Refusing To Do The 10-Day Social Media Fast

[Navidad]

43 minutes ago, OnceWasMormon said:

You've hit a nail squarely on its head.

Surely, to attain to the position of 'Apostle', and especially of 'Prophet', one MUST have also attained a higher state of spirituality and faith.

Yes, Apostles and Prophets are 'Men' BUT they are elevated, in the eyes of God, AMONG 'Men' on account of their spiritual closeness to The Father.

When one has been taught to revere the leaders of the Church, often by way of accounts of prominently-spiritual experiences throughout their lives, which serve to consolidate their highly-tuned spiritual state, it is INDEED 'shocking' to suddenly - and for me it WAS sudden - be told that the leaders of the Church 'sometimes get it wrong'.

HOW, exactly, can a man who has reached such a lofty state of spirituality 'get it wrong'? Seriously!

I don't want to get in trouble here, but it seems that if someone actually picked the prophet because of his lofty state of spirituality and faith, he might really be a Godly spiritual giant. But what seems self-evident is that what he has to achieve is longevity - time in place. Unless I am wrong, isn't it automatic 99% of the time that the senior apostle (from date of ordination) becomes the prophet? Seniority does not equal spirituality, does it? It is none of my business but it seems that a better process would to have the apostles or the apostles and the first seventy select the prophet on the very criterion you mention - a "lofty state of sprituality." I guess that is heresy and it certainly isn't going to happen! Certainly among the first seventy and the apostles there may very well be men equal or greater in spirituality than the most senior person? Who has been on this forum the longest? Do we honor him as the wisest poster of all who are posting? Our bishop is amazing and he certainly isn't the longest serving member of our church. There are lots of men senior to him in our ward, but I know of no one more spiritually minded.

[Jane_Doe]

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I don't want to get in trouble here, but it seems that if someone actually picked the prophet because of his lofty state of spirituality and faith, he might really be a Godly spiritual giant. But what seems self-evident is that what he has to achieve is longevity - time in place. Unless I am wrong, isn't it automatic 99% of the time that the senior apostle (from date of ordination) becomes the prophet? Seniority does not equal spirituality, does it? It is none of my business but it seems that a better process would to have the apostles or the apostles and the first seventy select the prophet on the very criterion you mention - a "lofty state of sprituality." I guess that is heresy and it certainly isn't going to happen! Certainly among the first seventy and the apostles there may very well be men equal or greater in spirituality than the most senior person? Who has been on this forum the longest? Do we honor him as the wisest poster of all who are posting? Our bishop is amazing and he certainly isn't the longest serving member of our church. There are lots of men senior to him in our ward, but I know of no one more spiritually minded.

The current tradition of the serious apostle becoming the next prophet is just that: a tradition.  It's not something that's theologically dictated.  Also, all the Apostles pray about things to unanimously confirm that this is the Lord's choice.  Not the vote of men, but the will of the Lord.  

The seventies don't have anything particular to do with the process. 

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I guess I don't understand it. We Catholics don't have a problem pointing out mistakes our leaders make because it is firmly entrenched in our minds that these are fallible people and their teachings are VERY rarely above reproach, and when they are it is a very clear situation (last one happened in 1950).

It appears that you are trying to have it both ways. You state over and over that leaders are infallible, are just men, but that's not how you act.

I'm just pointing out how it appears.

For me, it's a matter of acknowledging that folks are flawed humans, but not going out of my way to nitpick them part, especially with my limited knowledge.  Passing of time does make some things clearer.

I suppose another big thing here is the LDS stress on personal revelation: that we have that individualized channel going, as well as prophets & apostles.  

[changed]

10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

For me, it's a matter of acknowledging that folks are flawed humans, but not going out of my way to nitpick them part, especially with my limited knowledge.  Passing of time does make some things clearer.

I suppose another big thing here is the LDS stress on personal revelation: that we have that individualized channel going, as well as prophets & apostles.  

