Scrutinizing general conference

[kiwi57]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

But it wasn’t believed to be revelation at thr time. It was believed to be a statement of belief    A summation of existing doctrine and a proclaimation of that doctrine.   When Elder Oackard called it a revelation in his conference talk it was noticeably taken out.

Who? There are a couple of possibilities as to whose name that was supposed to be, but I'm not sure which it is.

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why did he get no support for that statement from the brotheren?

Isn't Elder Oaks one of the Brethren?

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

i fully believe that the POF is church doctrine. I don’t think anyone questioned that.   And I fully believe that everyone in that room that voted on the wording thought that they were pronouncing the will of God.  But God did not author it nor did it come about thuough revelation.  It came about through a committee consensus.  If some need to call that a revelation then who cares really. It doesn’t change how it was written or who wrote it.  

Do you really think God is not capable of revealing His will to more than one person at a time?

I repeat: every single one of the men who signed the Proclamation were sustained by the Church as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. They signed it, not as the fifteen guys who happened to be in the room at the time, but as the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Their deliberations, as Elder Oaks clearly stated, included prayer and seeking the Lord's will. That is how revelation ordinarily comes in the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Who? There are a couple of possibilities as to whose name that was supposed to be, but I'm not sure which it is.

Isn't Elder Oaks one of the Brethren?

Do you really think God is not capable of revealing His will to more than one person at a time?

I repeat: every single one of the men who signed the Proclamation were sustained by the Church as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. They signed it, not as the fifteen guys who happened to be in the room at the time, but as the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Their deliberations, as Elder Oaks clearly stated, included prayer and seeking the Lord's will. That is how revelation ordinarily comes in the Church.

Even if he had spelled Packard right, he would have been wrong. The man’s name is Packer. 

[kiwi57]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even if he had spelled Packard right, he would have been wrong. The man’s name is Packer. 

Oh, it was Elder Packer? Okay, now I know what he's talking about.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Who? There are a couple of possibilities as to whose name that was supposed to be, but I'm not sure which it is.

Isn't Elder Oaks one of the Brethren?

Do you really think God is not capable of revealing His will to more than one person at a time?

I repeat: every single one of the men who signed the Proclamation were sustained by the Church as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. They signed it, not as the fifteen guys who happened to be in the room at the time, but as the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Their deliberations, as Elder Oaks clearly stated, included prayer and seeking the Lord's will. That is how revelation ordinarily comes in the Church.

I really think that 15 men who are about the same age, share a very similar point of view, believe pretty much the same thing are perfectly capable of coming to a consensus on just about anything that they have to decide.  It would be hard to term that divine intervention in and of itself..

Whether God was actually involved in that consensus that according to Elder Oaks took about a year is something each person has to ponder for themselves.  That is still allowed in the Mormon church right?

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I really think that 15 men who are about the same age, share a very similar point of view, believe pretty much the same thing are perfectly capable of coming to a consensus on just about anything that they have to decide.  It would be hard to term that divine intervention in and of itself...

Then-Elder-Now-President Nelson disagrees:

Quote

The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous.13 Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached! They are committed to see that the Lord’s will truly will be done. The Lord’s Prayer provides the pattern for each of these 15 men when they pray: “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Source: Elder Russell M. Nelson (October 2014) "Sustaining The Prophets," address delivered at the 184th Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.  Accessed on line at the following address on October 15, 2017:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng.

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

When church leaders claim something came from God himself when it didn’t then they are revealed for what they actually are, just men trying like the rest of us to figure out what is actually true and what is just the belief of men

This reminds of something my sister-in-law decided: that since the date of Christ's birth wasn't actually December 25, therefore God doesn't exist and religion is a lie.

If Church leaders were perfect and never made mistakes, they wouldn't be men and women, they would be angels. The mistakes of men can only invalidate God's existence, or the Church's veracity, when the cart is placed before the horse.

10 hours ago, california boy said:

So what do you think God thinks about the church?

