Elder Oaks

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

No need to. I'm just wondering out loud.

I have a friend (yes it IS possible...) who often says "I was just talking out loud"

I think that is about the best way to talk, myself. 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am trying to understand you but I am beginning to think it is futile.

You don't see it, I am sorry.

You say we hold ourselves out as "exceptional".   Fine

That means you BELIEVE we hold ourselves out as exceptional.  That is your BELIEF.  You are confident of it because you say it in every post

EVERY POST you make shows your beliefs about us with extreme confidence!!

Your blind spot fills the horizon!

And every post goes point counter point!!   Why are we not getting along on these stupid issues? Because we are going point counter-point!!

I don't mind doing that.  That is exactly what I do- I refute anti-mormons.

You apparently think it is wrong to do that for some reason, you think it is wrong to think of oneself as "exceptional" and yet you do just that BECAUSE of your belief that it is "wrong" TO BE "EXCEPTIONAL".  

That is the basis of the disagreement.  I think it is wonderful to be exceptional and you think a priori that clearly being exceptional is wrong.

You have shown no evidence of that- and had you done that, you would be contradicting yourself because you said 

OBVIOUSLY you are more confident that one should NOT be exceptional than we are.   That is being more confident of your beliefs than  ours, because we most heartily endorse being exceptional

I just don't get it at all.  It seems obvious to me you deny doing exactly what you do.  Sorry I am stumped.  It's like saying the lights are off when they are on.

How do you argue with that?

 

It makes me sad that you continue to attack Navidad.  I respect his point of view.  I don't think he has ever been disrespectful of beliefs the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I honestly believe he is being truthful in his pursuit to better understand beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  He should be allowed to ask questions on this forum.  And he should be allowed to respond from. his perspective, just like everyone else that participates.  This is a discussion board.  Let's not lose sight of that.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well it says there will be no more need for "church"

But Givens says in his new book and presents a good case that ordinances are not signs or symbols or at least that that is the paradigm we accept.  We are more Catholic than Protestant in "Feed my Sheep" and see ordinances themselves as making in some sense a physical change in us.

I think they are right.  That view deepens the doctrine considerably, with the notion that there is no immaterial matter and the changes are real as opposed to symbolic

I would add to that that they are real because that is the way they are experienced directly- that makes them "real".  If you feel nothing after an ordinance I think nothing happens.  But I think it is the experience itself that leaves a mark- quite literally- in the spirit.

Hasn't the experience of an ordinance changed you?  It has for me.  

Givens does not make it that specific but that is my view as a paradigm for making it all work better.

I wrote a long post, but just didn't seem appropriate to post for some reason (maybe because it is a personal belief, but not a "Mormon" belief even if my "Mormon" beliefs led to it as it seems problematic for Navidad to go exploring off road at this point), so let me just say that yes, I believe physical changes occur with acceptance of the ordinances.  And I can see why the crucifixion might be viewed in that way.

For Christ's wounds, simplifying it all down, it seems counterintuitive to me that trillions of years from now when this earth has passed from its current state to perfection or space dust that the evidence for immortal beings who once belonged to its mortal sphere that Christ can heal all wounds will still be his body being wounded.  I love the paradox for us now as it can 'shock' us into understanding at least in part what he did, took on all the hate and fear in the world---the wounds being the result---and still in himself was love and compassion and life, but I am hoping hate and fear and all the evidences they existed for us will disappear as the Atonement removes them from our hearts even if we currently need constant reminding that they exist and there exists a solution to all the pain.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

It makes me sad that you continue to attack Navidad.  I respect his point of view.  I don't think he has ever been disrespectful of beliefs the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I honestly believe he is being truthful in his pursuit to better understand beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  He should be allowed to ask questions on this forum.  And he should be allowed to respond from. his perspective, just like everyone else that participates.  This is a discussion board.  Let's not lose sight of that.  

Why is disagreement or advocacy for one's position considered to be an attack?  I think Mark respects Navidad's point of view, he just doesn't agree with it.  Responding to another's arguments with counter arguments is not an attack, regardless of whether someone is being sincere in their questions or arguments.  And nobody is forbidding anyone to ask questions on this forum.  There is a discussion going on here, I don't see why you think otherwise.  If you do.

Sorry, answering for mfbukowsky isn't really my hobby.  I'm just punch drunk on lack of sleep because I have time to monkey around on this darned board, and I'm trying to finish a long, sincere and heartfelt post that I am pretty sure is going to be misunderstood.  Maybe I should just pack it in.  Aaarrrrggghhh.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I wrote a long post, but just didn't seem appropriate to post for some reason (maybe because it is a personal belief, but not a "Mormon" belief even if my "Mormon" beliefs led to it as it seems problematic for Navidad to go exploring off road at this point),

Tell me about it.  I've been writing away like an obsessed ... something or other ... for the past hour or so, and my prose is so deathless, timeless, and obviously encrusted with the diamonds of truth that it will no doubt be taken badly, cause grievous offense, and I will end up apologizing profusely for it in all sincerity.  Dammit.