 

For me, imperfect leaders are a reminder of personal accountability.  In the end, it comes down to our own personal testimony...

" I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man (including apostles and prophets) or maketh flesh his arm."

The majority of the NT is spent with Jesus rebuking the apostles - the apostles could not walk on water, could not always heal people, misunderstood half of what Jesus was teaching, they slept while Jesus was going through his hardest trial - "what, you could not stay awake even one hour???"  .. betrayed with a kiss?  Yes - that was an apostle who did that.  Denied Jesus 3 times before the **** crew, tried to push children away from Jesus (forbid them not for such is the kingdom)... doubting Thomas - all apostles.  Apostles bring to light the common frailties of mankind as much as anything else.  

Edited October 17, 2018 by changed

[OnceWasMormon]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Because we don't actually just do one thing in our lives, but many things and someone may be highly developed in one area but lacking in another, even one similar (think of a musician who is very good with the cello, quite decent with piano, but not so great with a flute).

I'm treading a very-fine line between earnest and anti-Mormon comment.

I hope that I am not coming across as the latter.

I understand what you are saying.

However, it just keeps coming back to the same fundamental principle that Men chosen of God (and one would reasonably assume that Apostles and Prophets are indeed 'chosen', as opposed to being 'called') could NOT be so 'out of tune' spiritually that the precise intent of 'revelation' is compromised.

[OnceWasMormon]

6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

...I suppose another big thing here is the LDS stress on personal revelation: that we have that individualized channel going, as well as prophets & apostles.  

Wasn't it 'personal revelation' which splintered the early Church.

One person's 'revelation' is another's 'apostasy'.

If personal revelation was the key, there'd be no reason for organised Churches.

Perhaps the implicit message of the Church is that 'personal revelation' is fine and dandy EXCEPT when it leads to the establishment of a 'personal' Church within one's heart.

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't want to get in trouble here, but it seems that if someone actually picked the prophet because of his lofty state of spirituality and faith, he might really be a Godly spiritual giant. But what seems self-evident is that what he has to achieve is longevity - time in place. Unless I am wrong, isn't it automatic 99% of the time that the senior apostle (from date of ordination) becomes the prophet? Seniority does not equal spirituality, does it? It is none of my business but it seems that a better process would to have the apostles or the apostles and the first seventy select the prophet on the very criterion you mention - a "lofty state of sprituality." I guess that is heresy and it certainly isn't going to happen! Certainly among the first seventy and the apostles there may very well be men equal or greater in spirituality than the most senior person? Who has been on this forum the longest? Do we honor him as the wisest poster of all who are posting? Our bishop is amazing and he certainly isn't the longest serving member of our church. There are lots of men senior to him in our ward, but I know of no one more spiritually minded.

There is nothing that says that the prophet has to be the "most" spiritual of all the apostles.  How do you even measure that "criterion"?  I believe that each prophet has specific gifts needed for his time.  They are not necessarily the most spiritual.  Think of President Brigham Young, I wouldn't consider him the most spiritual, I tend to agree more with Orson Pratt on a lot of spiritual issues, but Brigham was the right person for the job ahead of him. 

Edited October 17, 2018 by pogi

[Avatar4321]

9 hours ago, OnceWasMormon said:

I'm treading a very-fine line between earnest and anti-Mormon comment.

I hope that I am not coming across as the latter.

I understand what you are saying.

However, it just keeps coming back to the same fundamental principle that Men chosen of God (and one would reasonably assume that Apostles and Prophets are indeed 'chosen', as opposed to being 'called') could NOT be so 'out of tune' spiritually that the precise intent of 'revelation' is compromised.

I’m not worried about them being out of tune.  I’m worried about me being out of tune

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, OnceWasMormon said:

Wasn't it 'personal revelation' which splintered the early Church.

One person's 'revelation' is another's 'apostasy'.

If personal revelation was the key, there'd be no reason for organised Churches.