I suspect He thinks the same thing He thought back in 1831:

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually (DC 1:31)

10 hours ago, california boy said:

 Personally, I think God feels like it is doing a fairly good job for less than 1% of his children.  Sometimes the church gets things wrong, but overall it is generally headed in the right direction. 

The public influence of the Church might be somewhat larger than that -- although I don't think anyone mortal is well-qualified to be able to quantify that. As to the private influence, I suspect it is much larger.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I really think that 15 men who are about the same age, share a very similar point of view, believe pretty much the same thing are perfectly capable of coming to a consensus on just about anything that they have to decide.  It would be hard to term that divine intervention in and of itself..

Whether God was actually involved in that consensus that according to Elder Oaks took about a year is something each person has to ponder for themselves.  That is still allowed in the Mormon church right?

 

Yes, to me, unanimity equaling revelation is odd logic.

I grew up in the church with a distinct understanding of what revelation was.  I've had to revise that in my adult years.  But Oaks' declaration that a year long process of fine tuning a document without close involvement of the prophet is revelation has definitely forced me to make another leap in how I consider the church to be defining revelation.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Then-Elder-Now-President Nelson disagrees:

Source: Elder Russell M. Nelson (October 2014) "Sustaining The Prophets," address delivered at the 184th Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.  Accessed on line at the following address on October 15, 2017:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng.

Considering that this is a global church, those 15 men are relatively similar in their background.  If we extend Nelson's logic, would we have access to even greater revelation if there was more diversity in the quorum?  If not, why not?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Then-Elder-Now-President Nelson disagrees:

The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous.13 Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached! They are committed to see that the Lord’s will truly will be done. The Lord’s Prayer provides the pattern for each of these 15 men when they pray: “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Source: Elder Russell M. Nelson (October 2014) "Sustaining The Prophets," address delivered at the 184th Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.  Accessed on line at the following address on October 15, 2017:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng.

Rarely is a room filled with 15 men that are as homogenized as the leaders of the church.  Why Elder Nelson would be surprised that they would all agree on church policy is beyond me.  I suspect that they pretty much agree on virtually every church policy that comes before them.  Can you think of a policy that may have a divided opinion?  Perhaps there are different approaches on how to implement programs, but I doubt very much that the goals of those programs are not unanimously agreed upon on a regular basis.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Rarely is a room filled with 15 men that are as homogenized as the leaders of the church.  Why Elder Nelson would be surprised that they would all agree on church policy is beyond me.  I suspect that they pretty much agree on virtually every church policy that comes before them.  Can you think of a policy that may have a divided opinion?  Perhaps there are different approaches on how to implement programs, but I doubt very much that the goals of those programs are not unanimously agreed upon on a regular basis.

And you'd also need to factor in seniority (if a new apostle notices senior apostles espousing a certain view, what is the likelihood that he'll disagree?) and calling (1 of the 15 is president of the church, 2 of them are members of the First Presidency).  

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, to me, unanimity equaling revelation is odd logic.

I grew up in the church with a distinct understanding of what revelation was.  I've had to revise that in my adult years.  But Oaks' declaration that a year long process of fine tuning a document without close involvement of the prophet is revelation has definitely forced me to make another leap in how I consider the church to be defining revelation.

I think I grew up in the same church as you did where revelation was more than just a consensus of opinion by leaders whose beliefs and views are so similar. Especially when those leaders are almost all picked from the same families that have lead the church in past decades.  Just how different can their beliefs be?  

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think I grew up in the same church as you did where revelation was more than just a consensus of opinion by leaders whose beliefs and views are so similar. Especially when those leaders are almost all picked from the same families that have lead the church in past decades.  Just how different can their beliefs be?  

I think when all 15 men express a position that they are all uncomfortable with and isn't the same one they had before praying about an issue I might be more curious as to heavenly source.  Confirmation bias is not the same as revelation.  Although it does produce the same feelings of peace.

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Elder Oaks warned that how we treat the proclamation would be a test for our generation. I don't think it would be wise to write it off

The scriptures of course are filled with accounts of people who found all kinds of reasons to 'write off' or even just downplay the words of prophets, but it may be well to remember that the Saviour Himself was repeatedly dismissed as one who just spoke as a man. One example:

Quote

And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people ...  Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

The response of many?

