Hype for April 2019 Conference

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The fruit I’m looking at sure doesn’t look appetizing.  

Well then look at the fruit of the tree of life that Lord offers in His Church instead. 

Do as Jacob taught and feast upon the love of Christ 

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m glad to hear you were healed.  A very meaningful experience I’m sure.  

Faith precedes the miracle.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Avatar4321

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Faith proceeds the miracle.

"precedes"  

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

"precedes"  

Corrected

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Well then look at the fruit of the tree of life that Lord offers in His Church instead. 

Do as Jacob taught and feast upon the love of Christ 

Jesus didn't formally organize a church, and none of those ideas are unique to institutional religion, let alone Mormonism.  

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Faith precedes the miracle.

Its all within the eye of the beholder. 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's part of an overall view of respect for leaders and laws. That's why I included it. I think his view of Caesar is similar to his view of local or regional leaders.

That's the complexity I'm getting at. There's not a single group one follows. And Jesus thought he was obedient to the laws of the Sabbath. He was simply closer to the Hillel Pharisee view than the Sadducee view. My point is that there's not a single view of what the laws were. Thus there's a lot of complexity in the issue. When Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man he's echoing Rabbi Hillel's views. Rabbi Shammai of the more zealot faction of Pharisees was more strict along with the Sadducees. He's actually applying principles from Rabbi Hillel called the Kal Vahomer. This is one of the seven rules of Hillel. It more or less means what applies in a minor case applies in a major case. So Jesus is applying that principle with respect to the Sabbath. This is explicit in Matt 12:11-12 when he talks of the sheep needing rescue. Characteristic of the Kal Vahomer principle was the phrase "how much more..." Jesus applies them in many of his discussions as does Paul.

I should also point out that obedience is much more complex in these areas since authority simply worked much differently in this proto-rabbinical period. It's not black and white legal authority the way we think of it. That appears once the post-crucifixion apostles start exercising authority. But it's simply not characteristic of Judaism in this era. There it's much more that people follow scholars they accept. So in that way Rabbi Hillel was an extremely influential explicator of the law, but not an authority in the sense of say a police officer. More an authority the way a scholar is said to be an authority on a subject but different scholars may have different views. So you have these competing schools of Judaism but it's not really formal lines of authority. Now in terms of criminal prosecution such as at Christ's death that's different. But I assume that's not what you're talking about.

Depends upon what you mean. The money changers would have been the the "sons of Annas" who set up bazaars to change money and earn a profit. Jesus certainly wasn't alone in this. We read of Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel attempting to rein them in and apparently reducing the price of doves by 99%. (m.Keritot 1.7) There wasn't violence recorded by him. And Gamaliel (Paul's mentor) was known to be much less violent than the zealot Pharisees. 

The question is what authority Annas had over the bazaars in the court of the gentiles. I don't see that he had any. I'm open to being wrong on that point of course.

I'll fully concede Jesus didn't respect the sons of Annas. According to most accounts Annas wasn't respected by many Jews of the time.

I think this is confusion over what the Pharisees and Sadducees were. They weren't leaders the way I think you seem to be assuming they were.

I think you also err in how original you think the sermon on the mount was. In many ways the sermon on the mount was very much within the mainstream of both Jewish hermeneutics and exegesis. Most of the elements can be found in the mishnah and later talmud. What's unique about Jesus is that even when he's similar to either Rabbi Shammai or Rabbi Hillel he never appeals to their authority. (At least in the portrayal of the gospels) He either appeals directly to God or his own authority.

That's of course a pretty common scholarly claim. There's a common argument that it's Paul moreso than anyone else who creates Christianity. I'm not sure I buy that mainly because I think there's evidence that the elders in Jerusalem - particularly the apostles - have unique authority. But I think it safe to say there's no real separation between Christianity and Judaism until after the destruction of the temple. So in that regard I think that's right.

As I said I think there are inner teachings. That is a difference, although even within Judaism there were inner teachings often tied to mysticism or the like. So that's not as big a difference as some might think. I just think the inner teachings were the actual teachings whereas what the post-diaspora teachings were consisted of remnants of those teachings from hundreds of years earlier when prophets were still at work.

Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.

This sounds a bit like plagiarism  

 

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The argument is that LGBT conflict isn't uniquely Mormon and so in Colorado the issues would be more with Evangelicals. There's a well publicized case of a 9 year old who committed suicide in Colorado due to bullying because he was gay. So as I said you do see similar stories in both areas. However the problem is that the rise in suicides and depression is nationwide and again tied to 2010. Further the rate keeps increasing. While again to be clear I think LGBT issues are part of the rise, I think there main driving force is something else. I think social media and smart phone effects has much more explanatory power than LGBT issues statistically.

