Gospel Doctrine - Going Out With A Bang

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

This is a great idea. In fact we should automatically question anyone's sincerity who does not present a lesson accompanied by each and everyone of these conditions. No one should be allowed to teach without being able to meet this standard.

I hope you're joking.  

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I’ve made it a point in my three years of teaching GD to never end my lesson with a “testimony.” I “bear my testimony” the entire time I’m giving the lesson so I don’t really find it necessary. Plus I’m kind of rebellious like that anyway. 

Bearing testimony is stating what you know to be true.  I would hope nobody would be teaching something they believed to be false.

[Calm]

As far as I can tell from online sources, the one journal was written in Feb 1840.  Not sure if that was the one that referenced it or not though and I don't have a clue as it has been over a decade since I last read it.

[Duncan]

deleted

Edited January 2, 2018 by Duncan

[Bobbieaware]

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do all LDS talks, classes, etc, have to end with a testimony? It is a uniquely LDS phenomenon for sure -- constantly saying that you know something is true. While such declarations have their time and place, sometimes it is also ok to let the truth speak for itself, surely.

Yes, the bearing of one’s testimony to the truthfulness of the gospel principles one is teaching should always be present and neglecting to bear ome’s testimony in these situations is a either a serious act of neglect or one of deliberately negative calculation. Listen to any LDS General Conference address and you will quickly learn that the bearing of testimony is always present. Further, in our lesson manuals we are constantly reminded that testimony-bearing is an essential element of effective gospel teaching.

In addition, our scriptures teach us that if we “have not the Spirit, ye shall not teach.” And since, by very nature, the Spirit constantly testifies as it teaches, the failure or refusal to bear testimony is an indicator that something might very well be seriously amiss in the one who is teaching or preaching. The Spirit of the Lord invariably testifies of the truth to those who have the Spirit, and testifying to what the has Spirit testified to you is perfectly natural and necessary in a teaching and preaching session where testimony building and edification is the goal.

Now with regard to the opening post on this thread, any Church leader will tell you that during those rare forays into teaching controversial topics it’s even more essential to bear testimony and lay one’s spiritual witness out into the open, for all to see, so that the congregation will be strengthened by the Spirit and not come away with the impression that the preacher or teacher is, in reality, wavering in their faith and actually trying to drag others down into their own world of doubt and spiritual alienation. Misery loves company. So now you know.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly, this one is pretty new to me.  I don't recall reading about it before, and I'm curious if there are contemporaneous records that could corroborate those later recollections.  Do you know if there is any contemporary evidence to support that Brigham and other apostles would have gone back into Missouri during that time of conflict to dedicate the Far West temple site?  I'm not saying it didn't happen, but this linked website seems to only reference later recollections.  

I'm not sure what you're asking, did the Apostles know that Missouri was a hot spot and it was unlikely for the Temple to be built and they knew this in 1838/39?

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Years ago friends took me to a testimony meeting. The "I know" statements were so repetitive. Now, I don't have anything inherently against repeating things (I love the Rosary and novenas and the Stations of the Cross, etc), but something about it seemed a little off. Probably because I'm not LDS. But there was a person or two who did talk about personal spiritual experiences, problems, growth, and insights and I found that much more interesting and edifying and real.

I agree completely.  For me, it is not the "I know" statements that I feel, it is the 'hows' and 'whys' behind the "I knows" that resonate with me.   

Having said that, there are times when a solid "I know" statement really impact me.  For example, when I was in the missionary training center learning Tagalog to serve in the Philippines, an Apostle of the Lord, Elder Henry B. Eyring, spoke at a meeting.  I can't remember what he talked about, but I will never forget his testimony of the Savior.  He stated simply, "I know the Savior lives."  I fully expected him to continue on with his talk...but instead, he paused... and repeated...this time with a little quiver in his voice and a little more reverence in tone... "I know the Savior lives."  By that point he had my attention.  I felt it.  The spirit burned in the following silence...a much longer silence other than some sniffling in the congregation, and from Elder Eyring, and finally...barely able to speak and in a soft, gentle, reassuring voice..."I know the Savior lives".  Reading these words on page fail to convey the power of the spirit that overtook me at that moment, hearing those words.  I knew that he knew.  It will forever be written on my heart.  He instilled in me a profound desire to know as he knows.     

Edited January 2, 2018 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I'm not sure what you're asking, did the Apostles know that Missouri was a hot spot and it was unlikely for the Temple to be built and they knew this in 1838/39?

I’m asking for contemporaneous accounts of individuals that actually traveled to Far West in 1839 for the dedication.  All the quotes from the linked site were from 30+ yrs later.  

