Kind of cool this morning

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Very true, I would have loved it if the first presidency had written or said something alongside of the essays instead of just the LDS scholars. Some members of the church that read the gospel topic essays say they don't believe them because it's not coming from the leaders themselves, even when it's on LDS.org, believe it or not!

When I first read the essays..I didn't know whether to laugh or cry...an improvement, yes..but it barely touched the surface of what people were questioning..the answers were flat to me.  The fact that no "authority" put their name to it..made it real sad.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think you may be misreading what I am saying. I am not saying (and have never said) that we need "thunderous interruption or a blinding light." I am not discounting the still, small voice. I agree with President Oaks that this is usually how people receive revelation. What I am saying is that it doesn't appear to me that the Brethren have asked for revelation on the pressing doctrinal questions of our day. At least, they haven't said that they have, and they haven't said what the Lord told them to say. Whether by a still, small voice or something more dramatic.

 

 

"Doesn't appear" being the operative phrase here. I don't think there's any way you can say with certainty they have not done so.
 

Quote

 

Sure. What does that have to do with the gospel topics essays? *Nothing* from them was produced by a council or a committee of the Brethren. They assigned it to academics, and then approved their publications on the website. They gave no input. When I have heard them answer questions related to them in local Q&As, they are not knowledgeable about the issues, and seem caught off guard and flat-footed about them. 

I would much prefer that they, as a council or committee, had written them --- especially seeking God's answers to inform them. 

 

Do you really think the subjects were farmed out willy nilly to academics and then posted without any deliberation by the high leadership of the Church? I don't.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you really think the subjects were farmed out willy nilly to academics and then posted without any deliberation by the high leadership of the Church? I don't.

Not "willy nilly," no. Define "deliberation." I think it was definitely an agenda item for approval. I think they rubber stamped and approved what the academics came up with. I don't see any indication that any of them are in a position to add to or correct historical details in the essays from their own knowledge.

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

While we believe that "God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God," it has been a long time since this has happened. I don't think only policy changes are what is meant by this.

A few days ago, RSC's twitter feed (@byursc) posted a link to an interesting article describing the genesis of the Preach My Gospel manual. According to the article: "Total convert baptisms remained relatively unchanged during the 1990s, while the total number of missionaries increased during this period. This led President Hinckley to wonder about the effectiveness of the missionary program." He said "300,000 convert baptisms throughout the Church . . . is wonderful. But it is not enough." He thought the Church should be getting double that number. He was also concerned about convert retention and returned missionary inactivity rates. So a committee was formed to study the problem. The committee decided that missionaries' effectiveness was being hampered by the scripted format of the missionary discussions, the fact that most mission presidents were requiring missionaries to memorize the discussions, and the commitment pattern. So, another committee was formed, with Elder Holland as chair, to redesign the missionary curriculum. Additional subcommittees were struck, etc., and, after years of careful study and deliberation, Preach My Gospel was born.

From the article: "President Boyd K. Packer said Preach My Gospel was 'designed beyond the veil and put together here.' Everyone involved in the project, from the prophet to the staff workers, acknowledged the hand of God in putting the manual together. . . . This article illustrates how the work of councils of the Church helped bring about one fulfillment of the ninth article of faith.'"

PMG has now been in place for about 12 years. I am sure it has done some good, but I don't see that missionary work has become any more effective. In 1996, the number of convert baptisms per missionary per year was 6.07; in 2016 it was 3.38. I don't know that dropping the commitment pattern really improved things. Maybe convert and RM retention rates have improved, but the Church doesn't release those numbers so it's hard to know.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Nevo

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not "willy nilly," no. Define "deliberation." I think it was definitely an agenda item for approval. I think they rubber stamped and approved what the academics came up with. I don't see any indication that any of them are in a position to add to or correct historical details in the essays from their own knowledge.

Paule Reeve said he sent in a 60ish page paper, iirc.  Since the material online is definitely not that long, doesn't appear to have been rubberstamped.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

The irony is that we are currently facing several weighty issues that can only be settled by authoritative revelation, and today, we don't get any indication that God is even being asked for answers to those questions by the key-holders (such as David O. McKay indicating that he had asked but received no answer in the 1940s).

What indications were there in the 1940s that Pres McKay was asking those questions? In a similar vein, what contemporary indications were there that Pres Kimball was asking the same questions in the 1970s? I'm happy to be proved wrong, but my sense is that what we know now all came out after the fact.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

Again, I believe that the keys and the potential are here, but I don't think we have the faith as a people (top to bottom) for that currently. I think many hesitate lest we be thought of as "too weird" by the world. That isn't how we raise our family, and we have an attitude of safeguarding these embers of faith.  

