1 Hour with the 1st Presidency

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Few things:

Still waiting for your explanation.

Which I have now given.

Quote

Would love the source for your version of his quote.

From here. The site has your shorter version also, but the fuller version is two quotes down from that.

Quote

Did Marion D. Hanks get it wrong?: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/01/forgiveness-the-ultimate-form-of-love?lang=eng

Reading this link, I find that Elder Hanks paraphrased. And his paraphrase is not precisely identical to the quotes cited here (which is often the case with paraphrasing).

And for that matter, I'm not 100 percent certain Brigham Young ever said it. I've not been able to find a primary source, and Elder Hanks said here that Brigham was "reported to have said" it, perhaps indicating that Elder Hanks could not find a primary source either.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And for that matter, I'm not 100 percent certain Brigham Young ever said it. I've not been able to find a primary source,

Thank you!

Yes, it’s too bad we can’t go back and watch the recordings of earlier leaders.  So much of what was recorded back then must be partially correctly recorded, and so much has been lost because fewer recording devices were available.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I think I see what you’re saying. Those who intend offense should be nicer.

Actually, what I'm saying is the alleged quote from Brigham Young does not excuse anyone from giving offense, even if the target does not choose to take offense.

Quote

But I don’t see anything in the expanded quote or in your interpretation that gives the offended one justification to be offended and not foolish.

Nor does the admonition in the purported quote from Brigham Young excuse one from giving offense. The ideal would be to not have offense given in the first place.

Quote

Can you provide the source for your expanded quote?

I just did (see my prior post).

I would be interested to see if you can find a primary source (say, Journal of Discourses or some such thing). I've not been able to, and I'm now beginning to question whether Brigham Young ever said it.

 

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nor does the admonition in the purported quote from Brigham Young excuse one from giving offense. The ideal would be to not have offense given in the first place.

Completely agree.

My only point is that when I find myself feeling offended, rather than point out how wrong the offender is, I try to control myself and let my offense go.

It appears that is at least part of Brigham Young’s supposed admonition.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

And in better shape than you are? That’s what would throw me

Well, maybe.  I did just run my first half marathon this spring, so probably not... 

[Hestia]

No politics.  Leave Trump and Clinton out of it.

[nuclearfuels]

On 8/27/2018 at 4:19 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Jacob 2:30.

In all honesty, I never understood that verse and the dichotomy it presents. Can you help me understand it?  I'm not being sarcastic

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

In all honesty, I never understood that verse and the dichotomy it presents. Can you help me understand it?  I'm not being sarcastic

I can only give you my point of view, though it has been used many times by Church authorities when talking about this subject. I don't see a dichotomy, but maybe you can explain.

Simply put, polygamy is forbidden unless God commands it for His purpose, which is specified as raising seed unto him.

One may argue that that's not what early LDS polygamists were doing. I think it was what they were doing. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[nuclearfuels]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I can only give you my point of view, though it has been used many times by Church authorities when talking about this subject.

Simply put, polygamy is forbidden unless God commands it for His purpose, which is specified as raising seed unto him.

One may argue that that's not what early LDS polygamists were doing. I think it was what they were doing. 

ok. Thank you.

I agree with you- early LDS leaders as well as Biblical leaders such as  Abdon*     Abijah     Abraham     Ahab     Ahasuerus    Ashur     Belshazzar     Benhadad     Caleb     David    Eliphaz     Elkanah     Esau     Ezra     Gideon     Heman*    Hosea*     Ibzan*     Issachar**     Jacob     Jair*     Jehoiachin    Jehoram     Jerahmeel     Joash Lamech     Machir    Manasseh     Mered Moses     Nahor     Rehoboam     Saul    Shaharaim     Shimei*     Simeon     Solomon     Terah*    Zedekiah     Ziba*  .  

Makes sense to me that a future reinstitution of plural marriage would also "raise up seed to the Lord."

 

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

ok. Thank you.

I agree with you- early LDS leaders as well as Biblical leaders such as  Abdon*     Abijah     Abraham     Ahab     Ahasuerus    Ashur     Belshazzar     Benhadad     Caleb     David    Eliphaz     Elkanah     Esau     Ezra     Gideon     Heman*    Hosea*     Ibzan*     Issachar**     Jacob     Jair*     Jehoiachin    Jehoram     Jerahmeel     Joash Lamech     Machir    Manasseh     Mered Moses     Nahor     Rehoboam     Saul    Shaharaim     Shimei*     Simeon     Solomon     Terah*    Zedekiah     Ziba*  .  

