Hype for April 2019 Conference

[Rain]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

...

My parents see it as the world consuming the church instead of the church remaining separate and peculiar. I can appreciate their concerns as they are very dedicated to the notion of creating a Zion people. In their minds at least it is difficult to create a zion people when the people are not together more than a couple of hours per week. For them, older, life-long members having served in every ward and stake leadership calling imaginable, and now as temple workers, The church has become a place where most people go for a little while on Sunday...and usually that's out of a sense of duty, not a longing for worship (their words).

...

All the changes actually make me see Zion in an expanded way. Heavenly Father wants all his children to be part of it. Through the changes members will start to builder a bigger family outside of church as well. If we believe that our church has the authority we need to do things differently than we have been doing to bring others into Zion. By increasing the strength of the family through family study then individually we will be stronger and more able to keep the faith as we go out into the world to gather others. 

 

22 hours ago, Jeanne said:

...

PS...someday if anyone has time...please really explain to me the "Come Follow Me" program with families.

There is a new manual out just for 2019. Each lesson is dated specifically for that week. As a family you spend that extra hour during the week on that lesson. In the digital versions you find videos as well. Kind of like the FHE lesson books, but there is a lot different in them.

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think the concept of Church in ancient times is kind of silly.  It is argued they didn't exist quite like we conceive of them today.  What is to be restored?  The Church never was, at least until after Jesus.  The gospel is really what was restored.  The Church just happens to be a bunch of rules, regulations, and practices getting codified.  I'd say there's plenty to debate here, but it's really getting off the point of my comments.  Really I just wanted to point out that these changes we've seen have nothing to do with restoration at all.  If Nelson has restoration on his mind, I wonder what that might include.  Because dropping the nickname Mormon doesn't feel like restoration at all to me.  

...

Does it have to be restored to the church in ancient times or are we restoring it to something more of an eternal thing? The time spent together as families could be like when we were taught by Heavenly Father in the premortal life.  Maybe,  maybe not, but I think if we limit it to "ancient times" we may be missing a great deal if the picture.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

...

My wife is from Washington State, so she introduced me to it.  Mmm boy!  We previously made it in crock pots, which was an all-day endeavor.  This year, however, we prepared it in an Instant Pot pressure cooker, which reduced the prep time to 1-2 hours per batch.  And the taste is the same (actually a little better, IMO).

...

I love my Instant Pot as well.  Have started a new thread about it on the social board. 

 

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m very serious.  Real problems in the religion and in the culture.  Poverty, suicide, bigotry, supernatural thinking, polarized society, honest history, broken families, marginalized people.  

Going back to one of my favorite quotes by Elder Packer - (paraphrase) if we really want to change things we should emphasize teaching doctrine not behavior.  The changes made so far better facilitate the teaching of doctrine and then enable an individual's inspiration which comes from the learning of that doctrine. 

I am seeing some amazing changes in my area because of how people are starting to view many of the people described in your post and the church is taking note.  

As a Just Serve specialist I seriously struggled to have people doing service in my area.  Since the change in ministering that orientation of doing service is increasing and in the last month and a half that is growing by leaps and bounds. 

I think we need building blocks of the gospel to really see what will happen. 

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Rain

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What vantage point is that?

Nehor can speak for himself, but I think your assessment of him is wrong on just about every level. 

"You don't see any problems?"  Where'd you get that idea?  

"You're comfortable, you think all is well?"  Did you read Nehor's statement?  He specifically said "The 'All is well in Zion' statement is not proof that any particular criticism of the gospel or the church is valid. It does not mean 'All is rotten in Zion.'"

Speaking for myself, I appreciate and value the Church.  I respect it.  It is, in my view, overwhelmingly good.  That does not mean that it cannot be improved upon.  Of course it can.  But I don't see much value in endlessly railing against and slandering the Church in online gripefests.  When I read such things, I sometimes think "Hmm.  It sure would be interesting to see these conveniently anonymous armchair quarterbacks actually put in the game to see how they would do in administering the affairs of the worldwide Church." 

It's the easiest thing in the world to hide behind an online pseudonym and endlessly carp at those who are actually out there, doing the work of the Church.  I am reminded of this quote from Theodore Roosevelt:

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm thankful for the church and respect it too.  I think the current leaders are very flawed in the direction they are leading the church and the way they are doing it is missing the mark on the important core messages of the gospel.  I think the institution needs to repent and believe we can do much better as a culture.  I mentioned many of the critiques I have in an earlier post.  I'm not sure that I'm misunderstanding Nehor, he didn't acknowledge even one of the various things I called out as being problems, so that seems to me to be an endorsement of an "all is well" mentality. 

If I asked you whether or not you saw any problems with our current US government, or any problems with your State government, I'm sure you could point out a number of problems very easily.  Even if you are a supporter of Trump.  Back in the day when I was more of a partisan conservative, I know I could have quickly listed a number of problems with the George W. Bush lead government, and yet I was a voter and supporter of his.  I rarely see orthodox church members even able to come up with any substantive concerns about the church.  The idea of even evaluating what church leaders are doing, is seen as a violation of some-kind.  I suspect it has to do with some of the language in the temple rituals around evil speaking.  But personally I don't think pointed criticism is the same thing as evil speaking. 

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m very serious.  Real problems in the religion and in the culture.  Poverty, suicide, bigotry, supernatural thinking, polarized society, honest history, broken families, marginalized people.  

Going back to one of my favorite quotes by Elder Packer - (paraphrase) if we really want to change things we should emphasize teaching doctrine not behavior.  The changes made so far better facilitate the teaching of doctrine and then enable an individual's inspiration which comes from the learning of that doctrine. 

I am seeing some amazing changes in my area because of how people are starting to view many of the people described in your post and the church is taking note.  

As a Just Serve specialist I seriously struggled to have people doing service in my area.  Since the change in ministering that orientation of doing service is increasing and in the last month and a half that is growing by leaps and bounds. 

I think we need building blocks of the gospel to really see what will happen. 

I think Packer had an idea that there was some ultimate God approved doctrine that he could teach.  I don't see any evidence for that from my evaluation of history and religion.  Doctrines are just another way of saying whatever an individuals feels really confident about.  