Perhaps the implicit message of the Church is that 'personal revelation' is fine and dandy EXCEPT when it leads to the establishment of a 'personal' Church within one's heart.

Personal revelation is not the key. It is a key at best.

[juliann]

On 10/8/2018 at 12:42 PM, ksfisher said:

So when the youth were asked to have there fast should they have refused because adults and children weren't asked as well? I have a feeling the men will be asked to at priesthood meeting next conference.

I’m going to pretend I didn’t just see compare women to children. 

[juliann]

On 10/8/2018 at 11:31 AM, ALarson said:

One other thing my son told me was that in the discussions between these women, they were also not happy that there were so many men speaking at the Women's Session and that they wanted to hear more from their sisters in leadership. 

They also expressed that they feel the new presidency is very out of touch with the real issues and problems that the younger generations are dealing with and concerned over.....they were hoping for more than just hearing how important it is not to use the word "Mormon" as an identity anymore (which they "know" will still be used).  Of course, my son and I then talked about other messages from conference that I felt were great.....but, he said the takeaway by these sisters was that these were old men who were out of touch (and that the 10-fast for women was "sexist").

 

I was very disappointed to see the men dominating the women’s session. Had they made up for it in the rest of the sessions, it would have been different, but there was only one woman speaker for the following sessions. So it isn’t a women’s session, it is a session for women. Some don’t mind but it matters to me. 

[Avatar4321]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

I was very disappointed to see the men dominating the women’s session. Had they made up for it in the rest of the sessions, it would have been different, but there was only one woman speaker for the following sessions. So it isn’t a women’s session, it is a session for women. Some don’t mind but it matters to me. 

Those men were the First Presidency. 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Those men were the First Presidency. 

Right.  And they also spoke in the other sessions of conference.  I'm not sure why you can't understand that those who have expressed that they would have liked to have heard more from the women serving in leadership positions, are not saying that they don't like hearing from the First Presidency.   

Edited October 17, 2018 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

I’m going to pretend I didn’t just see compare women to children. 

I'm not sure I understand what you're meaning.

[HappyJackWagon]

True. They are important men.

But representation from women was lacking in favor of hearing from important men, in the session and throughout the conference.

One could always make that argument when women are under represented in favor of male leadership. But they are the First Presidency. But they are the Quorum of the 12. But they are Presidents of the 70. But they are General Authorities.

Every conference could easily be filled with only important men, but that doesn't change the fact that only minimal female participation is encouraged/invited/allowed.

 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

I was very disappointed to see the men dominating the women’s session. Had they made up for it in the rest of the sessions, it would have been different, but there was only one woman speaker for the following sessions. So it isn’t a women’s session, it is a session for women. Some don’t mind but it matters to me. 

It matters to me as well... 

First, I'll say that the new GC Saturday Women's Session follows the pattern of the GC Saturday Priesthood Session in that all three FP members speak (as the final three speakers comprising most of the second hour).  So, in that sense it is "normal".

But the impact of this change is that we're having far fewer conference addresses from the sisters.  There were 9 total conference talks by sisters in 2017.  For 2018, we have 7.  And we've now increased the number of brothers speaking.

My heart aches for my 10 year old daughter who sits and watches each session, laboriously taking notes and she hears so few female voices.

I get that there may be a thought that proportionally we are still asking more from the women's auxiliary leaders than from the men's auxiliary leaders.  But, I don't think that the good sisters leading the General RS/YW/Primary organizations would mind speaking more often.  They are certainly up to the task.  And I believe that we all would benefit.

[Storm Rider]

20 hours ago, OnceWasMormon said:

You've hit a nail squarely on its head.

Surely, to attain to the position of 'Apostle', and especially of 'Prophet', one MUST have also attained a higher state of spirituality and faith.

Yes, Apostles and Prophets are 'Men' BUT they are elevated, in the eyes of God, AMONG 'Men' on account of their spiritual closeness to The Father.