Makes sense to me that a future reinstitution of plural marriage would also "raise up seed to the Lord."

 

If that situation should arise, it looks like our political and social systems are making prep work. It's already accepting de facto polygamous relationships that produce children.

 

[SettingDogStar]

Honestly there isn't much that I would ask concerning what I would want to change (I have some ideas for more efficiency but honestly if their were better ways of doing things, I'm sure they know). However I would try to pry into their knowledge in relation to the heavens and how to pierce them more effectively. I know Faith and the Doctrine of Christ are the steps but I would love to be able to see what experience they've had, how they interpret scriptures, and especially the Endowment and how to use this knowledge to talk to the Lord. I know the President and the Apostles hold the Keys to the church but I imagine the way they approach the Lord would be the best model to follow, next to Christ's.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/26/2018 at 5:39 PM, mrmarklin said:

They need to get out more. I realize that this is difficult, given their duties. 

But from a distance it seems they evaluate the problems of the entire church through the prism of living in and largely being from Utah. 

Hopefully, the new apostles can help with perspective. 

If you really think they “need to get out more,” you haven’t been paying attention to news coverage of President Nelson since he became Church president in January. And another international tour has just been announced. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I just posted without realizing that we have a case of thread necromancy here. 

[Stargazer]

On 8/27/2018 at 11:11 AM, hope_for_things said:

1. Get a revelation on LGBTQ+ and on women in the church.  They need to be treated with the dignity they deserve, priesthood for all, monogamy and fidelity is the sexual ethic to emphasize, and kick polygamy doctrines to the curb, it was a mistake, and fix all of this mess.  

2. Prioritize the resources of the church towards charity and doing good in the world.  Pull back on the scale of temple building, pivot away from missionary evangelizing and pivot toward service missions, and helping the poor everywhere.  

3. Show leadership in our theology.  Emphasize unique doctrines in a 21st century context.  All have the spark of divinity within, we can become more like Christ through emulating the qualities of divinity through serving others in the here and now.  If our focus is on the coming afterlife, then we are missing the mark now.  Feed his sheep, literally with food, and emotionally and spiritually with service and understanding.  All are alike unto God, make these words real through actions, and ditch all the folk lore, racism, sexism, exclusivism, and judgmentalism so prevalent in the culture.  Make Mormonism the inclusive religion that it can be.  

I'm getting to this late, so perhaps you've gotten sufficient responses on it already, but...

That's a fine set of suggestions, and I would nod respectfully and say to myself "He's entitled to his opinion", but I couldn't help noticing something interesting.

You wrote: "Get a revelation on LGBTQ+ and on women in the church."  You then followed this up with "kick polygamy doctrines to the curb, it was a mistake".

Do you realize that these two items contradict each other quite directly?  Polygamy doctrine is found in a revelation, as I am sure you know, in DC 132.  Yet you regard this as a mistake, possibly the result of Joseph's supposedly overactive libido.  Why wouldn't a revelation on LGBTQ+ and women in the Church have just as much validity as you seem to think DC 132 has?  In other words, none at all, and a response to whatever pre-existing thought exists in the head of President Nelson.  And do you really think that if revelations just came from the man (as opposed to from God, assuming God exists), that the man in question would come up with something you liked?  Would a revelation on LGBTQ+ contain anything else other than confirming the same values as exist in the Bible and current Church policy and doctrine?  I know darned good and well that you would not like that.  And then  we have the policy of delaying baptism of children of same-sex marriages -- something said to be approved of by the Lord.  You don't like that.  So, you're only comfortable with revelations that you like.  

Either Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who received authority and revelations from God, and so did his successors, or else the whole thing is a huge manmade religion with no more authenticity than Scientology.  Take your pick, you can't have it both ways.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:

Honestly there isn't much that I would ask concerning what I would want to change (I have some ideas for more efficiency but honestly if their were better ways of doing things, I'm sure they know). However I would try to pry into their knowledge in relation to the heavens and how to pierce them more effectively. I know Faith and the Doctrine of Christ are the steps but I would love to be able to see what experience they've had, how they interpret scriptures, and especially the Endowment and how to use this knowledge to talk to the Lord. I know the President and the Apostles hold the Keys to the church but I imagine the way they approach the Lord would be the best model to follow, next to Christ's.

I came into this church with the realization that God could reveal to me great things, if only I would ask.  In short order something was, in fact, revealed to me, and that was that to get what I was after I needed to have faith.  And not just a little faith.  Trying to pierce the heavens yields results only when doing what is required of one.  Prayer, reading scriptures, doing the work which has been given to one, and being open and not close minded.  The best heaven-piercing bit of advice I ever got was gotten out of this General Conference talk: The Spirit Beareth Record.  Elder Packer quoted a scripture which I felt was very much a key to the heavens: Alma 12:9-10.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just posted without realizing that we have a case of thread necromancy here. 