A better approach to me is to try and identify what is core to the mission and purpose of the church.  What are the fundamentals that we feel apply as close to universally as possible.  Broad principles that will have uniquely different application in individual circumstances.  Thinks like, love, forgiveness, sacrifice, respect, equality.  These broad ideals should be the foundation that any other practices are evaluated under.  

I'm glad to hear that people are serving more as that sounds like a really good trend, and I hope its happening across the church and not just in your local area.  

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My definition for the supernatural in this context would also include the belief that a deity or any extra-natural power of some kind is actively intervening in the natural world and producing miracles. 

Okay.  I just wanted you to understand that "supernatural" does not, for me, work well in this context.  

Quote

Even if a person believes these miracles work by natural means that we don't currently understand.   

But that context matters, I think.  Quite a bit.  If we dismiss "natural means" only because "we don't currently understand" them, then that speaks more to our finite perspective on things, and less to the merits of actually believing in, as Nephi put it, "the God of nature."

I am sitting here at a computer, typing these words that appear on my screen.  In a moment I will click on "Submit Reply," and my words will be published on the Internet, viewable to most of the world.  I only have a minimal understanding of how all that works.  I don't understand the particulars of how my laptop works, or how it is wirelessly connected to the Internet, or how this website hosts the content of our respective writings.  These things work "by natueral means that {I} don't currently understand."  But they do work.  Not because they are "magic" or "supernatural," but through a set of interralated technologies that I don't currently (fully) understand.

Quote

I personally believe that this paradigm has some negatives for operating in the world and viewing how the world works.  It leads to erroneous thinking and drawing the wrong kind of conclusions from flawed observations and putting trust in things that we shouldn't put trust in.   Just like someone trusting that their lucky rabbits foot will actually help them to win something they've gambled on. 

There is some risk for "some negatives."  Alma 21:17 contemplates that ("And it came to pass that the Lord began to bless them, insomuch that they brought many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, they did convince many of their sins, and of the traditions of their fathers, which were not correct.").

False or incorrect or harmful "traditions" and concepts can be passed down as elements of religious/secular faith, and can cause some problems.  

But then, there are some real "traditions" and concepts that are secular which can also cause some problems.  See, e.g., Daniel Peterson's remarks here (emphases added):

Quote

In 2008, Brooks published a book titled Gross National Happiness. In it, drawing on the relevant sociological literature, he presents his case for what makes us happy and what doesn’t.

Religious people of all faiths are, on average, markedly happier than secularists, and this is true even when wealth, age and education are taken into account. In one major survey, 23 percent of secularists reported being “very happy” with their lives, versus 43 percent of religious respondents. Believers are a third more likely to express optimism about the future. Unbelievers are almost twice as likely as the religious to say, “I’m inclined to feel I’m a failure.”

In 2004, 36 percent of those who prayed every day said they were “very happy,” while only 21 percent of those who never prayed said so.

Data from 1998 reveal that people who were certain that God exists were a third more likely to describe themselves as “very happy” than those who denied his existence. Curiously, agnostics were more gloomy than atheists; only 12 percent of agnostics surveyed claimed to be very happy. People who asserted that there was “little truth in any religion” were roughly half as likely to assert a high degree of happiness as those who believed that religion contains significant truth.

Believers in life after death are about a third more likely than nonbelievers to call themselves “very happy.” By contrast, people who say that we don’t survive death are three-quarters more likely to say that they aren’t very happy.

Correcting for other cultural factors and comparing apples with apples, people who live in religious communities also fare better financially than do those who live in relatively secular communities.

And here (same link) (emphases added):

Quote

Several years ago, I read some heartfelt online advice from an atheist.

“Life is a one-time roller coaster ride,” he said.

Revel in it. Feel the warm sun on your skin and the cool wind in your hair. Feel the climb up, and take in the rides to the bottom. Don’t spend the entire experience preparing and fretting for what others in the line told you about the exit and what they think comes after, otherwise you will miss the entire experience.

I have little doubt that his advice was sincere. But it’s also misdirected.

There’s no reason to suppose that typical religious believers feel the warm sun and the cool air less than unbelievers do. They’re not exempt from the climbs up and the sometimes terrifying rides down.

And, no matter how devout they may be, there’s no evidence that most believers devote so much time preparing for the next life, and so much energy fretting about it, that they miss “the entire experience” of this one.

In view of the evidence I’ve cited from Arthur Brooks, that online atheist would serve his readers better if he sought to build their faith rather than encouraging them to abandon it. Although mortal life is indeed a roller coaster ride, he shouldn’t be urging them to ignore the fact that when it ends, they’ll all need to pass through the exit.

Religious believers are convinced that there is an unfathomably vast world out there beyond the exit gate for this particular ride. To continue the poster’s metaphor, those who have come to the amusement park with tickets for other attractions, money to buy food when it’s lunchtime and jackets to wear in the evening will be able to enjoy much more than just the one feature.

They’re going to have a better time than those who were focused so intently on enjoying their “one time roller coaster ride” that, at its end, they lack the resources or ability to enjoy anything else.

There is no evidence that those who think of the future miss out altogether on the present. In fact, evidence suggests the contrary: Religious believers, if they’re correct, get a better future. In any case, they apparently get a better today.

“I’m an atheist,” the late actress Katherine Hepburn once told an interviewer, “and that’s it. I believe there’s nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for each other.”

Plainly, atheists can be, and often are, good people. It’s wonderful that Katherine Hepburn knew those things. I believe that she did know them; I hope that she acted accordingly. But how did she know them? It’s one thing to believe in moral principles; it’s quite another to be able to justify them, to give an account of their source. And this seems to me a particular problem for atheists.

“Morality,” writes the evolutionary atheist philosopher Michael Ruse,

or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will — or in the metaphysical roots of evolution or any other part of the framework of the Universe. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Ethics is produced by evolution but is not justified by it.

Once I’ve recognized that morality is an illusion, though, why should I feel bound by it — especially when I can safely ignore it?

“We are survival machines,” says the British biologist and vocal “New Atheist” Richard Dawkins, nothing more than “robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.”