However the rise in suicides, while perhaps associated by increased LGBT suicides, don't appear to only be LGBT. That is there's a problem with suicide across the board increasing. While I completely understand why those who focus on LGBT suicides, which almost certainly are also rising, want the focus to solely be on LGBT issues this seems a much broader problem. The suicide rate among older Americans for instance has been skyrocketing as well.

The link between social media and depression is much more than the one article I linked to. There's literally dozens of papers all showing a link. Now many are showing a link to depression or other issues not suicide. But of course suicide is strongly linked to depression.

But while social media is certainly a problem, I suspect loneliness is a bigger driver. That's probably why there's been such a rapid increase in suicides among older Americans. (See this recent CDC report for instance) The increase in older suicides is far bigger than the increase in the 15-24 demographic that tends to get all of the focus in the Utah press. Likewise the suicide rate in rural areas is typically twice that of urban areas.

These are good points.  I suspect that conservative Evangelical religious groups also have similar dynamics especially if they have cultures that shame and marginalize the LGBT community.  I'm didn't mean to give the impression that bigotry towards the LGBT community is uniquely Mormon by any means.  

I also think there are likely many contributing factors to increased suicide rates.  You mention some interesting trends that I wasn't aware of, thanks for sharing those.  I don't think it would be responsible to point the finger of blame on any one thing as being the only factor contributing to these trends, but rather that there are likely many contributing factors, and social media and technology definitely look like they are somehow contributing factors, but that certainly doesn't explain the entire picture.  

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by hope_for_things

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Jesus didn't formally organize a church, and none of those ideas are unique to institutional religion, let alone Mormonism.  

Then what church was the apostles establishing?

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The restoration is complete.  Every law and ordinance and authority needed to bring God's children to exaltation with him are on the earth.

I'm not sure even that is true if there's a second endowment that follows the second anointing. The current anointing and endowment one is anointed and endowed to become something. They're preparatory. The fulfillment is later. Although the other view is that is done at death.

But in general I agree that the authority and ordinances have been revealed. Even there though things continue to be clarified and revealed. The law of adoption wasn't understood well by Joseph Smith - thus some of the marriages. That was clarified in a revelation to Brigham and further under Wilford Woodruff. There's still lots of things related to ordinances that are to be revealed. So the basics are there but I'm not sure that means it's done.

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course there are more truths, records etc to be revealed, especially doctrinal knowledge of eternity.

Pres. Nelson's ongoing restoration doesn't seem to have either yet.  Perhaps he is speaking of the ongoing process of God's kingdom being restored.

I don't understand the criticism of Nelson on this point since clearly he's not done. I suspect there's a lot more coming over the next few months. He can't do too much at a time. Look at how big a shakeup just changing the length of church is and all the turmoil it created.

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

These are good points.  I suspect that conservative Evangelical religious groups also have similar dynamics especially if they have cultures that shame and marginalize the LGBT community.  I'm didn't mean to give the impression that bigotry towards the LGBT community is uniquely Mormon by any means.

I should note that while I mention LGBT I don't think bigotry is the main driver there. Don't get me wrong. It's almost certainly a factor. But bigotry levels are reducing not increasing and opportunities for LGBT such as marriage are most definitely opening. My guess is that we're getting copycats due to the way suicide is discussed. Sometimes by well meaning people trying to draw awareness. This is a pretty well known psychological effect particularly with suicide. But you see it in many other phenomena such as school shootings at a time when the number of homes with gun ownership has been decreasing. The common thread is likely the way such things are discussed in social media and the breakdown of mainstream media with economic stresses incentivizing a more sensationalist approach to stories. That would also explain why the rise of social media correlates so well with increasing depression and suicide. Part is likely reduced human contact that I suspect humans just need psychologically. Particularly the young. But part is that mimicking effect that may drive depression and also spur of the moment suicide attempts. 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Then what church was the apostles establishing?

The formalized organization was an evolution as communities of believers formed and it evolved over hundreds of years.  