Yes, but it's one of those threads that I have been watching without actually entering until this evening.  I don't know why I didn't chime in already.  I've seen it in the topic list for a couple of months and never dug into it.  Suddenly I felt like doing so.  Odd.

[SettingDogStar]

 

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

I came into this church with the realization that God could reveal to me great things, if only I would ask.  In short order something was, in fact, revealed to me, and that was that to get what I was after I needed to have faith.  And not just a little faith.  Trying to pierce the heavens yields results only when doing what is required of one.  Prayer, reading scriptures, doing the work which has been given to one, and being open and not close minded.  The best heaven-piercing bit of advice I ever got was gotten out of this General Conference talk: The Spirit Beareth Record.  Elder Packer quoted a scripture which I felt was very much a key to the heavens: Alma 12:9-10.

Oh I’ve never heard of that talk, I’ll have to read it! As I was writing my original comment I was thinking that the Apostles would probably just refer to me scriptures and principles I’ve learned and known all my life. Though I read a ton and study a lot of the gospel, I think the main issue I’ve had is that I’m just really bad at putting what I learn into consistent practice. So no matter what they told me there is no magic word to speak that make the Heavens open. 

So maybe I’ll have to come up with a better list of questions in prep for my One Hour!! Haha!

[hope_for_things]

On 10/10/2018 at 8:07 PM, Stargazer said:

I'm getting to this late, so perhaps you've gotten sufficient responses on it already, but...

That's a fine set of suggestions, and I would nod respectfully and say to myself "He's entitled to his opinion", but I couldn't help noticing something interesting.

You wrote: "Get a revelation on LGBTQ+ and on women in the church."  You then followed this up with "kick polygamy doctrines to the curb, it was a mistake".

Do you realize that these two items contradict each other quite directly?  Polygamy doctrine is found in a revelation, as I am sure you know, in DC 132.  Yet you regard this as a mistake, possibly the result of Joseph's supposedly overactive libido.  Why wouldn't a revelation on LGBTQ+ and women in the Church have just as much validity as you seem to think DC 132 has?  In other words, none at all, and a response to whatever pre-existing thought exists in the head of President Nelson.  And do you really think that if revelations just came from the man (as opposed to from God, assuming God exists), that the man in question would come up with something you liked?  Would a revelation on LGBTQ+ contain anything else other than confirming the same values as exist in the Bible and current Church policy and doctrine?  I know darned good and well that you would not like that.  And then  we have the policy of delaying baptism of children of same-sex marriages -- something said to be approved of by the Lord.  You don't like that.  So, you're only comfortable with revelations that you like.  

Either Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who received authority and revelations from God, and so did his successors, or else the whole thing is a huge manmade religion with no more authenticity than Scientology.  Take your pick, you can't have it both ways.

Yes, I understand what you're saying.  From my perspective, revelation is the clothing that we dress the most important ideas in our religion.  As members we treat what is considered revelation differently, and we often elevate it into our canon and make it central to our message.  So what I'm saying is that I want D&C 132 edited or removed from the canon and for us to openly acknowledge that polygamy was a mistake and that it is not part of the heavenly plan.  I also want us to create new inspired revelations on the LGBTQ+ community and women.  

I don't really look at revelation the same way as a contemporary orthodox member.  Think of revelation more like an amendment to the constitution.  I'm not a theist, so I don't believe there is anything supernatural happening when people are creatively inspired with ideas in this or any other church. 

As for the content of these revelations, they would reflect more enlightened ideals of our contemporary culture, but would also mirror some of the same basic principles of the past of equality and dignity towards all, especially those marginalized and treated poorly in society.  A combination of taking from the best elements of the past and the best of our current sensibilities.  This is how the principle of restoration really is supposed to work anyway.    

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I understand what you're saying.  From my perspective, revelation is the clothing that we dress the most important ideas in our religion.  As members we treat what is considered revelation differently, and we often elevate it into our canon and make it central to our message.  So what I'm saying is that I want D&C 132 edited or removed from the canon and for us to openly acknowledge that polygamy was a mistake and that it is not part of the heavenly plan.  I also want us to create new inspired revelations on the LGBTQ+ community and women.  

I don't really look at revelation the same way as a contemporary orthodox member.  Think of revelation more like an amendment to the constitution.  I'm not a theist, so I don't believe there is anything supernatural happening when people are creatively inspired with ideas in this or any other church. 