“What natural selection favors,” writes Dawkins,

is rules of thumb, which work in practice to promote the genes that built them. Rules of thumb, by their nature, sometimes misfire. In a bird’s brain, the rule ‘Look after small squawking things in your nest, and drop food into their red gapes,’ typically has the effect of preserving the genes that built the rule, because the squawking, gaping objects in an adult bird’s nest are normally its own offspring. The rule misfires if another baby bird somehow gets into the nest, a circumstance that is positively engineered by cuckoos. Could it be that our Good Samaritan urges are misfiring, analogous to the misfiring of a reed warbler’s parental instincts when it works itself to the bone for a young cuckoo? An even closer analogy is the human urge to adopt a child.

But does adoption—or contributing to relief for unrelated poor people in distant countries, or risking one’s life to save a stranger—really represent mere evolutionary error?

To his credit, Dawkins himself recoils from the idea. He calls such acts “precious mistakes.” But why are they “precious”? What does that mean beyond the mere fact that he likes them, as he might like broccoli or the Beach Boys?

“The universe that we observe,” he’s also written, “has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

On what objective grounds, if any, can someone holding this view say that failure to help a child or fight Third World hunger is “wrong”? On what basis, even, can such a person condemn murder, rape or child abuse? If somebody else endorses them, on what basis can a Dawkins disagree? The Nazis regarded killing Jews and Gypsies and enslaving Slavs as good things. Are these only matters of opinion?

Thirty years after first seeing it, I still vividly remember the chilling scene in Franco Zeffirelli’s 1986 film version of Verdi’s opera Otello in which Iago sings his very Darwinian creed:

I believe in a cruel God
who created me in his image
and who in fury I name.
From the very vileness of a germ
or an atom, vile was I born.
I am a wretch because I am a man,
and I feel within me the primeval slime.
Yes! This is my creed!
I believe with a heart as steadfast
as that of the widow in church,
that the evil I think
and that which I perform
I think and do by destiny’s decree.
I believe the just man to be a mocking actor
in face and heart;
that all his being is a lie,
tear, kiss, glance,
sacrifice and honour.
And I believe man the sport of evil fate
from the germ of the cradle
to the worm of the grave.
After all this mockery then comes Death.
And then?… And then?
Death is nothingness,
heaven an old wives’ tale.

On what rational grounds can a follower of Richard Dawkins demonstrate Iago’s lethal amorality to be “wrong”?

And here (same link) (emphases added):

Quote

“Religion is the opiate of the people,” Karl Marx famously complained. Elsewhere, he remarked that, while “philosophers have said that the purpose of philosophy is to understand the world, the purpose is to change it.” Religion, in his view, was a distraction from the real business of making this world a better place. Unfortunately for Marx’s thesis, though (and, even more so, for those who had to live through the 20th century), the millennium that just closed was heavily influenced at its end by Marxism and by a related ideology that went under the names of fascism and “National Socialism” or Nazism. We now have quite graphic evidence of exactly how such theories tend to “change the world.”

“We must rid ourselves once and for all,” wrote the Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky in his 1930 book The Russian Revolution, “of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life.” And they did. Scholarly estimates of atheistic communism’s murders over the past century range from roughly 40.5 million to nearly 260 million.

But Marxism merely followed a path blazed for it by the French Revolution’s anti-Catholic and anti-Christian “Reign of Terror.” Citizen Robespierre and his associates, determined to establish a “Cult of Reason,” killed many thousands of innocent people — sometimes cleanly, via the guillotine, but often through disgusting and obscene torture.

In 1983, the great 1970 Nobel Literature laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (d. 2008), fearless chronicler of the crimes of Soviet communism, delivered a lecture sometimes titled “Godlessness: The First Step to the Gulag.”[2] The opening lines of that address deserve full quotation:

More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

What is more, the events of the Russian Revolution can only be understood now, at the end of the century, against the background of what has since occurred in the rest of the world. What emerges here is a process of universal significance. And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire 20th century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God.

Even when contrasted with the soft secularism that’s come to dominate Europe, perhaps Canada, and certain portions of the American elite, and even though religious people can undoubtedly do much more and much better than they’re doing now, believers fare pretty well.

Sobering words, I think.

Quote

I would also admit that there are obviously many erroneous ways of viewing reality that our 21st century culture engages in, that future societies will look at as very flawed through a more sophisticated paradigm.  My desire is to continue to learn and become more sophisticated about what I know and how I view things.  

I appreciate and respect that.

Quote

I did read your quote from Dan and I'm pretty sure I read that presentation before, but I didn't find it persuasive. 

Okay.  You will, of course, understand why "I didn't find it persuasive" is not much of a rebuttal to the points he raised.  I found the article quite thought-provoking. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 12, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Even if a person believes these miracles work by natural means that we don't currently understand.   

But that context matters, I think.  Quite a bit.  If we dismiss "natural means" only because "we don't currently understand" them, then that speaks more to our finite perspective on things, and less to the merits of actually believing in, as Nephi put it, "the God of nature."

I am sitting here at a computer, typing these words that appear on my screen.  In a moment I will click on "Submit Reply," and my words will be published on the Internet, viewable to most of the world.  I only have a minimal understanding of how all that works.  I don't understand the particulars of how my laptop works, or how it is wirelessly connected to the Internet, or how this website hosts the content of our respective writings.  These things work "by natueral means that {I} don't currently understand."  But they do work.  Not because they are "magic" or "supernatural," but through a set of interralated technologies that I don't currently (fully) understand.

I understand what you're saying, and modern technology would look like something supernatural to people only a few hundred years ago.  I think its an important point to think about.  Extending this future, remember Elder Uchtdorfs comparison between Joseph's seer stone and a smart phone screen?  He was essentially saying that the seer stone was just a technology that God used to communicate to Joseph using natural means, but apparently some kind of rock communication technology that we just don't comprehend.  I think that analogy may have worked for many members.  

But then what word should we use, if not supernatural to describe the means by which God or some other agent can intervene and do things that aren't currently possible using natural means and technology.  For example, if someone believes that saying a prayer or giving a Priesthood blessing, actually has real substantive power to heal, what should we call that power if not a supernatural power?  I'm open to recommendations, but this is what I'm talking about.  He's like the Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity of Mormon apologetics. 