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Yes, the bearing of one’s testimony to the truthfulness of the gospel principles one is teaching should always be present and neglecting to bear ome’s testimony in these situations is a either a serious act of neglect or one of deliberately negative calculation.

You're speaking very authoritatively.  Do you have a reference to back up this statement?  I don't think i've ever heard any leader teach that failing to bear a testimony at the end of a talk is a sin.  And can you explain what you mean by "deliberately negative calculation"?  I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I hope your lesson concluded with you bearing a most genuine, fervent and inspiring testimony of the spiritual witness you have received that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the restored Church of Christ and the one true and living Church on the face of the earth, that the Doctrine & Covenants is a heaven-inspired volume of modern scripture that you love and strive to obey, and that the Church is led today by true prophets, seers and revelators who act in their sacred callings by virtue of authentic priesthood power and authority they have received from God? I also hope that all throughout your lesson you were inspired by the Spirit to present the information you gathered in a manner deliberately designed to help confirm and build the.class member’s testimonies of the Church. Please tell me that these things are so? But if not, why not?

Honestly, that would have been a little flowery and theatrical for our ward.  Our GD teachers usually end the lessons with a brief testimony about the lesson subject matter, which is what I did a well.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m asking for contemporaneous accounts of individuals that actually traveled to Far West in 1839 for the dedication.  All the quotes from the linked site were from 30+ yrs later.  

So are you suggesting they all lied about ever being there or remembered the date wrong?

Edited January 3, 2018 by Calm

[Duncan]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m asking for contemporaneous accounts of individuals that actually traveled to Far West in 1839 for the dedication.  All the quotes from the linked site were from 30+ yrs later.  

oh great a project...........from then Elder George A. Smith, copied from his journal located at the Church History Library. This is part of his entry for April, 1839

"Wednesday, April 17. On the 17th of April I attended a conference of the Saints of Quincy, and my appointment to the Apostleship was presented to the Church by Joseph Smith, by President Brigham Young and sanctioned. Elder Reynolds Cahoon remarking there had been so much apostasy among the Twelve that he hoped the Saints would exercise faith to keep this one from flying the track.I accompanied President Young and the members of the quorum to Far West. We arrived there before daybreak on the morning of 26th April, 1839. Elder Wilford Woodruff and myself were ordained under the hands of the Twelve. Brigham Young being mouth over brother Woodruff and Heber C. Kimball being mouth over me, on the cornerstone of the Temple.We recommended the foundation of the Temple by laying a large stone, and then took leave of the saints on the ground, about twenty in number and started on our missions to the nations"

George A. Smith Autobiography. MS 8839

Elder Smith then talks about going back to Quincy and attended General Conference was again sustained to the Twelve

I have no doubt Wilford Woodruff had something to say about this event as well but his journals I don't have acess to, Heber C. Kimball doesn't appear to have a surviving (if he kept one anyways) journal from 1839, Alphaeus Cutler was there,but I don't know if he kept a journal. There's also this

http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/rel341/Mission to England Meeting April 26.html

Edited January 3, 2018 by Duncan

[Bobbieaware]

43 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

This is a great idea. In fact we should automatically question anyone's sincerity who does not present a lesson accompanied by each and everyone of these conditions. No one should be allowed to teach without being able to meet this standard.

If one doesn’t have a testimony, or if he is well on the way to loosing his testimony, and for thiese reasons cannot teach with living faith, what would be the purpose of calling on them to teach? As long as one has a testimony, whether that testimony is a deeply-rooted one, a brand new one,  or one that’s in the process of growing and beginning to produce fruit, all these can teach and do so effectively. As long as the Spirit is present, no real harm will be done.

Remember, without at least some degree of genuine faith it’s impossible to please God. For those who have lost their faith, or for whose faith is seriously damaged, all they have to do is follow the process of regaining their faith and when faith is restored they will be able to effectively teach again. But those who have lost their faith have the moral obligation to inform the leaders they have experienced that loss so that they will not mistakenly be called on to teach because doing so would likely be counterproductive and out of harmony with the will of God. That’s the general rule, but in some instances a leader may be inspired to make exceptions. 

[Bobbieaware]

39 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Honestly, that would have been a little flowery and theatrical for our ward.  Our GD teachers usually end the lessons with a brief testimony about the lesson subject matter, which is what I did a well.

That’s good as long as the one presenting such material also has a strong general testimony of the restored Church and gospel. If not, then such teaching is problematic and likely antithetical to the purposes and goals of gospel teaching. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

So are you suggesting they all lied about ever being there or remembered the date wrong?

I’m just asking if anyone knows if contemporary evidence exists.  The later the recollection the less historically accurate those statements become.  Jumping to “lies” is not what I’m doing.  