Quote

The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil ...

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Rarely is a room filled with 15 men that are as homogenized as the leaders of the church. Why Elder Nelson would be surprised that they would all agree on church policy is beyond me.  I suspect that they pretty much agree on virtually every church policy that comes before them.  Can you think of a policy that may have a divided opinion?  Perhaps there are different approaches on how to implement programs, but I doubt very much that the goals of those programs are not unanimously agreed upon on a regular basis.

I think your assessment falls prey to at least one fallacy, that people who happen to look alike (or who happen to share one or more characteristics in common) ipso facto and res ipsa loquitur have the same opinion.  T'ain't necessarily so.   If I were to say that "Gays think ..." this or that they think that, I would be falling into the same trap, and, justly, you could excoriate me for doing so. 

And with all due respect, I'm much more inclined to take now-President Nelson's word for what occurs in discussions in the Quorum of the Twelve than I am to take yours.   At the time the address from which I took the excerpt in my previous post was given, he had 30 years' tenure in the Quorum, and now he has about 33 years such experience upon which to draw when describing how things work in that body.  I admit, I cannot think of an example of a policy upon which they may have a divided opinion.  There are two reasons for that: (1) That question calls for speculation (again, I'll take Elder/President Nelson's word based on observation of what actually does occur in the Quorum over your speculation about what might occur there); and (2) Automatically assuming that no real deliberation occurs when decisions are made in the Quorum assumes facts which are not in evidence and contravenes the direct testimony of someone who has actual knowledge of how things really work.

[Kenngo1969]

50 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The scriptures of course are filled with accounts of people who found all kinds of reasons to 'write off' or even just downplay the words of prophets, but it may be well to remember that the Saviour Himself was repeatedly dismissed as one who just spoke as a man. One example:

The response of many?

[Thou hast a devil ...]

Indeed.  Latter-day Holy Writ also is instructive.

Quote

 

Doctrine & Covenants 21

5 For his [Joseph Smith's] word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.

7 For thus saith the Lord God: Him have I inspired to move the cause of Zion in mighty power for good, and his diligence I know, and his prayers I have heard.

 

And the "patience and faith" part isn't about waiting for God or for His Servants to finally get a clue so they agree with me.  It's about withholding judgment regarding things I might not understand and waiting for further light and knowledge to be revealed to me as I walk humbly in faith and follow them (even if, like Nephi, "I know not the meaning of all things.  Nevertheless, I know that [God] loveth His children" (1 Nephi 11:17)).  I'm also reminded of something President Ezra Taft Benson wrote in his seminal address, "Beware of Pride," more than a quarter-century ago (and it seems more true today than it was when he wrote it, and even more true with each passing day):  "The proud wish God would agree with them. They aren’t interested in changing their opinions to agree with God’s."  (I'm not calling anyone specific out here, but if the shoe might fit, perhaps some self-reflection is in order ...) See Ezra Taft Benson (April 1989) "Beware of Pride," address (read by President Gordon B. Hinckley) at the 159th Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City UT, available on line at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride?lang=eng and last accessed October 15, 2017.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Indeed.  Latter-day Holy Writ also is instructive.

You do realise that the promises in the D&C were just written by Joseph Smith, right? 

Quote

 "The proud wish God would agree with them. They aren’t interested in changing their opinions to agree with God’s."

The problem, of course, arises when people are certain that they agree with God (and vice versa), but those pesky prophets just haven't joined the mutual-appreciation party yet.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You do realise that the promises in the D&C were just written by Joseph Smith, right? 

The problem, of course, arises when people are certain that they agree with God (and vice versa), but those pesky prophets just haven't joined the mutual-appreciation party yet.

Hey, if Joseph Smith were interested solely in having people venerate him, he should have done a much better job whitewashing history:

Quote

 

Doctrine & Covenants 1

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; [Bold added by Kenngo1969].