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is some risk for "some negatives."  Alma 21:17 contemplates that ("And it came to pass that the Lord began to bless them, insomuch that they brought many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, they did convince many of their sins, and of the traditions of their fathers, which were not correct.").

False or incorrect or harmful "traditions" and concepts can be passed down as elements of religious/secular faith, and can cause some problems.  

But then, there are some real "traditions" and concepts that are secular which can also cause some problems.

No disagreement here, there are errors in every tradition and world view, secular and religious.  

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sobering words, I think.

Peterson's observations of history come across to me as gross generalizations and oversimplifications.  And I'm not a proponent Marxism or even socialism, I primarily am a free market capitalist, but have some critiques of this system as well.  

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  You will, of course, understand why "I didn't find it persuasive" is not much of a rebuttal to the points he raised.  I found the article quite thought-provoking. 

I'm not interested in rebutting his points.  I don't think he's even coming close to any really thought provoking arguments.  He's speaking to his base audience and his ideas are so far out of the realm of actual debate worthy commentary.  It would be like going to the most extreme left wing group and reading one of their strawman riddled portrayals of the right.  Where could a thoughtful person even start to have an exchange.  

Edited December 12, 2018 by hope_for_things

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m very serious.  Real problems in the religion and in the culture.  Poverty, suicide, bigotry, supernatural thinking, polarized society, honest history, broken families, marginalized people.  

Umm. Supernatural thinking is a real problem in religion? And haven't they been doing a done on the honest history front? Some of the other things seem more tied to larger social trends. We can rail against it and tell people not to join in those elements of society, but of course when we do then we're ridiculed such as advocating social media fasts despite the clear connection to suicide. The idea that by fiat the Church could end poverty, suicide and polarized society strikes me as magical thinking. It can (and does) preach on such things. But at a certain point the actions of each member are what counts.

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But then what word should we use, if not supernatural to describe the means by which God or some other agent can intervene and do things that aren't currently possible using natural means and technology.  For example, if someone believes that saying a prayer or giving a Priesthood blessing, actually has real substantive power to heal, what should we call that power if not a supernatural power?  I'm open to recommendations, but this is what I'm talking about.

It's not technologically conceivable to read brains? We're getting close already with our technology? Prayer and blessings are ultimately communication. We may not know how the communication works - heck we don't even know what a spirit is - but I don't see any reason to see it as immaterial supernaturalism.

It seems to me the only issue in such things is the problem of the speed of light.

As Gell-Mann put it in physics, "Everything not forbidden is compulsory." So what is forbidden in physics with prayer?

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by clarkgoble

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm thankful for the church and respect it too.  I think the current leaders are very flawed in the direction they are leading the church and the way they are doing it is missing the mark on the important core messages of the gospel.  I think the institution needs to repent and believe we can do much better as a culture.  I mentioned many of the critiques I have in an earlier post. 

Could you provide a link to this post?  I'd like to read it.

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure that I'm misunderstanding Nehor, he didn't acknowledge even one of the various things I called out as being problems, so that seems to me to be an endorsement of an "all is well" mentality. 

I don't think so.  There are a number of things I can do to improve my relationship with my wife and children.  That I decline to publish those things here, or to publicly disparage and slander my wife and children by publishing on this board what I perceive to be their faults and weaknesses, is nothing like "an endorsement of an 'all is well' mentality."

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If I asked you whether or not you saw any problems with our current US government, or any problems with your State government, I'm sure you could point out a number of problems very easily.  Even if you are a supporter of Trump. 

Oh, yes.  

But then, I have a very different approach to matters of civil governance than I do to the governance of the Church.  I've articulated this approach previously here (my comments were directed at Bill Reel):

Quote

I should emphasize here that we can and should allow that reasonable minds can disagree about the Restored Gospel.  The day will come when "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess" that Jesus is the Christ.  But we are not there yet.  The Plan of Salvation is not coercive, which means that we are given opportunity to both believe and not believe.  We as Latter-day Saints should do all we can to encourage the former, but we must also accept and respect those who go with the latter.  Again, the impression I get is that many of your fellow Latter-day Saints do not view you as an advocate of faith in and acceptance of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

However, I think one thing the Latter-day Saints cannot do is revise and re-define the Restored Gospel in ways that undermine the truth claims of the Church, that undermine faith in the Restored Gospel as revealed through Joseph Smith, that treat the Church as a sociopolitical construct rather than the divinely-mandated institution it claims to be, or that set up self-appointed critics and gainsayers as voices of authority alternative to and superior to that of the leaders of the Church.

I am fortunate in that I have a number of close acquaintances who are both extremely well-versed in the doctrines and practices and policies of the Church, and are also well-informed regarding the practical, real-world condition of the Church.  These men and women have very pragmatic, very realistic perspectives on what the Church is doing well, what it needs to tweak and improve a bit, and ways the Church needs to improve in significant ways.  I talk to these people quite frequently.  It is occasionally jarring to hear what they have to say, but I nevertheless appreciate having such resources of the plain, unvarnished truth.  I appreciate and love these people because, at the end of the day, they believe.  They have testimonies of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  They have faith that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that we are His children, that He has a Plan for us, that this Plan includes having messengers on the earth, prophets and apostles, to whom light and knowledge and authority has been given, that The Book of Mormon is a part of this ongoing revelatory outpouring, that Joseph Smith was the first Presiding High Priest of this dispensation, and that this authority continues to this day and is held by Thomas S. Monson.  They believe the Church is what it claims to be.  I know them and trust them.  They are working hard to improve the Church and make it better. 

If and when I have time I will give your writings a bit more attention.  I would like to think that you fit within the description of those in the preceding paragraph, rather than the one above it.  But again, the impression I have is that many of your fellow Latter-day Saints do not view you as a defender of or advocate for the Restored Gospel.

Elder Oaks has previously provided some fairly trenchant guidance on this issue as well (differentiating approaches to civil and church governance):

Quote

I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.