This thread seems to have devolved into an earnest and sincere inquiry into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, like the salvation of the entire world is at stake and in great jeopardy, all because of the question of what God has in store for [insert term for desired edge case].  I'm hanging fire on whether to actually post the thing (not this thing, the other thing) and maybe I should take a page from what you just wrote and call it a night.  The likelihood is great that the person to whom my wonderful post is directed (same one as your post) will not get the point and all my efforts will be in vain, anyway.  

I love you, Calm, and if I have annoyed or offended you unnecessarily tonight, I apologize.

Quote

For Christ's wounds, simplifying it all down, it seems counterintuitive to me that trillions of years from now when this earth has passed from its current state to perfection or space dust that the evidence for immortal beings who once belonged to its mortal sphere that Christ can heal all wounds will still be his body being wounded.  I love the paradox for us now as it can 'shock' us into understanding at least in part what he did, took on all the hate and fear in the world---the wounds being the result---and still in himself was love and compassion and life, but I am hoping hate and fear and all the evidences they existed for us will disappear as the Atonement removes them from our hearts even if we currently need constant reminding that they exist and there exists a solution to all the pain.

Amen.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I wrote a long post, but just didn't seem appropriate to post for some reason (maybe because it is a personal belief, but not a "Mormon" belief even if my "Mormon" beliefs led to it as it seems problematic for Navidad to go exploring off road at this point), ...

Well, it sounds like it might be interesting, so if you saved the text of it somewhere, maybe you could sanitize it to neutrality so it doesn't involve Navidad directly, and post it as a new topic.  My long post is waaaaay too specific to be sanitizable.

This subthread seems to have taken over the OP.  For better or for worse.  Probably worse.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Stargazer

[changed]

re Oaks, I just had an old friend say they are leaving the church over it.  

There is a kind, and an unkind, way of saying things... I do think Oaks could have been kinder in his approach.  If he were to recognize what a painful struggle it is for some, to mourn with those who mourn, ... I was really hoping to hear a talk that better outlined how to support those who were LGBTQ, how to better support those who were abused, how to support those who were going through a faith crisis... really wanted to hear something to show compassion, understanding, and support for those facing the worst trials and I did not hear it.  The only trial that was acknowledged that I could hear were trials of health, trials of death (losing someone you love) -  I did not hear any support for those who have experienced abuse, those whose spouse is adulterous, those who struggle with same sex attraction, those who do not yet have a testimony of everything in the gospel.  I did not hear a talk on the things I was hoping for.  

[Gray]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How odd that "liberals" then are so good at creating group identities they can call divisive names.

Liberals can dream up identities out of thin air just so they can answer ambiguous questions by name calling. 

We used to call that "creating a straw man" but of course that was in the old days when people were civil and did not call people names.

But after all Republicans are "deplorables" anyway so who cares?

Deplorables are deplorables. Whether any particular Republican chooses to be a deplorable is up to them. Some choose to be patriots (increasingly few).

[Gray]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

So, the will and doctrine of God will always agree with liberal thought and belief?

Nope. But it won't sound like Breitbart either.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Nope. But it won't sound like Breitbart either.

I agree.  But few liberals would say 'this sounds too much like liberal political ideology, it can't be God's will and doctrine.'  

As a people, we tend to think that what we agree with is God's word and what we disagree with is just the political ideology and/or culture of the day.  That's not a good method for discerning truth.

 

[Gray]

Just now, bluebell said:

I agree.  But few liberals would say 'this sounds too much like liberal political ideology, it can't be God's will and doctrine.'  

As a people, we tend to think that what we agree with is God's word and what we disagree with is just the political ideology and/or culture of the day.  That's not a good method for discerning truth.

 

When we see leaders parroting certain kinds of popular rhetoric, there's really no mystery as to the source.

[bluebell]

Just now, Gray said:

When we see leaders parroting certain kinds of popular rhetoric, there's really no mystery as to the source.

It would be really simple and easy if that were true, but it's just not.  We can't use that as a way to gauge truth.  After all, if Pres. Oaks had said the opposite of what he did at conference, then in someone's eyes he would just be "parroting" other kinds of popular rhetoric right now.  

Because both kinds of rhetoric are popular, just with different groups.

[Stargazer]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

Deplorables are deplorables. Whether any particular Republican chooses to be a deplorable is up to them. Some choose to be patriots (increasingly few).

