Speculations for General Conference

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

How is your study of the Book of Mormon?

talk to the Lord. Christ has a way of bridging gaps

My study of the Book of Mormon and my relationship with the Lord are both strong.  He doesn't appear to be bridging this gap.  At least not for now.

[Avatar4321]

11 hours ago, changed said:

Seminary, relief society, gospel doctrine - it is all dictated with no room for personal exploration and expression.  You cannot question, or disagree with, anything the "prophet" has said... this is soooo wrong.  

We all have free agency.  We all hold slightly different beliefs, have had different experiences which have formed those beliefs.  We all must gain our own personal testimony without relying on the light of others.  Other organizations recognize this, do not try to dictate beliefs, allow everyone personal inquiry and expression.  Other churches allow everyone to find their own light, celebrate individual light, rather than dictating everyone's beliefs.    

Do not trust the arm of flesh = do not trust anyone (even if they are a prophet).  Judas was a prophet, what are we to learn from that?  Doubting Thomas was a prophet.  

• 16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. 17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? 
• And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
• Peter then denied again: and immediately the **** crew.
• And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
• Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?

We are supposed to trust and follow....  apostles???  I think the scriptures teach very clearly we cannot fully trust or rely on prophets and apostles - they are a rather incompetent bunch.  

It comes down to personal testimonies, not trusting in and following in the arms of flesh.  

Christianity is built on personal inquiry, personal revelation, personal relationship with God.  When any person tries to dictate personal beliefs, tries to take away agency - "trust me, I know better than you" prideful stuff → this is the stuff the dark ages was made from.  

If the Mormon church really wants to be Christian, really wants to be the "Church of Jesus Christ" and not the "Church of Joseph Smith and other prophets", they need to allow everyone their own personal testimony, their own free agency, their own beliefs without trying to dictate every last little thing.  

 

In other words, keep doing what we already do.

[Avatar4321]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My study of the Book of Mormon and my relationship with the Lord are both strong.  He doesn't appear to be bridging this gap.  At least not for now.

Sometimes He has us wait on Him.

Have you ever read President Eyerings Book “To draw closer to god”? He has a good chapter on waiting on the Lord. Patience isn’t my strongest suit personally

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Sometimes He has us wait on Him.

Have you ever read President Eyerings Book “To draw closer to god”? He has a good chapter on waiting on the Lord. Patience isn’t my strongest suit personally

It's been 11 years.  I'm patient and will continue waiting.

No, I don't think I've read that book.

Edited September 14, 2018 by rockpond

[Avatar4321]

How is everyone preparing their hearts for Conference?

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

In other words, keep doing what we already do.

Yet in another post you say that allegiance to God is the same as allegiance to priesthood leaders.

Can you clarify in light of what you say here?

ETA: here is the relevant post, my bold, and sorry for the messed up formatting:

   5 hours ago,  hope_for_things said: 

Well, I think many of them would say they care about Sam's soul.  Its just that they conflate Sam's standing in the church with his standing with God.  The two things are synonymous for the orthodox.  Allegiance to church authorities is the same thing as obedience to God for them.  

(Avatar4321): Probably because Jesus said as much

Edited September 15, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[bsjkki]

On 9/13/2018 at 3:40 PM, rongo said:

Told by whom? A bishop or stake president? Higher than that? 

So, it took me awhile to get back ahold of my sister to get clearer details and it is total hearsay but this is a speculative thread so... She was told by her friend that two of her sons friends who attend a singles ward and had their mission papers ready to go, were told to wait until after conference to submit. This is in Utah. 

She had specifically called to ask if I had heard any rumors so then I started looking closer at this thread.

[Avatar4321]

37 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yet in another post you say that allegiance to God is the same as allegiance to priesthood leaders.

Can you clarify in light of what you say here?

ETA: here is the relevant post, my bold, and sorry for the messed up formatting:

   5 hours ago,  hope_for_things said: 

Well, I think many of them would say they care about Sam's soul.  Its just that they conflate Sam's standing in the church with his standing with God.  The two things are synonymous for the orthodox.  Allegiance to church authorities is the same thing as obedience to God for them.  

(Avatar4321): Probably because Jesus said as much

I've already cited the scriptures. What more do you want?

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So, it took me awhile to get back ahold of my sister to get clearer details and it is total hearsay but this is a speculative thread so... She was told by her friend that two of her sons friends who attend a singles ward and had their mission papers ready to go, were told to wait until after conference to submit. This is in Utah. 

