The next phase of the Church under the new First presidency

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

In order for that to be true, God would have to have some hand in the deaths of each general authority - a grim theology, to be sure.

Or he could have just timed the births knowing how genetics and life events would play out in terms of lifespan.

[Gray]

Just now, Calm said:

Or he could have just timed the births knowing how genetics and life events would play out in terms of lifespan.

If you think about it, that's almost stranger. Especially since each sperm cell would have produced a different person and there are millions of them released at a time.

Not sure how any of this could be compatible with free will, though.

[stemelbow]

I don't really see anything new in this, but I will add as far as I can tell Pres nelson has been front and center in promoting building up yourself, to be stronger, more faithful to receive blessings.  It doesn't sound like that will be much different.  For me, I'm turned off by his approach.  it feels to me to be, and has for a long time, an effort to really promote elitism and some self-aggrandizing which I realize has a strong presence in the Church.  This may be another signal from God telling me "you don't belong, ding dong".

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't really see anything new in this, but I will add as far as I can tell Pres nelson has been front and center in promoting building up yourself, to be stronger, more faithful to receive blessings.  It doesn't sound like that will be much different.  For me, I'm turned off by his approach.  it feels to me to be, and has for a long time, an effort to really promote elitism and some self-aggrandizing which I realize has a strong presence in the Church.  This may be another signal from God telling me "you don't belong, ding dong".

for a long time I stopped going to the annual stake priesthood meetings, as I didn't have the patience to sit through 30 minutes of the speakers talking about how wonderful they were, not everyone was like that but the then stake presidency and some others were or a talk about how they picked the theme, I could care less. I believe you should leave church feeling better about yourself, strength to endure another week, not feel like junk and less than somebody else. I think for people that are pompous like that, it is insecurity, some people seem to have it in smaller doses than others. I, personally, don't want to be a pawn for someone else to advance their "church career"

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

for a long time I stopped going to the annual stake priesthood meetings, as I didn't have the patience to sit through 30 minutes of the speakers talking about how wonderful they were, not everyone was like that but the then stake presidency and some others were or a talk about how they picked the theme, I could care less. I believe you should leave church feeling better about yourself, strength to endure another week, not feel like junk and less than somebody else. I think for people that are pompous like that, it is insecurity, some people seem to have it in smaller doses than others. I, personally, don't want to be a pawn for someone else to advance their "church career"

Thanks, Duncan.  There are people that really strike me as interesting, extra thoughtful and nice.  You are one.  if you weren't so far away up in there in the North.  I'd say let's meet, if possible.

 

BTW, I learned that Joseph used a Bible commentary for his JST work:

 

Quote

Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap.² The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss. A few of them, however, demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke and establish that he was inclined to lean on Clarke’s commentary for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of wording, and theological nuance.³ In presenting the evidence, we have attempted to both establish that Smith drew upon Clarke, likely at the urging of Rigdon, and we present here a broad categorization of the types of changes that Smith made when he used Clarke as a source.

I'd start a thread about it for other's input, but they won't allow that type of normal activity from me, so I have to include it as an aside.  

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

Edited January 18, 2018 by stemelbow

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks, Duncan.  There are people that really strike me as interesting, extra thoughtful and nice.  You are one.  if you weren't so far away up in there in the North.  I'd say let's meet, if possible.

 

BTW, I learned that Joseph used a Bible commentary for his JST work:

 

I'd start a thread about it for other's input, but they won't allow that type of normal activity from me, so I have to include it as an aside.  

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

Yeah!!!!! interesting!

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

How is this reshuffling the Presidency will help worldwide church to help it's proselytizing efforts in Western part of the world?  

It sounds like the emphasis of this Presidency is going to be more on the "perfecting of the saints" fold of the mission of the church.  Hopefully that will have an indirect effect on it's proselytizing as well.  

[CA Steve]

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

BTW, I learned that Joseph used a Bible commentary for his JST work:

 

I'd start a thread about it for other's input, but they won't allow that type of normal activity from me, so I have to include it as an aside.  

