such a revelation.  It will require not just a contradictory new revelation but a disavowal of the revelatory status of that document to bring the change you anticipate.  Given recent Conference I think any such disavowal is as much a pipe dream as the 1978 revelation would have been 100 years earlier.

[Hamba Tuhan]

For some reason the phrase 'two sides of the same coin' comes to mind.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, llama said:

 

If our duly appointed leaders like President Eyring don't have conversational prayers, then how could we?

I think first we should worry about praying and then if we don't sense a connection, worry about the process.  If God thinks we are getting too chummy, he is capable of pointing that out, imo.  I personally am much more concerned with getting people to even consider he will listen so they should talk to him to scold them about being too casual.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well if there was no revelation initiating the ban then the 1978 revelation didn't contradict it and was a course correction against the foolishness of men.  The Book of Abraham was sometimes identified as the initial revelation behind the ban, but that has been disavowed as a misinterpretation.

Except the Church has dug their heels in and labelled the Proclamation as just such a revelation.  It will require not just a contradictory new revelation but a disavowal of the revelatory status of that document to bring the change you anticipate.  Given recent Conference I think any such disavowal is as much a pipe dream as the 1978 revelation would have been 100 years earlier.

Yes... a course correction against the foolishness of men.

While I agree that we are digging in our heels, there was no shortage of digging in on the temple ban in the years leading up to 1978.  As you know, there are a wealth of apostolic statements but consider just the official FP statements:

In 1949 they declared the priesthood and temple ban to be a "direct commandment of the Lord".  (See quote about 5 posts up)

In 1969 we had this:  "Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God…. Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”  This official FP statement came less than 9 years before the ban was reversed.

All disavowed.

Edited October 12, 2017 by rockpond

[Meerkat]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I think first we should worry about praying and then if we don't sense a connection, worry about the process.  If God thinks we are getting too chummy, he is capable of pointing that out, imo.  I personally am much more concerned with getting people to even consider he will listen so they should talk to him to scold them about being too casual.

I've received many spiritual insights and answers to prayers that I didn't know I had in my heart, from President Eyring.  That leads me to believe he prays, just as he explained, then wrestles with the scriptures until the Spirit speaks to his heart, much like giving a priesthood blessing.  And when people like me hear it, we are fed spiritually, as if a prayer was answered.

I got the impression from the video that President Eyring and Elder Holland had at least two different processes of connecting with Heavenly Father.  Mine is altogether different from theirs.  But it works for me, and since I experience a great deal of gratitude, it must be okay.  At least I don't worry about my style of praying, and feel entitled to my own revelation on how I do it.  In other words, I'm comfortable in my own skin with regard to how I pray. 

President Eyring's description didn't resonate with me at first.  I believe he recognized he wasn't as clear as he wanted to be.  As he continued, he filled in the gaps a bit.  Fortunately the two of them together communicated to me that its okay to have my own style, and find my own way of connecting with Deity.  I liked Elder Holland's comment (paraphrased) that sometimes we need answers right away, or comfort or healing.  God can do that.  I believe the intensity of our need and faith can bring answers when we need them.  

My children are all different.  None of them communicate the same.  We adapt to each other, and learn as we go.  I feel more distant from some.  I think its because they are in the process of finding themselves, their self confidence.  I enjoy a lively communication with the older, more mature ones.  Yet I love them all pretty much the same.  I say "pretty much," because I enjoy communicating more with the ones who are kind and respectful to me and others.  My love for the rude ones doesn't feel as intense as the others yet.  Thats a failing I'm trying to come to terms with.  I'm trying to be patient in that area

Prayer seems to me a learning process where I'm playing with the pieces of a puzzle, praying for God's help to pull it together.  Every now and then, I see how the pieces should fit together.  Piece by piece, my prayers seem to be improving over time. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

I've received many spiritual insights and answers to prayers that I didn't know I had in my heart, from President Eyring.  That leads me to believe he prays, just as he explained, then wrestles with the scriptures until the Spirit speaks to his heart, much like giving a priesthood blessing.  And when people like me hear it, we are fed spiritually, as if a prayer was answered.