I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) That kind of criticism is inherent in the exercise of agency and freedom. In the political world, critical evaluation inevitably accompanies any knowledgeable exercise of the cherished freedoms of speech and of the press. In the private world, we have a right to expect critical evaluation of anything that is put into the marketplace or the public domain. Sports writers, reviewers of books and music, scholars, investment analysts, and those who test products and services must be free to exercise their critical faculties and to inform the public accordingly. This kind of criticism is usually directed toward issues, and it is usually constructive.

Elder Oaks' article is lengthy, but very much worth a read.

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Back in the day when I was more of a partisan conservative, I know I could have quickly listed a number of problems with the George W. Bush lead government, and yet I was a voter and supporter of his.  I rarely see orthodox church members even able to come up with any substantive concerns about the church. 

I have a number of "substantive concerns about the Church."  However, I choose to not publicly disparage and insult and demean the Church and its leaders because of them.

Again, Elder Oaks has some good counsel on this issue (he itemizes a number of approaches members of the Church can take to address disagreements within the Church, some of which are...):

Quote

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

President John Taylor described these last two remedies when he taught how we should sustain a leader:

“But supposing he should … be found lying or cheating, or defrauding somebody; or stealing or anything else, or even become impure in his habits, would you still sustain him? It would be my duty then to talk with him as I would with anybody else, and tell him that I had understood that things were thus and so, and that under these circumstances I could not sustain him; and if I found that I had been misinformed I would withdraw the charge; but if not it would then be my duty to see that justice was administered to him, that he was brought before the proper tribunal to answer for the things he had done; and in the absence of that I would have no business to talk about him.” (Journal of Discourses, 21:207–8.)

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.

A person who approaches a difference with a Church leader by praying about it keeps himself or herself in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. That person also goes directly to the One who can resolve the problem. It may be resolved by inspiration to the leader or by communication of added understanding, strength, or patience to the person who prays.

Unfortunately, these days we have many members of the Church who ignore or reject this counsel, and who instead treat the Lord's annointed like political candidates/officeholders.  I don't think that's the way things are supposed to work.

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The idea of even evaluating what church leaders are doing, is seen as a violation of some-kind.  I suspect it has to do with some of the language in the temple rituals around evil speaking.  But personally I don't think pointed criticism is the same thing as evil speaking. 

I will not publicly speak against the Brethren.  If I find a policy problematic, I will raise it in the appropriate time, place and manner.  Presenting such things in this forum, populated in part as it is by critics and opponents of the Church, is not the way to go.

By way of illustration, I offer Bill Reel.  And Sam Young.  And Julienna Viegas-Haws.  And Kate Kelly.  And John Dehlin.  And Jeremy Runnells.  And the Calderwoods.  And Gina Colvin.  And any number of participants on this board who regularly slander and insult the Church and its leaders (usually from behind a pseudonym), and who are estranged from the Church.

So good luck in maintaining the distinction between "pointed criticism" and "evil speaking."  Splitting that hair does not seem to work out well for many of those who try to do it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. Supernatural thinking is a real problem in religion? And haven't they been doing a done on the honest history front? Some of the other things seem more tied to larger social trends. We can rail against it and tell people not to join in those elements of society, but of course when we do then we're ridiculed such as advocating social media fasts despite the clear connection to suicide. The idea that by fiat the Church could end poverty, suicide and polarized society strikes me as magical thinking. It can (and does) preach on such things. But at a certain point the actions of each member are what counts.

Compared to the past, the church is doing a lot better job on the history front.  Although I would say that the most recent major work, the new Saints narrative is pretty disappointing.  They could do much better.  

I would be interested in a clear connection between social media and suicide as that is new to me, do you have any links or resources you can provide?  

As for poverty, its not about ending poverty in one clean stroke.  The question is how is the church prioritizing its vast financial resources.  Individual actions matter too, but where much is given, much is required.  The church's financial assets are significant, and I think we should be able to evaluate how well or poorly they are using these resources.  

Edited December 12, 2018 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's not technologically conceivable to read brains? We're getting close already with our technology? Prayer and blessings are ultimately communication. We may not know how the communication works - heck we don't even know what a spirit is - but I don't see any reason to see it as immaterial supernaturalism.

It seems to me the only issue in such things is the problem of the speed of light.

As Gell-Mann put it in physics, "Everything not forbidden is compulsory." So what is forbidden in physics with prayer?

We wouldn't have to read brains to see if people who receive blessings or prayers are statistically more likely to be healed, compared to placebo.  

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I understand what you're saying, and modern technology would look like something supernatural to people only a few hundred years ago.  I think its an important point to think about.  Extending this future, remember Elder Uchtdorfs comparison between Joseph's seer stone and a smart phone screen?  He was essentially saying that the seer stone was just a technology that God used to communicate to Joseph using natural means, but apparently some kind of rock communication technology that we just don't comprehend.  I think that analogy may have worked for many members.  

But then what word should we use, if not supernatural to describe the means by which God or some other agent can intervene and do things that aren't currently possible using natural means and technology. 

"Miraculous" comes to mind.  It has a lot of overlap with "supernatural," but without the negative/insulting connotations.

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For example, if someone believes that saying a prayer or giving a Priesthood blessing, actually has real substantive power to heal, what should we call that power if not a supernatural power?  I'm open to recommendations, but this is what I'm talking about.  He's like the Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity of Mormon apologetics. 

Insults in lieu of substantive response.  Not very convincing, that.

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No disagreement here, there are errors in every tradition and world view, secular and religious.  

Peterson's observations of history come across to me as gross generalizations and oversimplifications. 

He was speaking broadly, to be sure.  But so are you.  So am I.

But DCP is quoting sources and authorities and then commenting on them.  Chapter and verse.  He is speaking substantively.  And your response is to insult him personally.  Again, not very convincing.

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

And I'm not a proponent Marxism or even socialism, I primarily am a free market capitalist, but have some critiques of this system as well.  

I did not mean to suggest that you were a proponent of such things.  DCP's point is that the philosophy underlying Marxism had some real-world negative effects.  And I think he makes the case for that fairly well.

And your response is to insult him personally.

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not interested in rebutting his points. 

Ah.  No need for substantive argument when glib personal jabs will do just as well?  