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

Sounds like an interesting topic, especially given some of our more educated scholars that participate here. (Like Clark G, Robert or Nevo.)  Pose a question in the reply to this post and Ill start the thread, if you like.

[Gray]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks, Duncan.  There are people that really strike me as interesting, extra thoughtful and nice.  You are one.  if you weren't so far away up in there in the North.  I'd say let's meet, if possible.

 

BTW, I learned that Joseph used a Bible commentary for his JST work:

 

I'd start a thread about it for other's input, but they won't allow that type of normal activity from me, so I have to include it as an aside.  

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

Posted a new thread

[pogi]

I don't really see anything new in this, but I will add as far as I can tell Pres nelson has been front and center in promoting building up yourself, to be stronger, more faithful to receive blessings.  It doesn't sound like that will be much different. 

Ya, I don't see this as anything new.  But a greater emphasis from a strong leader can make a significant impact and lasting change in the church.  Take President Benson for example.  He didn't teach anything new, but his emphasis on the Book of Mormon, and strong leadership, had a significant impact on the church in their relationship with the Book of Mormon. 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

For me, I'm turned off by his approach.  it feels to me to be, and has for a long time, an effort to really promote elitism and some self-aggrandizing which I realize has a strong presence in the Church.  This may be another signal from God telling me "you don't belong, ding dong".

 

I am sorry that you feel that way.  Can you give me some examples of his promotion of "elitism" and "self-aggrandizing"?  Here is the history of his conference talks to choose from:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/speakers?speaker=Russell-M.-Nelson&lang=eng&encoded=true&cid=HP_TU_16-1-2018_dPFD_fCONF_xLIDyL1-B_

 

I simply don't understand where you are coming from.  President Nelson has always been anything but elitist in my eyes.  He is compassionate, understanding, and uplifting.  He recognizes the fallibility of man and difficulties of mortality and doesn't demand perfection.  He expects us to have self-compassion, not to be unrealistic with ourselves, but simply invites us to turn to the Lord for healing and progression in spiritual improvement.  That is clearly expressed in this wonderful Mormon Message:

 

 

[rockpond]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

President Nelson stated that they thought it important to "begin with the end in mind" by speaking from the temple.  It appears that the next phase of the church will not be focused so much on growth in numbers, but on growth in faith within the church.  President Nelson assured us that we will continue to fulfill the mandate to take the gospel to every people, but emphasized the focus on increased spiritual endowment and power, as did President Eyring.

It is a great focus.  I am likewise excited about it.  But, I don't think that "growth in numbers" is even an option available to him at this point.  Growth rate has been declining for decades and we can't seem to alter that.

Presidents Nelson and Oaks also both seemed to indicate that, with respect to LGBT issues and women's issues, they will be holding to the status quo.  So, I can't imagine any seeing any changes to the growth rate trajectory.

I'm not surprised to see the focus changing as President Nelson indicated.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

It is a great focus.  I am likewise excited about it.  But, I don't think that "growth in numbers" is even an option available to him at this point.  Growth rate has been declining for decades and we can't seem to alter that.

Presidents Nelson and Oaks also both seemed to indicate that, with respect to LGBT issues and women's issues, they will be holding to the status quo.  So, I can't imagine any seeing any changes to the growth rate trajectory.

I'm not surprised to see the focus changing as President Nelson indicated.

I agree.

I think the changes may be made in the missionary program (we're already hearing hints of this happening).  

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.

I think the changes may be made in the missionary program (we're already hearing hints of this happening).  

What changes?  I hadn't heard any hints.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What changes?  I hadn't heard any hints.

I've heard nothing official.  I'm just going off some of the feelings and impressions I had after reading some of the posts on this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70067-peggy-stack-reports-missionary-numbers-are-still-declining/

I know that our stake is having a lot more missionaries returning home early.  That number is increasing rather than shrinking (at least right now).