That's a good way to raise a family. I was raised similarly. My parents (both of them!) served as prophets to their little family. I could spend hours sharing experiences of how many times one or the other or both of them obtained very specific revelation that blessed, guided, and protected us, and they taught us, both by example and by word, to seek for such things ourselves. The reality of revelation is one of the fundamentals in my life. I'm actually about to get on my knees again this morning to counsel with the Lord about something rather huge, and I completely expect Him to answer. In my world, no Church member thinks this weird.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Paule Reeve said he sent in a 60ish page paper, iirc.  Since the material online is definitely not that long, doesn't appear to have been rubberstamped.

Are you saying that you think the 15 Brethren, themselves, edited it down? 

No, they assign it out in committees and subcommittees, and then take up edited versions in meetings and then finally adopt the one that they choose to go with. This process involves the help of Kirton-McConkie attorneys, and Public Affairs personnel, as well as other academics. This yields a document with the tone and sterility of the gospel topics essays, which don't do anything in the way of giving authoritative clarification. They all seek to thread the needle and to be available so that they can be pointed to ("See! There's an article on the Church's web site!"), but they don't offer help or explanations that are helpful to people with concerns or issues.

Paul Reeve, as evidenced in his book and elsewhere, is the source for the "disavowal" of all past explanations. I'm convinced that isn't a statement or direction the Brethren would have collectively come up with if they (the 15) had written it among themselves. Reeve's influence is heavily present throughout it.  

Ask yourself this: what good did it do to disavow all past explanations without a) explaining how the preexistence is held to affect mortality and conditions in a positive way, and b) giving a revealed and definitive explanation in their place?  If it had arisen out of seeking for a divine explanation, and not out of the council/committee/policy model attempt to patch a leak, how would it be different than the product that exists?

I think it would be vastly different in tone and content if it were revelatory. 

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

What indications were there in the 1940s that Pres McKay was asking those questions? In a similar vein, what contemporary indications were there that Pres Kimball was asking the same questions in the 1970s? I'm happy to be proved wrong, but my sense is that what we know now all came out after the fact.

President McKay said in a letter that had been asking God, about this issue but had received no answer.

President Kimball is on record as stating that he took the grave problem of what to do with the Sao Paulo temple to God, and he made it clear that he was willing to continue defending the Church's position and policy until death, if that is what God wanted, but he was praying for what needed to be done and what God's will was. 

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That's a good way to raise a family. I was raised similarly. My parents (both of them!) served as prophets to their little family. I could spend hours sharing experiences of how many times one or the other or both of them obtained very specific revelation that blessed, guided, and protected us, and they taught us, both by example and by word, to seek for such things ourselves. The reality of revelation is one of the fundamentals in my life. I'm actually about to get on my knees again this morning to counsel with the Lord about something rather huge, and I completely expect Him to answer. In my world, no Church member thinks this weird.

Amen!

For "those who know," this is ultimately all that matters. We keep the gospel and restoration flame alive on the altars of our own hearts and hearths, and if those around us waver or lose faith or stomach for literalism or the "weirdness" of the Restoration, it doesn't matter. We know what we know, and we know what we experience. 

He will answer you. But I know you know that . . .  

Edited March 2, 2018 by rongo

[Hamba Tuhan]

36 minutes ago, rongo said:

President McKay said in a letter that had been asking God, about this issue but had received no answer.

I actually think it was written down by a Church employee who asked him why he looked so tired. In too much of a rush this morning to double-check. But in either case, what would you have seen if you'd been alive then?

Quote

President Kimball is on record as stating that he took the grave problem of what to do with the Sao Paulo temple to God, and he made it clear that he was willing to continue defending the Church's position and policy until death, if that is what God wanted, but he was praying for what needed to be done and what God's will was. 

Understood, but when did you first have access to this record?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

Not "willy nilly," no. Define "deliberation." I think it was definitely an agenda item for approval. I think they rubber stamped and approved what the academics came up with. I don't see any indication that any of them are in a position to add to or correct historical details in the essays from their own knowledge.

You can’t say they “rubber stamped” anything with any greater certainty than you can say they’ve never sought revelation on (in your words) “pressing doctrinal matters.”  All you can offer is your own conjecture and, from where I sit, somewhat jaundiced conjecture at that. 

Furthermore, has it occurred to you or anyone else here that the essays are not attributed to the Brethren because they do not amount to revelation but are at best well-considered academic analysis? 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Nevo said:

A few days ago, RSC's twitter feed (@byursc) posted a link to an interesting article describing the genesis of the Preach My Gospel manual. According to the article: "Total convert baptisms remained relatively unchanged during the 1990s, while the total number of missionaries increased during this period. This led President Hinckley to wonder about the effectiveness of the missionary program." He said "300,000 convert baptisms throughout the Church . . . is wonderful. But it is not enough." He thought the Church should be getting double that number. He was also concerned about convert retention and returned missionary inactivity rates. So a committee was formed to study the problem. The committee decided that missionaries' effectiveness was being hampered by the scripted format of the missionary discussions, the fact that most mission presidents were requiring missionaries to memorize the discussions, and the commitment pattern. So, another committee was formed, with Elder Holland as chair, to redesign the missionary curriculum. Additional subcommittees were struck, etc., and, after years of careful study and deliberation, Preach My Gospel was born.