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

There's also this, from the inimitable, incomparable Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:

Quote

As the least of those who have been sustained by you to witness the guidance of this Church firsthand, I say with all the fervor of my soul that never in my personal or professional life have I ever associated with any group who are so in touch, who know so profoundly the issues facing us, who look so deeply into the old, stay so open to the new, and weigh so carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully everything in between. I testify that the grasp this body of men and women have of moral and societal issues exceeds that of any think tank or brain trust of comparable endeavor of which I know anywhere on the earth. I bear personal witness of how thoroughly good they are, of how hard they work, and how humbly they live. It is no trivial matter for this Church to declare to the world prophecy, seership, and revelation, but we do declare it. It is true light shining in a dark world, and it shines from these proceedings.

Source: Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (October 2006) "Prophets in the Land Again," address delivered at the 176th Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City UT, accessed on line at the following address on October 16, 2017: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/prophets-in-the-land-again?lang=eng.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Gray]

19 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You do realise that the promises in the D&C were just written by Joseph Smith, right? 

The problem, of course, arises when people are certain that they agree with God (and vice versa), but those pesky prophets just haven't joined the mutual-appreciation party yet.

The nice thing about this line of argument is that it can be used by anyone at any time to bolster any viewpoint.

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

There's also this, from the inimitable, incomparable Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:

Source: Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (October 2006) "Prophets in the Land Again," address delivered at the 176th Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City UT, accessed on line at the following address on October 16, 2017: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/prophets-in-the-land-again?lang=eng.

A self endorsement... okay.

I agree that they are incredibly hard working.

However, I have seen very little coming from the FP and Q12 that demonstrates they "know so profoundly" or have any exceeding grasp of the issues face by LGBT members and their loved ones or by those who are experiencing serious face crises (aside from Pres. Uchtdorf).  That doesn't mean that they don't have said understanding, just that I don't see evidence of it in the words they deliver from the pulpit.

[kiwi57]

52 minutes ago, rockpond said:

A self endorsement... okay.

I agree that they are incredibly hard working.

However, I have seen very little coming from the FP and Q12 that demonstrates they "know so profoundly" or have any exceeding grasp of the issues face by LGBT members and their loved ones or by those who are experiencing serious face crises (aside from Pres. Uchtdorf).  That doesn't mean that they don't have said understanding, just that I don't see evidence of it in the words they deliver from the pulpit.

But Rockpond, what - apart from complete surrender to the "progressive" juggernaut, which isn't going to happen - would it take to convince you that the Brethren do understand those issues?

[Kenngo1969]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

A self endorsement... okay.

Yeah.  I'll take what you (apparently) deride as a "self-endorsement" over what amounts to little more than bare speculation from someone who has never been privy to the proceedings, deliberations, et cetera of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve (in case you're wondering, no, I'm not referring to you, but, rather, to another of my interlocutors in this thread).  What can I say?  I'm just funny that way!   And Elder Holland was speaking of the First Presidency, of the Twelve, and of other leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ collectively, so, as "the least among them," he was crediting their collective efforts and insight, even if he, himself, doesn't happen to work very hard or to contribute very many keen insights to their collective decisionmaking process.

Quote

I agree that they are incredibly hard working.

I'm reminded of something JKWilliams wrote on the thread discussing Elder Hales's passing some time back.  In a brief conversation he had with Elder Hales in a Church Office Building elevator, in light of Elder Hales's most recent bout with heart problems, Elder Hales said his doctor had restricted him to working half-days.  "So, about twelve hours," Elder Hales said wryly.

Quote

However, I have seen very little coming from the FP and Q12 that demonstrates they "know so profoundly" or have any exceeding grasp of the issues face by LGBT members and their loved ones or by those who are experiencing serious face crises (aside from Pres. Uchtdorf).  That doesn't mean that they don't have said understanding, just that I don't see evidence of it in the words they deliver from the pulpit.