She had specifically called to ask if I had heard any rumors so then I started looking closer at this thread.

This upcoming Gen Con is starting to get exciting!

Reducing church to a 2-hour block.

Reducing missions to 18 months.

Now, if we could just get the prophet to also announce the replacement program for Duty to God... all my wildest dreams will have come true!

Edited September 15, 2018 by rockpond

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I've already cited the scriptures. What more do you want?

You seem to have a contradiction in what you said to changed and what you said about following priesthood leaders. That's what I'm referring to.

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

This upcoming Gen Con is starting to get exciting!

Reducing church to a 2-hour block.

Reducing missions to 18 months.

Now, if we could just get the prophet to also announce the replacement program for Duty to God... all my wildest dreams will have come true!

have you heard anything specifically about 18 month missions? My BIL served in Hong Kong when they did it in the early 80's and he said it was dumb! it wasn't long enough to learn and use Chinese

[Rain]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

So, it took me awhile to get back ahold of my sister to get clearer details and it is total hearsay but this is a speculative thread so... She was told by her friend that two of her sons friends who attend a singles ward and had their mission papers ready to go, were told to wait until after conference to submit. This is in Utah. 

She had specifically called to ask if I had heard any rumors so then I started looking closer at this thread.

It will be interesting to see how that goes.  

I would think that it may not matter much - my son's friend put his papers in several years ago and waited months (it was either 6 or 9 months, I can't remember now).  When the bishop would ask he would be told the call wasn't ready yet. Then he finally got it and a month or 2 later the call was changed to a new and just opening mission- so apparently the call still wasn't ready yet when he received it.  I would think that this close if there was going to be a change then it could still work even if they had turned in papers. 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

have you heard anything specifically about 18 month missions? My BIL served in Hong Kong when they did it in the early 80's and he said it was dumb! it wasn't long enough to learn and use Chinese

I have not heard anything about 18 month missions.  Just my best guess as to why someone would be telling people to wait on submitting papers.  But that is a good point that it’s short for those missions with really tough languages. 

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have not heard anything about 18 month missions.  Just my best guess as to why someone would be telling people to wait on submitting papers.  But that is a good point that it’s short for those missions with really tough languages. 

It's too short even for stateside. There is a reason that the original attempt in the early 80s was so short-lived. 

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's too short even for stateside. There is a reason that the original attempt in the early 80s was so short-lived. 

Why do you feel it is too short for stateside? I assume you mean for English speaking stateside since you were replying to a post about languages. As a sister, I'm hard pressed to figure out what the difference would have been for me had I stayed 6 months longer. 

Edited September 15, 2018 by Rain

[bsjkki]

52 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's too short even for stateside. There is a reason that the original attempt in the early 80s was so short-lived. 

If 18 months is too short, why do women only serve 18 months? Are they institutionally disadvantaged?

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have not heard anything about 18 month missions.  Just my best guess as to why someone would be telling people to wait on submitting papers.  But that is a good point that it’s short for those missions with really tough languages. 

Do the women who serve in these countries then have an inherently worse experience then their male counterparts? Do women not serve in countries with really tough languages?

I've never minded women only serve 18 months but I do think these strong reactions against them bring some questions to my mind.

 

[carbon dioxide]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

This upcoming Gen Con is starting to get exciting!

Reducing church to a 2-hour block.

Reducing missions to 18 months.

Now, if we could just get the prophet to also announce the replacement program for Duty to God... all my wildest dreams will have come true!

I can see missions reduced to 18 months for those who do not need to learn a language but for those who do, 2 years makes sense.

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I can see missions reduced to 18 months for those who do not need to learn a language but for those who do, 2 years makes sense.

That’s a more equitable way to do it than 18 months for women, 24 for men.  

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

If 18 months is too short, why do women only serve 18 months? Are they institutionally disadvantaged?

Do the women who serve in these countries then have an inherently worse experience then their male counterparts? Do women not serve in countries with really tough languages?

I've never minded women only serve 18 months but I do think these strong reactions against them bring some questions to my mind.

 

I could give the patronizing answer... women are smarter and faster learners.  

I think everyone is raising good points.  A shortening of mission length is just my best guess as to why someone would say to wait until after gen con to submit mission papers.  I’m open to other speculations. 

The service vs proselytizing mission could be another reason.  But I am hopeful that won’t go in that direction.  I don’t love the idea of choosing between all service and all proselytizing... I’d rather see proselytizing missions get a heavier dose of community service.  