From the article: "President Boyd K. Packer said Preach My Gospel was 'designed beyond the veil and put together here.' Everyone involved in the project, from the prophet to the staff workers, acknowledged the hand of God in putting the manual together. . . . This article illustrates how the work of councils of the Church helped bring about one fulfillment of the ninth article of faith.'"

PMG has now been in place for about 12 years. I am sure it has done some good, but I don't see that missionary work has become any more effective. In 1996, the number of convert baptisms per missionary per year was 6.07; in 2016 it was 3.38. I don't know that dropping the commitment pattern really improved things. Maybe convert and RM retention rates have improved, but the Church doesn't release those numbers so it's hard to know.

My theory is that the slowing in conversion rates is attributable to environmental factors, i.e. a growing secularaization of society. Such a thing was foretold in Nephi’s vision, in fact. 

Viewed in that light, it is reasonable to suppose things would have been yet worse without the advent of Preach My Gospel and it is therefore a relative boon. 

[rongo]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You can’t say they “rubber stamped” anything with any greater certainty than you can say they’ve never sought revelation on (in your words) “pressing doctrinal matters.”  All you can offer is your own conjecture and, from where I sit, somewhat jaundiced conjecture at that. 

Ditto.

Furthermore, has it occurred to you or anyone else here that the essays are not attributed to the Brethren because they do not amount to revelation but are at best well-considered academic analysis?

People hold them out all the time as "The Brethren have spoken." You yourself do this when it suits you, and when it's required by the situation. This situation isn't amenable to that for you because you need them at the moment to be simply "academic analysis." 

Which is precisely the whole point of publishing them anonymously, without the Brethren's names attached in any way. They can be used in one situation like revelation, and themselves disavowed in other situations as simply "the best academic analysis available at that time."

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Ditto.

 

 

People hold them out all the time as "The Brethren have spoken." You yourself do this when it suits you, and when it's required by the situation. This situation isn't amenable to that for you because you need them at the moment to be simply "academic analysis." 

Which is precisely the whole point of publishing them anonymously, without the Brethren's names attached in any way. They can be used in one situation like revelation, and themselves disavowed in other situations as simply "the best academic analysis available at that time."

If I allegedly do this whenever it suits me, it ought to be fairly simple for you to cite an instance when I’ve held out one or more of the essays as “the Brethren have spoken.”

[blueglass]

7 hours ago, Nevo said:

A few days ago, RSC's twitter feed (@byursc) posted a link to an interesting article describing the genesis of the Preach My Gospel manual. According to the article: "Total convert baptisms remained relatively unchanged during the 1990s, while the total number of missionaries increased during this period. This led President Hinckley to wonder about the effectiveness of the missionary program." He said "300,000 convert baptisms throughout the Church . . . is wonderful. But it is not enough." He thought the Church should be getting double that number. He was also concerned about convert retention and returned missionary inactivity rates. So a committee was formed to study the problem. The committee decided that missionaries' effectiveness was being hampered by the scripted format of the missionary discussions, the fact that most mission presidents were requiring missionaries to memorize the discussions, and the commitment pattern. So, another committee was formed, with Elder Holland as chair, to redesign the missionary curriculum. Additional subcommittees were struck, etc., and, after years of careful study and deliberation, Preach My Gospel was born.

From the article: "President Boyd K. Packer said Preach My Gospel was 'designed beyond the veil and put together here.' Everyone involved in the project, from the prophet to the staff workers, acknowledged the hand of God in putting the manual together. . . . This article illustrates how the work of councils of the Church helped bring about one fulfillment of the ninth article of faith.'"

PMG has now been in place for about 12 years. I am sure it has done some good, but I don't see that missionary work has become any more effective. In 1996, the number of convert baptisms per missionary per year was 6.07; in 2016 it was 3.38. I don't know that dropping the commitment pattern really improved things. Maybe convert and RM retention rates have improved, but the Church doesn't release those numbers so it's hard to know.