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I should note that while I mention LGBT I don't think bigotry is the main driver there. Don't get me wrong. It's almost certainly a factor. But bigotry levels are reducing not increasing and opportunities for LGBT such as marriage are most definitely opening. My guess is that we're getting copycats due to the way suicide is discussed. Sometimes by well meaning people trying to draw awareness. This is a pretty well known psychological effect particularly with suicide. But you see it in many other phenomena such as school shootings at a time when the number of homes with gun ownership has been decreasing. The common thread is likely the way such things are discussed in social media and the breakdown of mainstream media with economic stresses incentivizing a more sensationalist approach to stories. That would also explain why the rise of social media correlates so well with increasing depression and suicide. Part is likely reduced human contact that I suspect humans just need psychologically. Particularly the young. But part is that mimicking effect that may drive depression and also spur of the moment suicide attempts. 

It would be hard to qualitatively measure what level of influence bigotry has, but I agree with you that is clearly is a contributing factor.  For society as a whole bigotry seems to be reducing as a general trend, but then we have unique events like the 2015 policy, or even the election of Trump, which seem to swing that pendulum back the other direction somewhat.  I agree with your points about how interconnected all these things are and it definitely is a complicated issue.  Thanks

[SouthernMo]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The restoration is complete.  Every law and ordinance and authority needed to bring God's children to exaltation with him are on the earth.

This is contrary to what Brigham Young taught: http://www.templestudy.com/2008/08/13/many-more-ordinances-including-resurrection/

He clearly teaches that all of the ordinances that will be needed while we are in the flesh have been restored, but there are more ordinances we need for exaltation.  He teaches we will receive these after this mortal life. An obvious one is the ordinance of resurrection.

Perhaps I’m nit-picking at your words, but I think that when we teach about something as important as ordinances, we need to be very, very clear and precise.  According to BY, we do not have every ordinance needed for exaltation on earth.

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is contrary to what Brigham Young taught: http://www.templestudy.com/2008/08/13/many-more-ordinances-including-resurrection/

He clearly teaches that all of the ordinances that will be needed while we are in the flesh have been restored, but there are more ordinances we need for exaltation.  He teaches we will receive these after this mortal life. An obvious one is the ordinance of resurrection.

This would be tied to the second endowment. I'd add that if second anointings are necessary then there's the problem that as far as we know they aren't done vicariously. If they are, it's only by an inner circle and nowhere at the rates that would be necessary for all the dead awaiting resurrection. I think the presumption is such things will be done primarily in the millennium. But the point is that those are things yet to be restored. 

As I hinted there are pretty looming issues over ordinances related to sealings. For instance feminists often bring up polygamy. For most more orthodox members, even if they like to keep the issues away for obvious reasons, there's the issue of what to do with genealogy. Again the presumption is that this will all be resolved in the millennium. But to resolve it lots of revelation would be necessary. Will all polygamous marriages be ratified? What of remarriages in this life? (Both male and female) There's lots of unanswered questions.

 

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The formalized organization was an evolution as communities of believers formed and it evolved over hundreds of years.  

So Jesus was lying in Matthew 16:18?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

So Jesus was lying in Matthew 16:18?

It's a good question. Of course one must assume that Jesus actually said what he is reported to have said.

Quote

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this ^arock I will build my ^bchurch; and the gates of ^chell shall not ^dprevail against it.

The gospel of Matthew is reported to have been written between 90-110 AD by an anonymous author. The text was then translated multiple times by a church some might argue had a vested interested in showing that Jesus started a church. I don't think an appeal to the Bible settles the question, though it can't be dismissed either. But the evidence of what Jesus did, what the apostles did, and how it developed over time seems to suggest that maybe the church developed more organically as communities of Jesus followers increased. Moreso than Jesus' intentional effort to create a new religion/church.

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's a good question. Of course one must assume that Jesus actually said what he is reported to have said.

The gospel of Matthew is reported to have been written between 90-110 AD by an anonymous author. The text was then translated multiple times by a church some might argue had a vested interested in showing that Jesus started a church. I don't think an appeal to the Bible settles the question, though it can't be dismissed either. But the evidence of what Jesus did, what the apostles did, and how it developed over time seems to suggest that maybe the church developed more organically as communities of Jesus followers increased. Moreso than Jesus' intentional effort to create a new religion/church.

The formerly LDS blogger Rock Waterman has an interesting view.  His belief is that a “church” should be far less organized. We don’t need a government-recognized 501C3 with clear leadership roles and policies in place.  We can be a group of people who worship together or just similarly.

Is he right?  Heaven knows!  But, perhaps our definition of church might be different than what Christ meant.

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

The formerly LDS blogger Rock Waterman has an interesting view.  His belief is that a “church” should be far less organized. We don’t need a government-recognized 501C3 with clear leadership roles and policies in place.  We can be a group of people who worship together or just similarly.