[Duncan]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m just asking if anyone knows if contemporary evidence exists.  The later the recollection the less historically accurate those statements become.  Jumping to “lies” is not what I’m doing.  

did you read the George A. Smith entry? and the HC one as well? That isn't always the case the less accurate it is the further along it comes. You don't always know everything when it happens until later, when more information comes out.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m just asking if anyone knows if contemporary evidence exists.  The later the recollection the less historically accurate those statements become.  Jumping to “lies” is not what I’m doing.  

The revelation was filled if they were there and laid the stone no matter if they didn't recollect the dialogue precisely.  It seems unlikely that multiple people would remember being in a certain place around a certain date especially if that date can be placed because of other events that took place before and after it.

Are you at least comfortable with saying the stone was dedicated around the allegedly prophesied  date?

Edited January 3, 2018 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, Duncan said:

did you read the George A. Smith entry? and the HC one as well? That isn't always the case the less accurate it is the further along it comes. You don't always know everything when it happens until later, when more information comes out.

I read the entire link in the OP.  

As for accuracy, I’m not aware of any studies that have shown that memory is quantitatively more accurate the further away it was for the original event.  Can you provide any evidence to support that claim, or is it more of an anecdotal observation on your part?  

Edited January 3, 2018 by hope_for_things

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I read the entire link in the OP.  

As for accuracy, I’m not aware of any studies that have shown that memory is quantitatively more accurate the further away it was for the original event.  Can you provide any evidence to support that claim, or is it more of an anecdotal observation on your part?  

So you would agree that contemporary evidence exists that this is a fulfilled prophecy. if you want even further proof look up WIlford Woodruff's diary on archive.org, Vol. 1 pgs 209-211

https://archive.org/stream/WWJFinal/WWJ_Final#page/n209/mode/2up

I don't need studies that show what is already known. We know more today about Bill Clinton 1998's experience than we did in 1998, we know more today than in 1995 about OJ Simpson than in 1995, we know more today about WW2 than in 1945. More information comes out than enlightens us and helps us know what happened. There was no conspiracy, lie or anything like that about the events of April 26th, 1839. 

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

The revelation was filled if they were there and laid the stone no matter if they didn't recollect the dialogue precisely.  It seems unlikely that multiple people would remember being in a certain place around a certain date especially if that date can be placed because of other events that took place before and after it.

Are you at least comfortable with saying the stone was dedicated around the allegedly prophesied  date?

I think its a fair question to ask, and I’m not willing to just assume they were present on that date.  Are you familiar with all the statements from people that claimed to be at the Brigham Young transfiguration event, but that weren’t even present at all.  But their statements were quite detailed and flowery about how moving the experience that they never actually experienced was. 

Are you familiar with any of the studies on memory that were conducted a few years after 9/11 and how many people have false memories of that event.  Human brains are not very accurate at recalling information from years past.  This has been and continues to be documented to a greater extent all the time.  

I don’t care whether it was a fulfillment of prophesy technically or not there are a multitude of incorrect prophesies by Joseph Smith and every other religious leader thoughout time that has tried to predict the future.  Humans aren’t very good at predicting future events, this is no exception.  I’m just interested in the history of this story since I hadn’t really read about it much before, that’s all. 

 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I think its a fair question to ask, and I’m not willing to just assume they were present on that date.  Are you familiar with all the statements from people that claimed to be at the Brigham Young transfiguration event, but that weren’t even present at all.  But their statements were quite detailed and flowery about how moving the experience that they never actually experienced was. 

Are you familiar with any of the studies on memory that were conducted a few years after 9/11 and how many people have false memories of that event.  Human brains are not very accurate at recalling information from years past.  This has been and continues to be documented to a greater extent all the time.  

I don’t care whether it was a fulfillment of prophesy technically or not there are a multitude of incorrect prophesies by Joseph Smith and every other religious leader thoughout time that has tried to predict the future.  Humans aren’t very good at predicting future events, this is no exception.  I’m just interested in the history of this story since I hadn’t really read about it much before, that’s all. 

 

but you were proven wrong by two contemporary accounts, written in April of 1839, I don't know how much more obvious is has to be and this isn't a false prophecy by Joseph Smith as proven by the contemporary accounts

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

You're speaking very authoritatively.  Do you have a reference to back up this statement?  I don't think i've ever heard any leader teach that failing to bear a testimony at the end of a talk is a sin.  And can you explain what you mean by "deliberately negative calculation"?  I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.