Preach my gospel came out before the big warts and all transparency push, gospel topics essays, joseph smith papers, etc.  Do you think it would be better to bring these topics up while teaching people?  Preach my gospel does not really say anything about the 1832 first vision, green, brown, and white seer stones, the marital intimacy networks entered into by Joseph smith, or about mormon unique views on God (feminine divine, god was once a man on another planet who became God, etc.)  For example, last month we were planning a baptism in our ward, so we got together for a ward missionary meeting and we were deciding on the video to show while the baptismal candidates were changing clothes.  We decided on the first vision.  I mentioned that the church came out with a new first vision video which includes parts from all of the accounts early last year.  The missionary sisters had never heard of this video, or about "other" accounts of the first vision.  We decided to watch the video together.  They were very disturbed and confused by the end.  They said it was "way too advanced" for a baptism to show anyone.  They decided on the restoration video from 20 years back which removes the satanic temptation, etc. and is a sweet 1 or 2 minutes of vision.  Although there is a push getting smart phones to the full time missionaries, I would say that 90% of the full time missionaries have never heard of the church history tab in the gospel library or read these strange essays.  Should we keep preach my gospel the same?  Focus on the tv land meet the mormons style approach?  I'm worried that if we teach the gospel with actual history up front with flip charts of seer stones, and Joseph's 35 wives that baptisms would plummet drastically which would be horrible.  

Edited March 3, 2018 by blueglass

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My theory is that the slowing in conversion rates is attributable to environmental factors, i.e. a growing secularaization of society

No one asked me, but I actually think it's attributable to us. The missionaries are fine. The people around us are fine.

It's the Saints that are lacking purpose.

IMNSHO.

[Hamba Tuhan]

53 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I'm worried that if we teach the gospel with actual history up front with flip charts of seer stones, and Joseph's 35 wives that baptisms would plummet drastically which would be horrible.  

I don't share your worries. I speak openly with investigators about literally anything they want to discuss. I've prepared lessons on Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage at the request of the Elders for an investigator. Etc. In the case of the plural marriage lesson, the investigator (who still hasn't converted) started defending the Prophet. I'm not worried.

As an addendum to my post immediately above, the Saints need to stop worrying (faith killer) and start simply sharing all the goodness the Restored Gospel brings into our lives.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No one asked me, but I actually think it's attributable to us. The missionaries are fine. The people around us are fine.

It's the Saints that are lacking purpose.

IMNSHO.

We could always do better, but I have to think societal factors have some influence. I've lived long enough to have observed a creeping godlessness in society at large over two or three generations.

And there is this:

Quote

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

(1 Nephi 14:12)

Edited March 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Michael Sudworth]

On 3/2/2018 at 4:07 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Furthermore, has it occurred to you or anyone else here that the essays are not attributed to the Brethren because they do not amount to revelation but are at best well-considered academic analysis? 

Didn't the Church clarify that anything published by the Church (Corporation of the President only, not BYU) is to be considered doctrinal? My understanding is the the "essays" (why do we call them that?) were published as official church literature. Perhaps I am misremembering.

I don't think they need to be explicitly attributed to the Brethren. They were clearly published with the Brethren's knowledge and approval (even if tacit).

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Didn't the Church clarify that anything published by the Church (Corporation of the President only, not BYU) is to be considered doctrinal? My understanding is the the "essays" (why do we call them that?) were published as official church literature. Perhaps I am misremembering.

I don't think they need to be explicitly attributed to the Brethren. They were clearly published with the Brethren's knowledge and approval (even if tacit).

I didn’t use the word “doctrinal.” I said “revelation.”

Are you positing here that every word published by the Church is to be regarded as revelation? What about discontinued lesson manuals? What about chapter headings in the triple combination before recent revisions? What about free-lance articles published in the Ensign or Friend?

Edited March 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Didn't the Church clarify that anything published by the Church (Corporation of the President only, not BYU) is to be considered doctrinal? My understanding is the the "essays" (why do we call them that?) were published as official church literature. Perhaps I am misremembering.

I don't think they need to be explicitly attributed to the Brethren. They were clearly published with the Brethren's knowledge and approval (even if tacit).

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine."

Edited March 4, 2018 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've lived long enough to have observed a creeping godlessness in society at large over two or three generations.

I think it's gone from a creep to a canter where I live, but from my vantage point, this is pushing many people to look for something more fulfilling. We have to first believe these people still exist, though. I'm convinced that one of Satan's favourite tools in our current climate is to tell the Saints that the best is behind us. I note that our prophets aren't saying that. The best is still to come.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think it's gone from a creep to a canter where I live, but from my vantage point, this is pushing many people to look for something more fulfilling. We have to first believe these people still exist, though. I'm convinced that one of Satan's favourite tools in our current climate is to tell the Saints that the best is behind us. I note that our prophets aren't saying that. The best is still to come.

I believe that too. But recognizing the pervasive influence of the adversary as foretold in scripture can give us perspective regarding things like a slowing in the rate of convert baptisms and help us to not be demoralized, as the naysayers and critics would have it. 

[Exiled]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe that too. But recognizing the pervasive influence of the adversary as foretold in scripture can give us perspective regarding things like a slowing in the rate of convert baptisms and help us to not be demoralized, as the naysayers and critics would have it. 

What would religion do if the devil did not exist?  Maybe it would invent him?  He is so useful at times.