When one has been taught to revere the leaders of the Church, often by way of accounts of prominently-spiritual experiences throughout their lives, which serve to consolidate their highly-tuned spiritual state, it is INDEED 'shocking' to suddenly - and for me it WAS sudden - be told that the leaders of the Church 'sometimes get it wrong'.

HOW, exactly, can a man who has reached such a lofty state of spirituality 'get it wrong'? Seriously!

I think you mistake the role of prophets and apostles - they are not necessarily holy men. They have been called to serve Christ's church. Just curious - do you think holy men always make great administrators? Do think the church leadership has need of good administrators? If so, why wouldn't some apostles be called for their administrative skills first rather than their holiness?  

I think many members of the Chuch have an idealistic concept of what or who leaders actually are. I understand how difficult it is to learn that they are just men when we put them on such high pedestals. Note - we put them on such high pedestals. Who is responsible for doing so? We are and we are to blame for our own desires to make them perfect, holy men. 

I think some prophets and apostles have been holy men in the same way that I have met many holy people who are not apostles and prophets. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think you mistake the role of prophets and apostles - they are not necessarily holy men. They have been called to serve Christ's church. Just curious - do you think holy men always make great administrators? Do think the church leadership has need of good administrators? If so, why wouldn't some apostles be called for their administrative skills first rather than their holiness?  

I think many members of the Chuch have an idealistic concept of what or who leaders actually are. I understand how difficult it is to learn that they are just men when we put them on such high pedestals. Note - we put them on such high pedestals. Who is responsible for doing so? We are and we are to blame for our own desires to make them perfect, holy men. 

I think some prophets and apostles have been holy men in the same way that I have met many holy people who are not apostles and prophets. 

Administrators does seem to be a significant part of the role that the apostles now claim.

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think you mistake the role of prophets and apostles - they are not necessarily holy men. They have been called to serve Christ's church. Just curious - do you think holy men always make great administrators? Do think the church leadership has need of good administrators? If so, why wouldn't some apostles be called for their administrative skills first rather than their holiness?  

I think many members of the Chuch have an idealistic concept of what or who leaders actually are. I understand how difficult it is to learn that they are just men when we put them on such high pedestals. Note - we put them on such high pedestals. Who is responsible for doing so? We are and we are to blame for our own desires to make them perfect, holy men. 

I think some prophets and apostles have been holy men in the same way that I have met many holy people who are not apostles and prophets. 

You're right that if we simply think of church leaders as administrators then we won't expect too much of them in terms of holiness. Yet they are called as "Special witnesses of Christ", NOT "special administrators". Being a witness for Christ is quite different than being a manager of the church though there would obviously be some overlap in duties.

While we may share some guilt to keeping leaders on pedestals, church leaders have placed themselves onto these pedestals and we keep them there in an effort to sustain them. Tell me Benson's 14 fundamentals talk doesn't place prophets on a pedestal. Singing "Follow the Prophet" puts them on a pedestal. The titles Prophet, Seers, & Revelators implies MUCH more than simple administrative functions.

But I've got to admit, Follow the Prophet does sound a bit more authoritative than Follow the Administrator.

Edited October 17, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think you mistake the role of prophets and apostles - they are not necessarily holy men. They have been called to serve Christ's church. Just curious - do you think holy men always make great administrators? Do think the church leadership has need of good administrators? If so, why wouldn't some apostles be called for their administrative skills first rather than their holiness?  

I think many members of the Chuch have an idealistic concept of what or who leaders actually are. I understand how difficult it is to learn that they are just men when we put them on such high pedestals. Note - we put them on such high pedestals. Who is responsible for doing so? We are and we are to blame for our own desires to make them perfect, holy men. 

I think some prophets and apostles have been holy men in the same way that I have met many holy people who are not apostles and prophets. 