I can absolutely guarantee you that if avery member of the Church, save President Monson only, no longer bore testimony of the divinity of Christ and of the truth of his Church and Kingdom during addresses, devotionals, talks, Priesthood lessons, Relief Society lessons, Sunday School lessons, Seminary lessons, Institute lessons, fast and testimony meetings, et cetera, that the prophet would powerfully testify that unless the members of the Church repent in sackcloth and ashes and wholeheartedly begin to again keep their most sacred covenant to...

stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even untiI death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life. (Mosiah 18)

that we would be in the most extreme mortal peril of being rejected as a Church, destroyed like the Nephites, and thrust into hell by the fiery indignation of an offended God.

I hope those who might disagree with me will forgive Yours Truly if it seems all too obvious that of all the Sunday School lessons one could teach that would absolutely need to have the most sincere and powerful infusions of testimony bearing to help put things in their proper perspective, that Cinepro’s lesson of last Sunday would stand as a prime example. If some think it’s better if the Church evolves to become merely an information dissemination center that functions without the injection of annoying and distracting testimonies born by overbearing zealots, that’s their right and privilege.

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

So you would agree that contemporary evidence exists that this is a fulfilled prophecy. if you want even further proof look up WIlford Woodruff's diary on archive.org, Vol. 1 pgs 209-211

https://archive.org/stream/WWJFinal/WWJ_Final#page/n209/mode/2up

I don't need studies that show what is already known. We know more today about Bill Clinton 1998's experience than we did in 1998, we know more today than in 1995 about OJ Simpson than in 1995, we know more today about WW2 than in 1945. More information comes out than enlightens us and helps us know what happened. There was no conspiracy, lie or anything like that about the events of April 26th, 1839. 

Excellent, thanks for that link to the WW journals, that’s just what I was hoping for.  I didn’t see anything on the OP link that indicated contemporary evidence, that wasn’t a well sourced web site from what I saw.   But I appreciate you tracking down the place in the Woodriff journal where he clearly discusses this.  Very cool, and interesting. 

I do find it somewhat frustrating when people assume motives on my part as a bad actor.  I wasn’t looking for any examples to try and smear believers with, this is frustrating for me as a regular participant on the message board to have people so defensive about a query for contemporary evidence to a story I wasn’t familiar with.  Using words like lie and conspiracy when I never implied such isn’t very charitable to me.  Unfortunately none of those points you make refute any of the points I made about late memories being poor and less accurate than contemporary recollections.  That so obvious and backed up by multiple disciplines of science that its sad I even have to make that statement, it should be the default, and it is the default possition for most people, but apparently its at odds with some religious groups.  

As for accuracy of evidence of events, there is a difference between saying that collectively more data has come out about something being hidden in 1998 in the age of modern electronic communication, than it is to say that individual humans accurately remembered events in the 19th century.  Completely different scenarios.  

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but you were proven wrong by two contemporary accounts, written in April of 1839, I don't know how much more obvious is has to be and this isn't a false prophecy by Joseph Smith as proven by the contemporary accounts

I wasn’t proven wrong.  What was wrong?  My question asking for contemporary evidence?  You are very confused.  I thank you for the WW journal link, appreciate it.  If there was contemporary evidence in the OP link, I must have missed it, I didn’t see it.  And again, I never called it a false prophecy, nor was I even interested in calling it a false prophecy.  I don’t really believe in prophecy in the first place, so I could care less about proving whether it’s true or false.  I was just interested in the story and the contemporary evidence for it.  Perhaps next time you could stay out of the assigning motives game.  

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Excellent, thanks for that link to the WW journals, that’s just what I was hoping for.  I didn’t see anything on the OP link that indicated contemporary evidence, that wasn’t a well sourced web site from what I saw.   But I appreciate you tracking down the place in the Woodriff journal where he clearly discusses this.  Very cool, and interesting. 

I do find it somewhat frustrating when people assume motives on my part as a bad actor.  I wasn’t looking for any examples to try and smear believers with, this is frustrating for me as a regular participant on the message board to have people so defensive about a query for contemporary evidence to a story I wasn’t familiar with.  Using words like lie and conspiracy when I never implied such isn’t very charitable to me.  Unfortunately none of those points you make refute any of the points I made about late memories being poor and less accurate than contemporary recollections.  That so obvious and backed up by multiple disciplines of science that its sad I even have to make that statement, it should be the default, and it is the default possition for most people, but apparently its at odds with some religious groups.  

As for accuracy of evidence of events, there is a difference between saying that collectively more data has come out about something being hidden in 1998 in the age of modern electronic communication, than it is to say that individual humans accurately remembered events in the 19th century.  Completely different scenarios.  

anytime! I guess we'll agree to disagree then, I don't know if religion has anything to do with poor memory. I didn't know anything about this event either, I don't know know where Missouri even is TBH!