As for the content of these revelations, they would reflect more enlightened ideals of our contemporary culture, but would also mirror some of the same basic principles of the past of equality and dignity towards all, especially those marginalized and treated poorly in society.  A combination of taking from the best elements of the past and the best of our current sensibilities. 

I understand perfectly what you're saying, too.  What you are describing here is a human-made religion, one that consists entirely of the current popular thought of the moment.  And who is to designate which of the many thoughts reverberating through the culture are the "enlightened ideals of our contemporary culture"?  I'm pretty sure you have a good idea which ones those are.  You could actually start such a movement yourself, you know.  Why are you wasting your time around here when you could be saving society from itself by founding this secular religion of yours?  Trying to co-opt the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the purpose doesn't seem to be the most efficient way to go about it.

Quote

This is how the principle of restoration really is supposed to work anyway.    

I don't think your definition of the word "restoration" comports with the word's actual meaning.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Stargazer

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I understand perfectly what you're saying, too.  What you are describing here is a human-made religion, one that consists entirely of the current popular thought of the moment.  And who is to designate which of the many thoughts reverberating through the culture are the "enlightened ideals of our contemporary culture"?  I'm pretty sure you have a good idea which ones those are.  You could actually start such a movement yourself, you know.  Why are you wasting your time around here when you could be saving society from itself by founding this secular religion of yours?  Trying to co-opt the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the purpose doesn't seem to be the most efficient way to go about it.

I think religions are always responding to the environment/culture around them.  We are a community within the broader culture of the USA, and increasingly a part of even broader worldwide cultures.  The church is always responding to and being influenced by contemporary events, they can't operate independently of its environment, and why would they even want to.  If the point of the gospel is to feed God's sheep, it would be hard to feed them if the church lived in a bubble.  Leaders who have more influence seem to drive the policies and theology, but members play a role as well.  Its a dynamic and interactive process, no one person can be given credit or blame for everything that happens.  

As for me personally, I have my reasons for living my life the way I feel is best.  Hopefully others can respect that.  

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't think your definition of the word "restoration" comports with the word's actual meaning.

You probably mean that my definition doesn't comport with your perspective, and thats fine by me.  Diversity is good.  

 

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think religions are always responding to the environment/culture around them. 

They have to.

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

We are a community within the broader culture of the USA, and increasingly a part of even broader worldwide cultures.  The church is always responding to and being influenced by contemporary events, they can't operate independently of its environment, and why would they even want to.  If the point of the gospel is to feed God's sheep, it would be hard to feed them if the church lived in a bubble.  Leaders who have more influence seem to drive the policies and theology, but members play a role as well.  Its a dynamic and interactive process, no one person can be given credit or blame for everything that happens.  

As for me personally, I have my reasons for living my life the way I feel is best.  Hopefully others can respect that.  

I certainly do.

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You probably mean that my definition doesn't comport with your perspective, and thats fine by me.  Diversity is good.  

No, I mean your definition doesn't comport with the dictionary. 🙂 

Restoration:

1. an act of restoring or the condition of being restored: such as

a: a bringing back to a former position or condition : REINSTATEMENT // the restoration of peace

b: RESTITUTION

c: a restoring to an unimpaired or improved condition // the restoration of a painting

Diversity isn't so good when a word used by one is understood by another to mean something different.  That's called misunderstanding.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

No, I mean your definition doesn't comport with the dictionary. 🙂 

Restoration:

1. an act of restoring or the condition of being restored: such as

a: a bringing back to a former position or condition : REINSTATEMENT // the restoration of peace

b: RESTITUTION

c: a restoring to an unimpaired or improved condition // the restoration of a painting

Diversity isn't so good when a word used by one is understood by another to mean something different.  That's called misunderstanding.

In a strict sense, I agree with what you're saying.  But the church, and religions in general often use words more loosely.  Think about how the word "Translation" was used by Joseph and how further light and knowledge about this topic has caused contemporary Mormons broaden this definition to mean something that it doesn't strictly mean from a dictionary perspective.  

As for use of the word restoration, Joseph and other restorationists of his day were claiming to be restoring old practices that existed anciently, unfortunately a closer inspection of ancient practices shows that they weren't restoring much if anything at all.  One good book to consider written by some very thoughtful Mormon scholars including some BYU scholars, I would recommend is "Standing Apart".  

https://www.amazon.com/Standing-Apart-Historical-Consciousness-Apostasy/dp/0199348146/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539640378&sr=8-1&keywords=standing+apart