 

[Duncan]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What changes?  I hadn't heard any hints.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-plans-to-decrease-missions-utilize-tech-savviness-to-locate-religious-minded-people?lang=eng

 

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 For me, I'm turned off by his approach.  it feels to me to be, and has for a long time, an effort to really promote elitism 

Whether you mean personal "elitism", "elitism" among certain Church members, or Church members in general being "elitist" in the world, I'm not seeing it.

For example, take the story of President Nelson learning Chinese in the late 1970s after President Kimball mentioned we should be ready to take the gospel to China.  

President Nelson Honored as “Old Friend” by Chinese Doctors He Trained

Whether for medical reasons or gospel reasons, this is opposite of being "elite."  Someone who thinks they're "elite" doesn't spend countless hours learning a new language so he can go and spend more countless hours spreading medical or gospel knowledge to the poorest people in the world (this was China in the early 1980s).  At the time he did it, he had no idea he would be an apostle, or that it would result in accolades.  Who would think it would?   

Another small gesture was when President Oaks visited our Stake Conference a few years ago.  We were sitting in the back of the cultural hall about 10 minutes before the meeting started, and President Oaks walked into the room and walked up and down the aisles, shaking everyone's hands, giving us a smile and thanking us for coming to the meeting.  I thought with only 10 minutes, he'd never make it back to our family, but to my surprise he did.  He walked through the entire cultural hall and shook everyone's hand that wanted to.  

Obviously, with my cynical nature it would be easy to write it off as a bit of theatrics or pageantry, or playing to the crowd.   But he convinced me.  It wasn't some condescending Apostle coming down from the mountain to grace us with his presence.   He seemed to genuinely appreciate that we had come to hear him speak, and to the degree that it might mean something to us to shake his hand and say "hi", he was going to take his time to do it.

So while I don't think much of President Nelson's views on the history of the Earth, or agree with him about whether or not God's love is "conditional",  I would be reluctant to accuse him of being "elitist."

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by cinepro

[CMZ]

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't really see anything new in this, but I will add as far as I can tell Pres nelson has been front and center in promoting building up yourself, to be stronger, more faithful to receive blessings.  It doesn't sound like that will be much different.  For me, I'm turned off by his approach.  it feels to me to be, and has for a long time, an effort to really promote elitism and some self-aggrandizing which I realize has a strong presence in the Church.  This may be another signal from God telling me "you don't belong, ding dong".

Fortunately as important as President Nelson is he is still not the entirety of the Church and the Gospel and whoever happens to president and prophet at any time doesn't keep individuals from living the Gospel. If the next president is more to your liking that doesn't mean that the Gospel has changed.

[stemelbow]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

Whether you mean personal "elitism", "elitism" among certain Church members, or Church members in general being "elitist" in the world, I'm not seeing it.

For example, take the story of President Nelson learning Chinese in the late 1970s after President Kimball mentioned we should be ready to take the gospel to China.  

President Nelson Honored as “Old Friend” by Chinese Doctors He Trained

Whether for medical reasons or gospel reasons, this is opposite of being "elite."  Someone who thinks they're "elite" doesn't spend countless hours learning a new language so he can go and spend more countless hours spreading medical or gospel knowledge to the poorest people in the world (this was China in the early 1980s).  At the time he did it, he had no idea he would be an apostle, or that it would result in accolades.  Who would think it would?   

I doubt I'd convince you.  I agree with you about his efforts in China.  I don't know that it demonstrates anything near elitism.  What I mean though is his addresses.  Each time it feels to me he focuses on personal righteousness, being in the world and not of it, looking at things as if we are to be at a different level, another type than what those around us are.  "They" are sinners whom we ought to not emulate.  That's the type of stuff I get from him most.  And I might be way off, or misunderstanding him.  And perhaps elitism is not the most appropriate word to describe the issue I'm describing.  