Is he right?  Heaven knows!  But, perhaps our definition of church might be different than what Christ meant.

It's worth noting that the first period of apostasy in the early Church was many of Joseph's followers leaving precisely over this point. The very notion of priesthood structure was not something they wanted. Certainly there's many people who want a far less organized church without pesky prophets telling them things different than what they want the theology to be. Some might find union with the Community of Christ (RLDS) although even there one finds schisms and conflicts. However I've noticed some prominent feminists leaving the church to join the RLDS.

 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

The formerly LDS blogger Rock Waterman has an interesting view.  His belief is that a “church” should be far less organized. We don’t need a government-recognized 501C3 with clear leadership roles and policies in place.  We can be a group of people who worship together or just similarly.

How would the finances of the Church be handled?  Who would receive the tithes?  Who would have access to the Church's money?  Who would get to decide how the money would be spent and invested?

Who would own the Church's assets?  The temples and church buildings?  The land holdings?  The business interests?  The intellectual property rights?

How would the Church operate in terms of promulgating doctrine and teaching materials?  

How would the Church administer the programs of the Church?  The missionary program?  Family history work?  Welfare?  Deseret Industries?  

I'm sort of flummoxed at his suggestion.  It seems very naive and facile.  I would have expected more sense from Mr. Waterman.  Where has he published his proposals?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think an appeal to the Bible settles the question ...

The very conclusion that took 14-year-old Joseph into the grove to pray. One of the miracles of the Restoration is that we don't just have to guess what Jesus might have said 2,000 years ago; instead; we can know what He has been saying to prophets for the past 200 years ... and what He says to us on the same topics right now.

[Avatar4321]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's a good question. Of course one must assume that Jesus actually said what he is reported to have said.

The gospel of Matthew is reported to have been written between 90-110 AD by an anonymous author. The text was then translated multiple times by a church some might argue had a vested interested in showing that Jesus started a church. I don't think an appeal to the Bible settles the question, though it can't be dismissed either. But the evidence of what Jesus did, what the apostles did, and how it developed over time seems to suggest that maybe the church developed more organically as communities of Jesus followers increased. Moreso than Jesus' intentional effort to create a new religion/church.

Matthew is an anonymous author? Did he go to the Abinadi school of concealing your identity? I know you’re just relaying the information and others are making this claim but it just seems amusing some things scholars claim.

anyway, on to the substance. Let’s for the sake of argument go with that it was written under 60 years from when it was allegedly spoken. That demonstrates that the concept that Christ established  a Church was clearly around congruent with the Apostles and Church Fathers and not a development over several centuries.

that’s without consideration of the Church being mentioned in early books of the New Testament.

As to whether Christ actually said it, that is why we need the Holy Spirit because He will show us the truth

[Avatar4321]

42 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

The formerly LDS blogger Rock Waterman has an interesting view.  His belief is that a “church” should be far less organized. We don’t need a government-recognized 501C3 with clear leadership roles and policies in place.  We can be a group of people who worship together or just similarly.

Is he right?  Heaven knows!  But, perhaps our definition of church might be different than what Christ meant.

 I think the very nature continuing revelation requires organization. In fact the ordinances are specifically designed put us in order. The Scriptures talk of orders of the priesthood.

 

[SouthernMo]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How would the finances of the Church be handled?  Who would receive the tithes?  Who would have access to the Church's money?  Who would get to decide how the money would be spent and invested?

Who would own the Church's assets?  The temples and church buildings?  The land holdings?  The business interests?  The intellectual property rights?

How would the Church operate in terms of promulgating doctrine and teaching materials?  

How would the Church administer the programs of the Church?  The missionary program?  Family history work?  Welfare?  Deseret Industries?  

I'm sort of flummoxed at his suggestion.  It seems very naive and facile.  I would have expected more sense from Mr. Waterman.  Where has he published his proposals?

Thanks,

-Smac

This is exactly Mr. Waterman’s point. You (and others) see an organized missionary program and intellectual property rights (for example) as somehow essential or inextricably attached to a church.

Again, I’m not saying he is right or wrong. But, why can’t you, me and our families gather together in my home to pray and call that a church?  No one would need to finance a church in this setting.

[SouthernMo]

38 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

 I think the very nature continuing revelation requires organization. In fact the ordinances are specifically designed put us in order. The Scriptures talk of orders of the priesthood.

 

Perhaps!