Well, in your opinion anyway.  No doubt there are increasingly few Democrats who choose to be patriots.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It would be really simple and easy if that were true, but it's just not.  We can't use that as a way to gauge truth.  After all, if Pres. Oaks had said the opposite of what he did at conference, then in someone's eyes he would just be "parroting" other kinds of popular rhetoric right now.  

Because both kinds of rhetoric are popular, just with different groups. 

This is the most parsimonious explanation. Just like the most parsimonious explanation for KJV quotations in the BOM is KJV literary dependence.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, it sounds like it might be interesting, so if you saved the text of it somewhere, maybe you could sanitize it to neutrality so it doesn't involve Navidad directly, and post it as a new topic.  My long post is waaaaay too specific to be sanitizable.

This subthread seems to have taken over the OP.  For better or for worse.  Probably worse.

Post away! I am anxious to read your post! 

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I wrote a long post, but just didn't seem appropriate to post for some reason (maybe because it is a personal belief, but not a "Mormon" belief even if my "Mormon" beliefs led to it as it seems problematic for Navidad to go exploring off road at this point), so let me just say that yes, I believe physical changes occur with acceptance of the ordinances.  And I can see why the crucifixion might be viewed in that way.

For Christ's wounds, simplifying it all down, it seems counterintuitive to me that trillions of years from now when this earth has passed from its current state to perfection or space dust that the evidence for immortal beings who once belonged to its mortal sphere that Christ can heal all wounds will still be his body being wounded.  I love the paradox for us now as it can 'shock' us into understanding at least in part what he did, took on all the hate and fear in the world---the wounds being the result---and still in himself was love and compassion and life, but I am hoping hate and fear and all the evidences they existed for us will disappear as the Atonement removes them from our hearts even if we currently need constant reminding that they exist and there exists a solution to all the pain.

I think I just replied to the wrong poster. I am very interested to read your views; I think I can manage to not be offended. As one LDS scholar  recently wrote, non-Mormons need to just "stomach the truth!"

[Navidad]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

When we see leaders parroting certain kinds of popular rhetoric, there's really no mystery as to the source.

Uh oh! Don't say parroting. That offends certain people!

[Navidad]

Quick Question - Do Benson's fifteen points about honoring the President apply to all the GA's? If not, do they apply to the three members of the presidency, or just to the President?

[RevTestament]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

Democrats by and large have not sold out their country and are not taking their marching orders from Russia. The GOP... not so much.

Against my better judgment about derailing this thread, I say ha. Ha, ha, ha. 

And even if true I think I would feel better about taking marching orders from Russia than the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Uh oh! Don't say parroting. That offends certain people!

Uh, Jimmy Buffett fans?

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

This is the most parsimonious explanation. Just like the most parsimonious explanation for KJV quotations in the BOM is KJV literary dependence.

That doesn't mean it's the correct one though.  Easy can also just be another word for lazy.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

Oh goodie, more right wing identity politics in general conference.

That's it, exactly.  As I listened I realized he's speaking far less useful spiritual matter and far more agenda strained politics.  of course this is happening every conference.  Ah well...what do we expect when it's all on repeat?

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That doesn't mean it's the correct one though.  Easy can also just be another word for lazy.

I'm using the term in the sense that it's the explanation with the fewest unnecessary assumptions, not that it's the easiest explanation.

If someone in GC started using "blood and soil" rhetoric, I wouldn't need to wonder where that was coming from either.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

What?!  PRINCE??  Say it isn't so, Gray!!!

 

From beyond the grave even. RIP

[pogi]

On 10/7/2018 at 2:46 AM, california boy said:

But what if he doesn't want to be changed to "normal" as a condition to enter the presence of God.  What if he is so comfortable in his own skin that he feels it is just who he is.  Does everyone have to want to be just like everyone else?  In the Church it seems like it is a big deal if someone wears a colored shirt.  Why is that even a thing?

Personally, I am more than happy to walk a different path.  I have no need to conform to what others feel I should be.  I don't think your son should be forced to be just like everyone else to enter the presence of God if he doesn't want to be.  It should be his choice.  I don't think a Down Syndrome person should be forced to conform in order to enter the presence of God if they don't want.  And I don't think a gay person should be forced to become straight to enter the presence of God.

Well, I think everyone else is going to be more like him actually...white hair and all.  He is our angel! 

You are conflating differences in style (colored shirts) and personality with genetic disorders and legal blindness, etc.  Have you ever met someone who was born with vision be happy about losing their vision?  What about mental function?  Vision is a gift.  Full mental capacity is a gift.  There will be nothing but praising God for it, of that I am confident.  I am talking about known disorders and disabilities, I am not commenting on homosexuality - that is not a known "disorder", and is a different topic all together.