It's hard to address individual exceptions or situations in general preaching.  (Frankly, such exceptions are likely to be quite rare, and even if I'm experiencing a challenge which happens to be quite common, I'm still the only "me" ... with the intellectual endowment, outlook, temperament, attitudes, and so on, that I bring to it ... experiencing that challenge.  That's why each one of us needs to invite the Holy Spirit to tailor a "general preaching" message to our individual needs.

And if you "have seen very little coming from the First Presidency [and/or] the Quorum of the Twelve" which deals with the issues you mention, with due respect, I have to wonder whether you have been paying very close attention, or what idiosyncratic filter you might be employing (wittingly or not) to dismiss or to discount whatever you think shouldn't "count."  In any event, in my opinion, local leaders are best positioned to deal with any such issues among members of their flock because they: (1) know individual members best; (2) have keys which they can employ to the benefit of individual members; (3) are best acquainted with varying local circumstances, and so on and so forth.

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

But Rockpond, what - apart from complete surrender to the "progressive" juggernaut, which isn't going to happen - would it take to convince you that the Brethren do understand those issues?

I haven't even implied a "surrender to the progressive juggernaut".  Not sure why you'd even suggest that.

I'm not sure what it would take to convince me that they understand those issues.  I'm simply saying that I don't see evidence that they do.  If you spend time listening to those going through faith crises, you get a feel for how dark and lonely it is for them.  And, apart from Pres. Uchtdorf, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of outreach.

Similarly, you look at Oaks' address from last conference where he discusses homosexuality but doesn't offer anything to lesbian and gay brothers and sisters.  They (and I have heard from some of them) are left wondering where they fit in "The Plan and the Proclamation".

Like I said, they may have a profound understanding of these issues but I don't see it coming out in their conference messages.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yeah.  I'll take what you (apparently) deride as a "self-endorsement" over what amounts to little more than bare speculation from someone who has never been privy to the proceedings, deliberations, et cetera of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve (in case you're wondering, no, I'm not referring to you, but, rather, to another of my interlocutors in this thread).  What can I say?  I'm just funny that way!   And Elder Holland was speaking of the First Presidency, of the Twelve, and of other leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ collectively, so, as "the least among them," he was crediting their collective efforts and insight, even if he, himself, doesn't happen to work very hard or to contribute very many keen insights to their collective decisionmaking process.

I'm reminded of something JKWilliams wrote on the thread discussing Elder Hales's passing some time back.  In a brief conversation he had with Elder Hales in a Church Office Building elevator, in light of Elder Hales's most recent bout with heart problems, Elder Hales said his doctor had restricted him to working half-days.  "So, about twelve hours," Elder Hales said wryly.

It's hard to address individual exceptions or situations in general preaching.  (Frankly, such exceptions are likely to be quite rare, and even if I'm experiencing a challenge which happens to be quite common, I'm still the only "me" ... with the intellectual endowment, outlook, temperament, attitudes, and so on, that I bring to it ... experiencing that challenge.  That's why each one of us needs to invite the Holy Spirit to tailor a "general preaching" message to our individual needs.

And if you "have seen very little coming from the First Presidency [and/or] the Quorum of the Twelve" which deals with the issues you mention, with due respect, I have to wonder whether you have been paying very close attention, or what idiosyncratic filter you might be employing (wittingly or not) to dismiss or to discount whatever you think shouldn't "count."  In any event, in my opinion, local leaders are best positioned to deal with any such issues among members of their flock because they: (1) know individual members best; (2) have keys which they can employ to the benefit of individual members; (3) are best acquainted with varying local circumstances, and so on and so forth.

I wasn't referring to "individual exceptions".

Oaks had no problem using a conference address to go after the group of members who believe in gay marriage.  How big is that group?

As I indicated above to Kiwi57... you are welcome to feel otherwise and I accept that.  But I don't not see evidence that they have a profound understanding of all these issues.

[rongo]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Oaks had no problem using a conference address to go after the group of members who believe in gay marriage.  How big is that group?

Well, to hear progressives tell it, it is almost every single youth and millennial in the Church. And submission to the tidal wave of social change and opinion is inevitable.

Even allowing that this is overblown, do you believe he is addressing what any of us would call a significant number of members? 

I would.