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think he's even coming close to any really thought provoking arguments. 

I do.  

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

He's speaking to his base audience and his ideas are so far out of the realm of actual debate worthy commentary. 

Oh, brother.

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It would be like going to the most extreme left wing group and reading one of their strawman riddled portrayals of the right. 

Again with the glib insults in lieu of substantive argument.  Oh, well.

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Where could a thoughtful person even start to have an exchange.  

With argument instead of insults.  With ideas instead of glib, a priori dismissals.  With citations to data rather than the parade ad hominem you have trotted out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

  16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m very serious.  Real problems in the religion and in the culture.  Poverty, suicide, bigotry, supernatural thinking, polarized society, honest history, broken families, marginalized people.  

 

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide a link to this post?  I'd like to read it.

Part of it is above in the section that Clark quoted from earlier in this thread.  

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  There are a number of things I can do to improve my relationship with my wife and children.  That I decline to publish those things here, or to publicly disparage and slander my wife and children by publishing on this board what I perceive to be their faults and weaknesses, is nothing like "an endorsement of an 'all is well' mentality."

I guess its possible that he has a private view that is in agreement with me on some of the issues I mentioned.  He didn't communicate that in his replies, but I can't rule out that possibility.  

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Unfortunately, these days we have many members of the Church who ignore or reject this counsel, and who instead treat the Lord's annointed like political candidates/officeholders.  I don't think that's the way things are supposed to work.

I guess one could say that you and Oaks are ignoring and rejecting my counsel.  But I'm not really into appeals to authority or shaming rhetoric.  Better to just say that I have a difference of opinion.  

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So good luck in maintaining the distinction between "pointed criticism" and "evil speaking."  Splitting that hair does not seem to work out well for many of those who try to do it.

This is sad that you're essentially using a fear tactic now.  On the point of evil speaking, I will tell you exactly how I interpret those words.  To me, evil speaking is akin to false speaking and using rumor and innuendo to dishonestly slander someone with malicious intent.  I don't think criticisms that are honest and accurate are evil speaking.  I worry that most members aren't able to distinguish a difference here because of the taboos that are a part of the culture.  I sincerely hope this will change over time, as it creates such an unhealthy environment.  I wish more people would read Brene Brown and the work she's done on authenticity and vulnerability.  Actually this very issue is one of the biggest problem in contemporary Mormonism.  

Respectful opposition is essential for healthy dialogue.  I was extremely disappointed in the talk Elder Oaks gave a couple years ago about the loyal opposition.  I think he did a lot of harm with that talk and unfortunately it reinforces the unhealthy culture that already exists.  I would love to see this change over time as I really don't think its a safe place in this culture to have mature and honest discussions about really important issues.  

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Miraculous" comes to mind.  It has a lot of overlap with "supernatural," but without the negative/insulting connotations.

I'm fine using miraculous.  I don't see the negative connotations for the word supernatural though.  

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Insults in lieu of substantive response.  Not very convincing, that.

The Rush Limbaugh comment, I accidentally posted in the wrong section of my response.  

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And your response is to insult him personally.

No, not to him personally.  He just has a very different perspective and I don't think his talk comes close to having an intelligent discussion on the topic.  Its not ad hominem either, I'm not insulting him personally.  My example earlier of a far left wing person making observations about the right wing is really quite appropriate.  I see the same kinds of things happening on the polar extremes of both sides.  It is similar to Limbaugh or Hannity too.  You don't see them getting into thoughtful discussions with people in the middle or the other side.  Their rhetoric is not capable of respectful debate, so instead they really just strawman and caricature the opposition in ways that don't even remotely show an accurate represent the complexity of the issues.  They are playing to a specific audience.  I see Dan as a similar kind of actor in apologetic circles.  

 

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would be interested in a clear connection between social media and suicide as that is new to me, do you have any links or resources you can provide?  

I posted a bunch in the suicide thread last week. Just doing a quick search rather than a robust one here are a few links.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/24/smartphone-teen-suicide-mental-health-depression

As with so much in psychology there's not a smoking gun connection, but it's pretty strong evidence since right as always available smartphones and ubiquitous social media appeared the suicide and depression statistics start spiking after years of decreases. The one hope is that younger people aren't using Facebook or Twitter as much, although other social media is still potentially a factor.

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

We wouldn't have to read brains to see if people who receive blessings or prayers are statistically more likely to be healed, compared to placebo.  

As you know, from a religious perspective such studies are pretty problematic. But that's a bit of a topic switch if you don't mind me pointing that out. <grin> I assume you're more or less conceding my point.

I'd add that there really haven't been good studies here. Most of the papers you hear about are metastudies looking at small studies of dubious statistical significance and trying to draw out larger implications. There are reasons to be pretty skeptical of such metastudies.

When you look at the effects of prayer on the person praying it has a pretty overwhelming effect on long term health. Now the mechanism may indeed be somewhat similar to placebo. But as scientists are quite active at pointing out, the placebo effect is a real effect that can make for big differences. There are lots of studies showing the positive effects of prayer in the literature. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As for poverty, its not about ending poverty in one clean stroke.  The question is how is the church prioritizing its vast financial resources.  Individual actions matter too, but where much is given, much is required.  The church's financial assets are significant, and I think we should be able to evaluate how well or poorly they are using these resources.  

I think most critiques of that sort are looking at the present and not the future. We've discussed that before. I think the Church, very cognizant of it's economic failures up through the 60's until Pres. Tanner came on board, is very cautious in spending money. As we've discussed here many times given that growth in the Church is likely to dominate in poor countries that makes considerable sense. Put an other way, those who critique such things tend to privilege "poverty" in the United States while neglecting the costs of bringing people to the gospel and improving their lives over the next 50 years. It's very short sighted (IMO). 

I'd also say that the Church constantly encourages individual members to do a lot here. I think the Church is starting to prioritize service missions more as well. So I'd dispute the Church doesn't do a lot. However that duty regarding future members is the prime issue. (IMO)

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I posted a bunch in the suicide thread last week. Just doing a quick search rather than a robust one here are a few links.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/24/smartphone-teen-suicide-mental-health-depression

As with so much in psychology there's not a smoking gun connection, but it's pretty strong evidence since right as always available smartphones and ubiquitous social media appeared the suicide and depression statistics start spiking after years of decreases. The one hope is that younger people aren't using Facebook or Twitter as much, although other social media is still potentially a factor.