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

Another small gesture was when President Oaks visited our Stake Conference a few years ago.  We were sitting in the back of the cultural hall about 10 minutes before the meeting started, and President Oaks walked into the room and walked up and down the aisles, shaking everyone's hands, giving us a smile and thanking us for coming to the meeting.  I thought with only 10 minutes, he'd never make it back to our family, but to my surprise he did.  He walked through the entire cultural hall and shook everyone's hand that wanted to.  

We had President Oaks randomly show up to our ward a couple of years ago.  I think I reported it here.  It was much different.  He didnt' go around shaking everyone's hand at all.  I'm not holding that against him though.  I'm just saying apparently he does it differently at different locations and times perhaps.  He went up to the stand before the meeting started spoke briefly with the bishop and just sat observing us, watching as people came in, sat down and got ready for Sacrament.  After sacrament was over he sneaked off, and I thought he had left.  

I was scheduled to teach the youth in the ward that day for Sunday School.  I had a game of jeopardy planned.  By the time I got into class the sister who taught opposite me took over and was teaching an ad hoc lesson, with Elder Oaks sitting in with the youth, to my surprise.  I ended up sitting in the back and observing.  I think she really wanted to impress him, or something.  But she kept trying to defer to him at every turn, asking him to tell the kids something.  He didn't seem to appreciate the approach much, but she did, at one point, refer to President Uchtdorf (at the time was President) as Elder Uchendorfer during the lesson in front of then Elder Oaks.  I got a chuckle out of that, but he didn't correct her or say anything about her butchering the name.  Elder Oaks really wanted to hear from the kids, I got the impression, so after a while he managed to get a couple of the kids to open up.  He had a very old fashioned way of talking about the youth as if they lived in during the 50s or something.  

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

Obviously, with my cynical nature it would be easy to write it off as a bit of theatrics or pageantry, or playing to the crowd.   But he convinced me.  It wasn't some condescending Apostle coming down from the mountain to grace us with his presence.   He seemed to genuinely appreciate that we had come to hear him speak, and to the degree that it might mean something to us to shake his hand and say "hi", he was going to take his time to do it.

So while I don't think much of President Nelson's views on the history of the Earth, or agree with him about whether or not God's love is "conditional",  I would be reluctant to accuse him of being "elitist."

 

Fair enough.  I don't know that I'm about to make a federal case about it.  it might be too harsh a word for what my impression suggests anyway.  I'll have to mull it over more.  

[RevTestament]

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

Whether you mean personal "elitism", "elitism" among certain Church members, or Church members in general being "elitist" in the world, I'm not seeing it.

***

Another small gesture was when President Oaks visited our Stake Conference a few years ago.  We were sitting in the back of the cultural hall about 10 minutes before the meeting started, and President Oaks walked into the room and walked up and down the aisles, shaking everyone's hands, giving us a smile and thanking us for coming to the meeting.  I thought with only 10 minutes, he'd never make it back to our family, but to my surprise he did.  He walked through the entire cultural hall and shook everyone's hand that wanted to.  

Obviously, with my cynical nature it would be easy to write it off as a bit of theatrics or pageantry, or playing to the crowd.   But he convinced me.  It wasn't some condescending Apostle coming down from the mountain to grace us with his presence.   He seemed to genuinely appreciate that we had come to hear him speak, and to the degree that it might mean something to us to shake his hand and say "hi", he was going to take his time to do it.

 

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We had President Oaks randomly show up to our ward a couple of years ago.  I think I reported it here.  It was much different.  He didnt' go around shaking everyone's hand at all.  I'm not holding that against him though.  I'm just saying apparently he does it differently at different locations and times perhaps.  He went up to the stand before the meeting started spoke briefly with the bishop and just sat observing us, watching as people came in, sat down and got ready for Sacrament.  After sacrament was over he sneaked off, and I thought he had left.  