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Why do you feel it is too short for stateside? I assume you mean for English speaking stateside since you were replying to a post about languages. As a sister, I'm hard pressed to figure out what the difference would have been for me had I stayed 6 months longer. 

Six more months of missionary work.

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

If 18 months is too short, why do women only serve 18 months? Are they institutionally disadvantaged?

Do the women who serve in these countries then have an inherently worse experience then their male counterparts? Do women not serve in countries with really tough languages?

I've never minded women only serve 18 months but I do think these strong reactions against them bring some questions to my mind.

I think it's clear that historically, the reason for 18 months was to keep women on missions for a shorter period of time so as not to hinder marriage possibilities. I would have no problem whatsoever with women also having 24 month missions, just like the men. 

Especially in foreign language missions, sisters only have 16 months in the field compared to 22 for the men. I wouldn't say that they have an "inherently 'worse' experience," but it's just too short of a time in my opinion. 

Of course sisters serve in countries with tough languages. In my experience, and in my opinion, elders tended to be better speakers (in general, of course: vocabulary, grammar, syntax, natural communication), and sisters tended to have much better accents. Even as a teacher, girls somehow are generally much better at pronunciation, accent, and prosody, in my experience. Obviously, there are exceptions. 

Bottom line, for me: I think 18 months isn't enough time for a mission. If you're going on a mission, then go ahead and go on a full mission. I'm not sure in this day of later marriage ages that it makes sense to keep sisters at 18 months. It does make it easier to save up for (looking ahead to my daughter). 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

Six more months of missionary work.

I think it's clear that historically, the reason for 18 months was to keep women on missions for a shorter period of time so as not to hinder marriage possibilities. I would have no problem whatsoever with women also having 24 month missions, just like the men. 

Especially in foreign language missions, sisters only have 16 months in the field compared to 22 for the men. I wouldn't say that they have an "inherently 'worse' experience," but it's just too short of a time in my opinion. 

Of course sisters serve in countries with tough languages. In my experience, and in my opinion, elders tended to be better speakers (in general, of course: vocabulary, grammar, syntax, natural communication), and sisters tended to have much better accents. Even as a teacher, girls somehow are generally much better at pronunciation, accent, and prosody, in my experience. Obviously, there are exceptions. 

Bottom line, for me: I think 18 months isn't enough time for a mission. If you're going on a mission, then go ahead and go on a full mission. I'm not sure in this day of later marriage ages that it makes sense to keep sisters at 18 months. It does make it easier to save up for (looking ahead to my daughter). 

I'm not disagreeing with what you've written above, for the most part, but...

Is it possible that in this day of young adults marrying later and a declining birth rate even among LDS couples, that the Brethren might wish to shorten missions in an effort to incrementally lower the average marriage age and increase the number of kids they have?  

[rongo]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not disagreeing with what you've written above, for the most part, but...

Is it possible that in this day of young adults marrying later and a declining birth rate even among LDS couples, that the Brethren might wish to shorten missions in an effort to incrementally lower the average marriage age and increase the number of kids they have?  

I think it's entirely possible that a change like this could happen, and for that reason. It would be an opportunity cost thing: what is the more important goal? I think the Church sacrificed missionary work quality when it shifted to missions serving a function of stopping the hemorrhaging of youth (keeping them active after graduation). That was the reason for the drop in mission age, coupled with de-emphasis on missionary *work* and challenges. Since North American missions are largely about helping them avoid rejection and adversity, I could see a lessening of time on a mission as a furtherance of this approach. I think it would be a crying shame, and I think our young people would be missing out on invaluable experience.

[bsjkki]

More speculation from my sister. She sent me this text today. 

President xxxxx said  today in Sunday school to hold on to your hat. Pres Nelson isn’t done making changes. Looking forward to conference 🙂

The President she speaks of is her former Stake President a former mission president and currently works for the church.

 

Edited September 16, 2018 by bsjkki

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

More speculation from my sister. She sent me this text today. 

President xxxxx said  today in Sunday school to hold on to your hat. Pres Nelson isn’t done making changes. Looking forward to conference 🙂

The President she speaks of is her former Stake President a former mission president and currently works for the church.

 

I doubt President Nelson is making any changes.

The Lord, on the other hand....

[bsjkki]

3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I doubt President Nelson is making any changes.

The Lord, on the other hand....

“Touché”

I also heard from a friend whose son is preparing for a service mission because of a severe pet allergy, that the Stake President told her today that they are making more changes to service missions.