I am not of the opinion/delusion that the apostles are the fifteen most righteous men on Earth if that is what you are suggesting. They were called because they could do the job, their mortal probation needs some test associated with the job, their skills will be specifically needed coupled with being an apostle, someone they were mean to in High School needs the trial of watching them become an apostle, and probably hosts of other reason.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

It matters to me as well... 

First, I'll say that the new GC Saturday Women's Session follows the pattern of the GC Saturday Priesthood Session in that all three FP members speak (as the final three speakers comprising most of the second hour).  So, in that sense it is "normal".

But the impact of this change is that we're having far fewer conference addresses from the sisters.  There were 9 total conference talks by sisters in 2017.  For 2018, we have 7.  And we've now increased the number of brothers speaking.

My heart aches for my 10 year old daughter who sits and watches each session, laboriously taking notes and she hears so few female voices.

I get that there may be a thought that proportionally we are still asking more from the women's auxiliary leaders than from the men's auxiliary leaders.  But, I don't think that the good sisters leading the General RS/YW/Primary organizations would mind speaking more often.  They are certainly up to the task.  And I believe that we all would benefit.

2

Finn, you don't really need to listen to women; after all, they are just women and you are a boy. Boys should only really listen to men because they are like you.

Emma Kate, you really don't need to listen to men. How do they know anything because they are not like you - they are men and you are a girl. So from this point on just ignore men because...well, because they are men and not like you. 

The world is a much better place when we can divide it up and finally understand that, first and foremost, we should only listen to others if, and only if, they are own gender and just like you. After all, what does the opposite sex really understand about my human experience?

This is also applicable to color - Little black boy, please ignore all white people. After all, how does a white person understand you as a black person? Little white girl - just ignore everyone that belongs to another race than your own. After all, how do they understand being a white person?

Goodness, I love a world that is Balkanized.  Put everyone in their own cube that is exactly like you and ignore everyone else.  I am saved. 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Storm Rider

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Finn, you don't really need to listen to women; after all, they are just women and you are a boy. Boys should only really listen to men because they are like you.

Emma Kate, you really don't need to listen to men. How do they know anything because they are not like you - they are men and you are a girl. So from the point on just ignore men because...well, because they are men. 

The world is a much better place when we can divide it up and finally understand that, first and foremost, we should only listen to others if, and only if, they are own gender. After all, what does the opposite sex really understand my human experience?

This is also applicable to color - Little black boy, please ignore all white people. After all, how does a white person understand you as a black person? Little white girl - just ignore everyone that belongs to another race than your own. After all, how do they understand being a white person?

Goodness, I love a world that is Balkanized.  Put everyone in their own cube that is exactly like you and ignore everyone else.  I am saved. 

Man, your lack of understanding on this issue is astonishing.

No one is advocating a "balkanization" of voices. It's quite the opposite. There is a balkanization and it would be preferable to have more than one perspective.

[juliann]

49 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Those men were the First Presidency. 

And those women are the General Board. 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Finn, you don't really need to listen to women; after all, they are just women and you are a boy. Boys should only really listen to men because they are like you.

Emma Kate, you really don't need to listen to men. How do they know anything because they are not like you - they are men and you are a girl. So from the point on just ignore men because...well, because they are men. 

The world is a much better place when we can divide it up and finally understand that, first and foremost, we should only listen to others if, and only if, they are own gender. After all, what does the opposite sex really understand my human experience?

This is also applicable to color - Little black boy, please ignore all white people. After all, how does a white person understand you as a black person? Little white girl - just ignore everyone that belongs to another race than your own. After all, how do they understand being a white person?

Goodness, I love a world that is Balkanized.  Put everyone in their own cube that is exactly like you and ignore everyone else.  I am saved. 

Not at all what we are saying.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

We ALL need to hear the voices of the sisters as well as the voices of the brothers.

[Avatar4321]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Man, your lack of understanding on this issue is astonishing.

No one is advocating a "balkanization" of voices. It's quite the opposite. There is a balkanization and it would be preferable to have more than one perspective.

The only perspective I listen for at Conference is God’s perspective.