 

Ok, yeah, I have read some articles like the one you linked above.  It definitely doesn't seem like conclusive evidence, the article even explicitly said as much.  It seems like there could be a possible correlation, but in the same way that Mormon culture may also correlate with LGBTQ suicides in Utah, moving from possible contributing factor into a "clear connection to suicide" as you stated earlier, is a little too strong of a statement based on the current data.  

[SouthernMo]

@smac97 Rather than reply to your post and take up lots of space that isn’t needed, I’ll reply to your position that our sense of morality comes from god.

The author Robert Wright makes a case for the evolutionary development of morals as helping humans survive.  The general crux is that humans thrive in groups and those humans who do what preserves their membership in that group survive and breed, thus passing on a ‘moral DNA.’

His book “The Moral Animal” is not scientific, but well-researched and compelling. At a minimum, it offers unique and thought-provoking insight.

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, yeah, I have read some articles like the one you linked above.  It definitely doesn't seem like conclusive evidence, the article even explicitly said as much.  It seems like there could be a possible correlation, but in the same way that Mormon culture may also correlate with LGBTQ suicides in Utah, moving from possible contributing factor into a "clear connection to suicide" as you stated earlier, is a little too strong of a statement based on the current data.  

The problem is the rise at the exact time whereas Mormon culture has less explanatory power for the spike since that's been somewhat constant and if anything improving. Likewise comparing say Utah to Colorado suicides shows spikes at roughly the same times.

https://spottedtoad.wordpress.com/2018/01/04/the-mormon-church-is-not-responsible-for-a-nationwide-increase-in-teen-suicides/

There's also the oft quoted American Journal for Epidemiology study - although admittedly it was looking at data from the 90's.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11867352

That's not to deny a connection, just that I don't think it explains the current spike.

To the last bit, I think there's a clear connection but that connection isn't necessarily causal. That is the correlation is overwhelming but the significance of the correlation isn't likely to be purely causal.

13 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

@smac97The author Robert Wright makes a case for the evolutionary development of morals as helping humans survive.  The general crux is that humans thrive in groups and those humans who do what preserves their membership in that group survive and breed, thus passing on a ‘moral DNA.’

His book “The Moral Animal” is not scientific, but well-researched and compelling. At a minimum, it offers unique and thought-provoking insight.

The problem with approaches like this (Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil is an other) is that it confuses certain descriptive ethics with ethics. After all evolution will also select for things that are evil. So it's not just developing a moral DNA but also an immoral DNA. So what we rationally consider moral and what evolution produces as instinctual behaviors aren't the same. This renders such approaches either deeply problematic or leads to a kind of neo-Nietzschean behavior where instincts imply morality.

I think Wright acknowledges this. At least when he does ethics interviews over at Meaning of Life TV he'll acknowledge the issue when brought up. Particularly the bootstrap problem that to judge evolutionary morality requires first to have a concept of morality which isn't evolutionary.

Edited December 12, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

The problem is the rise at the exact time whereas Mormon culture has less explanatory power for the spike since that's been somewhat constant and if anything improving. Likewise comparing say Utah to Colorado suicides shows spikes at roughly the same times.

https://spottedtoad.wordpress.com/2018/01/04/the-mormon-church-is-not-responsible-for-a-nationwide-increase-in-teen-suicides/

There's also the oft quoted American Journal for Epidemiology study - although admittedly it was looking at data from the 90's.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11867352

That's not to deny a connection, just that I don't think it explains the current spike.

I think you can explain the LGBTQ spike in all the current events that have impacted the LGBTQ community as well as a cultural change towards accepting these people more, and the start contrast between the position of the church and the broader culture.  And people coming out more now in general.  Starting with Prop 8 and the culture war, and the shift in society, and the church's retrenchment, I can see a lot of current events that correlate to the recent spike in Utah.  

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you can explain the LGBTQ spike in all the current events that have impacted the LGBTQ community as well as a cultural change towards accepting these people more, and the start contrast between the position of the church and the broader culture.  And people coming out more now in general.  Starting with Prop 8 and the culture war, and the shift in society, and the church's retrenchment, I can see a lot of current events that correlate to the recent spike in Utah.  

Then why does it parallel Colorado? Why is Montana according to the latest data the highest? Why is it shooting up everywhere but particularly the mountain west? It's those questions you've not addressed that undermine local LGBTQ issues as the primary driving force.

Edited December 12, 2018 by clarkgoble

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem with approaches like this (Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil is an other) is that it confuses certain descriptive ethics with ethics. After all evolution will also select for things that are evil. So it's not just developing a moral DNA but also an immoral DNA. So what we rationally consider moral and what evolution produces as instinctual behaviors aren't the same. This renders such approaches either deeply problematic or leads to a kind of neo-Nietzschean behavior where instincts imply morality.

I’m not broadly familiar with the science and study of morality, but that book offered a perspective that rid me of the notion that because we do “good” that means there is a god, and he gave us those morals.

Human morals do not prove god’s existence in my mind.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess one could say that you and Oaks are ignoring and rejecting my counsel. 

President Oaks is an apostle.  I am obligated to give his counsel some real consideration.

I don't know you.  You are an online critic of my Church, one voice in a huge cacaphony.  

You have no stewardship or authority, nor have you demonstrated why I should listen to your counsel. 

To be honest, I'm not sure what your counsel is.  Apart from endlessly disparaging the Church and its leaders (and its defenders, such as Daniel Peterson), what have you presented here that could be reasonably construed as "counsel?"

• "[The leaders of the Church are not addressing] pressing problems that need focus, and we need more than just window dressing and chair rearranging, we need substantive and principled leadership."
• "I hope the church doesn't try to declare official doctrine on gender.  I have no confidence they will get this anywhere right."
• "By their fruits they [the leaders of the Church] are falling very short."
• "We were talking about leadership.  And my observation that [the leaders of the Church] aren’t showing it."
• [Sarcastically/snidely] "All is well in Zion."
• "I think the current leaders are very flawed in the direction they are leading the church and the way they are doing it is missing the mark on the important core messages of the gospel."
• "I think the institution needs to repent."