I was scheduled to teach the youth in the ward that day for Sunday School.  I had a game of jeopardy planned.  By the time I got into class the sister who taught opposite me took over and was teaching an ad hoc lesson, with Elder Oaks sitting in with the youth, to my surprise.  I ended up sitting in the back and observing.  I think she really wanted to impress him, or something.  But she kept trying to defer to him at every turn, asking him to tell the kids something.  He didn't seem to appreciate the approach much, but she did, at one point, refer to President Uchtdorf (at the time was President) as Elder Uchendorfer during the lesson in front of then Elder Oaks.  I got a chuckle out of that, but he didn't correct her or say anything about her butchering the name.  Elder Oaks really wanted to hear from the kids, I got the impression, so after a while he managed to get a couple of the kids to open up.  He had a very old fashioned way of talking about the youth as if they lived in during the 50s or something.  

The only apostle I have personally met is Elder Oaks, back when I lived in Payson years ago - probably about 15 yrs ago. I was seated in a Stake Choir seat for a stake conference, and when he arrived he made a round through everyone there shaking hands - so evidently this has been a practice with him for a very long time. I thought that was a very nice gesture, although he hardly glanced or smiled at me - he had a lot of people to go through. He did firmly shake everyone's hand. Anyway, I found it respectful of the membership, and keenly remember it of him. My guess is he usually tries to arrive a little bit early to specifically shake hands with everybody, so I give him kudos for that. It is definitely one way to keep in touch with the membership. The fact that he visited with the children also speaks volumes. Sorry about your lesson - I think he would have liked that, and that it would have helped open up the children more.

I have to say none of the apostles strike me as men who "put on airs." If I have criticisms about evangelistic TV personalities, this is definitely one of them. The pastor of the biggest church building in Houston, Joel Osteen, has quietly left his church after it had its doors locked during Hurricane Harvey, and somewhat of a media storm erupted. My brother lives north of Houston and traveled there about 5 times to help people, so is a better example than me who sat in my chair and donated to the Church humanitarian fund instead - mind you I am not wishing any disasters on Utah so I can go out and help.... I liked the emphasis Elder Uchtdorf placed on this type of service while in the presidency. 

[Avatar4321]

How do you guys plan to answer the first presidency’s call to focus on our covenants?

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

How do you guys plan to answer the first presidency’s call to focus on our covenants?

Cut back on the orgies and opium den visits a bit.

[theplains]

On 17/01/2018 at 6:36 PM, pogi said:

I pray for President Nelson and hope that he will be the spiritual leader that the church desperately needs right now, to guide us into the assurance, peace, and spiritual satiation of living waters through increased faith. 

It seems you believe the former LDS President failed in this aspect.  Is the LDS President the sole spiritual leader in the
Mormon population you look to for guidance or do you primarily rely on the Holy Spirit?

Jim

[Bobbieaware]

22 minutes ago, theplains said:

It seems you believe the former LDS President failed in this aspect.  Is the LDS President the sole spiritual leader in the
Mormon population you look to for guidance or do you primarily rely on the Holy Spirit?

Jim

If you had lived during the Apostolic period of the Church of Jesus Christ, when the Church was led by living apostles and prophets who received revelation from God to lead and guide the Church according to the divine will, how would you have then phrased your question?

Edited January 30, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

It seems you believe the former LDS President failed in this aspect.  Is the LDS President the sole spiritual leader in the
Mormon population you look to for guidance or do you primarily rely on the Holy Spirit?

Jim

I said nothing of failure.  Different leaders for different times with different strengths and weaknesses.  

David was different from Amos, who was different from Isaiah, who was different from Adam, etc. Yes, the spirit is top dog.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 1/18/2018 at 1:03 PM, cdowis said:

I think that the missionaries in some locations have already been tasked in a focus on activation of inactive members.

Is it really just 'some locations'?

From the 2006 Mission President's Handbook: 'Teach your missionaries how to work with less-active members and how to find investigators through their activation efforts. Help them recognize that they are called to assist in establishing and building up the Church. They should see all that they do, including baptizing converts and working with the less active, within this larger perspective'.