I got the impression from the video that President Eyring and Elder Holland had at least two different processes of connecting with Heavenly Father.  Mine is altogether different from theirs.  But it works for me, and since I experience a great deal of gratitude, it must be okay.  At least I don't worry about my style of praying, and feel entitled to my own revelation on how I do it.  In other words, I'm comfortable in my own skin with regard to how I pray. 

President Eyring's description didn't resonate with me at first.  I believe he recognized he wasn't as clear as he wanted to be.  As he continued, he filled in the gaps a bit.  Fortunately the two of them together communicated to me that its okay to have my own style, and find my own way of connecting with Deity.  I liked Elder Holland's comment (paraphrased) that sometimes we need answers right away, or comfort or healing.  God can do that.  I believe the intensity of our need and faith can bring answers when we need them.  

My children are all different.  None of them communicate the same.  We adapt to each other, and learn as we go.  I feel more distant from some.  I think its because they are in the process of finding themselves, their self confidence.  I enjoy a lively communication with the older, more mature ones.  Yet I love them all pretty much the same.  I say "pretty much," because I enjoy communicating more with the ones who are kind and respectful to me and others.  My love for the rude ones doesn't feel as intense as the others yet.  Thats a failing I'm trying to come to terms with.  I'm trying to be patient in that area

Prayer seems to me a learning process where I'm playing with the pieces of a puzzle, praying for God's help to pull it together.  Every now and then, I see how the pieces should fit together.  Piece by piece, my prayers seem to be improving over time. 

I think you have explained it well...though I only have two children who I can't compare feelings for them because the bond is so tight but so different because one is a boy, always been very independent but so present in the relationship when there and now is married with kids of his own and the other is a girl, who has always wanted me by her side and at age 12 got slammed with diabetes and depression so has very much remained dependent on me as a child and a companion even while maturing in many ways over the next 15 years.  They have never tried me in the sense I have seen other parents struggle with rebellion, which I am very grateful for, but at times I believe I wouldn't mind that so much if I could see my daughter happier in other parts of her life.

That was probably the first thing I have ever heard Elder Eyring say that I had difficulty with.  He is probably the apostle I have connected the most with over the years.  I will be open and say it bothered me so much I had to stop listening to it, so now you have said there was further clarification, hopefully I will remember to watch it all the way through tomorrow.

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yep.

Here's the First Presidency in 1949 reassuring members that our ban that prevented them from receiving temple ordinances, being sealed, and having the priesthood was not a policy:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

29 years later it was changed ... or "all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood" thus ending the restriction.

And here is Oaks in 2017 reassuring members that our position regarding homosexuality is not a policy:

"Those who do not believe in or aspire to exaltation and are most persuaded by the ways of the world consider this family proclamation as just a statement of policy that should be changed. In contrast, Latter-day Saints affirm that the family proclamation defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur."

Will it take 29 years before this is proven wrong?

 

 Having lived through that era, I always understood that the ban would end when the time was right, and it did. What evidence do you have that ssm will be embraced in the future? Where in any of the past or current statements on ssm do we find this significant disclaimer?

Quote

they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

 

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 Having lived through that era, I always understood that the ban would end when the time was right, and it did. What evidence do you have that ssm will be embraced in the future? Where in any of the past or current statements on ssm do we find this significant disclaimer?

 

Those who are confident SSM will eventually be embraced by the Church are banking on  the belief that the Church is just an organization of men, as opposed to an organization with the God of heaven literally standing at the helm, that will necessarily evolve with the times so as to allow the Church to comfortably fit in with the prevailing popular culture. They can't imagine reasonable men (for such people, human reason supplants the "outdated" notion of divine revelation) would allow the Church to be unpopular with the world by doggedly and unreasonably clinging on to what they believe is a quaint relic of what was once considered to be a pillar of Judeo-Christian morality.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Bobbieaware