This, in your view, is "counsel?"

And you are criticizing Pres. Oaks for not being on this board to listen to it ("I guess one could say that you and Oaks are ignoring and rejecting my counsel")?

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But I'm not really into appeals to authority

Nor is anyone else here.

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

or shaming rhetoric. 

You're not? 

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Better to just say that I have a difference of opinion.  

Except you haven't "just" said that you "have a difference of opinion."

• "[The leaders of the Church are not addressing] pressing problems that need focus, and we need more than just window dressing and chair rearranging, we need substantive and principled leadership."
• "I hope the church doesn't try to declare official doctrine on gender.  I have no confidence they will get this anywhere right."
• "By their fruits they [the leaders of the Church] are falling very short."
• "We were talking about leadership.  And my observation that [the leaders of the Church] aren’t showing it."
• [Sarcastically/snidely] "All is well in Zion."
• "I think the current leaders are very flawed in the direction they are leading the church and the way they are doing it is missing the mark on the important core messages of the gospel."
• "I think the institution needs to repent."

You have publicly called the Church to repentance.  You have publicly accused its leaders of failing to address "pressing problems that need focus."  You have publicly disparaged the leaders of the Church as "falling ver short" in their leadership.  You have publicly declared that they are "very flawed in the direction they are leading the Church."

That's quite a bit more than "Better to just say that I have a difference of opinion."

I'm tempted to quote more from Elder Oaks' 1987 article, but given the contempt you've heaped upon him and the other leaders of the Church, I guess there's no point.

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is sad that you're essentially using a fear tactic now. 

No, I'm not.

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

On the point of evil speaking, I will tell you exactly how I interpret those words.  To me, evil speaking is akin to false speaking and using rumor and innuendo to dishonestly slander someone with malicious intent. 

Again, from Elder Oaks:

Quote

My cautions against criticism refer to another of its meanings, which the dictionary defines as “the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.” (Ibid., s.v. “criticism.”) Faultfinding is “the act of pointing out faults, especially faults of a petty nature.” (Ibid., s.v. “faultfinding.”) It is related to “backbiting,” which means “to attack the character or reputation of [a person who is not present].” (Ibid., s.v. “backbite.”) This kind of criticism is generally directed toward persons, and it is generally destructive.

Faultfinding, evil speaking, and backbiting are obviously unchristian. The Bible commands us to avoid “evil speakings.” (See 1 Pet. 2:1.) It tells us to “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you.” (Eph. 4:31.) Modern revelations direct us to avoid “backbiting,” “evil speaking,” and “find[ing] fault one with another.” (See D&C 20:53–54; D&C 42:27; D&C 88:124; and D&C 136:23.)

We are given these commandments for a reason. The Apostle Paul advised the Saints to “grieve not the holy Spirit of God” (Eph. 4:30) by evil speaking. Of faultfinders, President Brigham Young said, “The Spirit of God has no place in [such] persons.” (Journal of Discourses, 8:13.) The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize.

Elder George Albert Smith said this about criticism: “Aren’t we rather prone to see the limitations and the weaknesses of our neighbors? Yet that is contrary to the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is a class of people who find fault and criticize always in a destructive way. There is a difference in criticism. If we can criticize constructively under the influence of the Spirit of the Lord, we may change beneficially and properly some of the things that are being done. But if we have the spirit of faultfinding, of pointing out the weaknesses and failings of others in a destructive manner, that never comes as the result of the companionship of the Spirit of our Heavenly Father and is always harmful.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1934, p. 50.)

More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley said: “I am not asking that all criticism be silenced. Growth comes of correction. Strength comes of repentance. Wise is the man who can acknowledge mistakes pointed out by others and change his course.

“What I am suggesting is that each of us turn from the negativism that so permeates our society and look for the remarkable good among those with whom we associate, that we speak of one another’s virtues more than we speak of one another’s faults.” (Ensign, Apr. 1986, pp. 3–4.)

And here:

Quote

Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)

Church leaders need this consideration, since the responsibilities of Church leadership include the correction of others. That function is not popular. As the Lamanite prophet Samuel taught, when a prophet comes among us and speaks of our iniquities, we are made angry. We call him a false prophet and “cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him.” (See Hel. 13:26.) But if a man comes among us and speaks flattering words about our behavior and tells us that it is all right to “walk after the pride of [our] own hearts … and do whatsoever [our] heart desire,” “we will not find fault with him.” (See Hel. 13:27, 28.) We will call him a prophet and reward him.

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

And here:

Quote

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

“‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

“Better stop murmuring and build. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 142–43.)

President McKay’s teaching against speaking evil of others is a principle of Christian behavior that applies to all people. But his companion counsel against “murmuring” is a teaching that applies uniquely to Church members and Church leaders.

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. Consistent with gospel standards, these evaluations—though critical and public—should be constructive.

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24, quoted above.)

Sage words, I think.

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think criticisms that are honest and accurate are evil speaking.  I worry that most members aren't able to distinguish a difference here because of the taboos that are a part of the culture.  I sincerely hope this will change over time, as it creates such an unhealthy environment.  

I don't think publicly speaking evil of the Lord's servants is the way to go.  Not because they are perfect.  Not because "all is well in Zion."  But because of the reasons stated (quoted, actually) by Elder Oaks:

Quote

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

That is not to say that criticism is totally out of bounds.  It just needs to be presented in the appropriate time and place and manner.

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Respectful opposition is essential for healthy dialogue. 

Publicly accusing the Lord's anointed of, metaphorically speaking, bearing evil "fruit" is "respectful opposition?"

Publicly calling the Church to repentance (while conveniently hiding behind a pseudonym) is "respectful opposition?"

I think I'll have to disagree with you there.

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I was extremely disappointed in the talk Elder Oaks gave a couple years ago about the loyal opposition. 

I can appreciate that.

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think he did a lot of harm with that talk and unfortunately it reinforces the unhealthy culture that already exists. 

I don't think so.  Here's the part of his talk that probably triggered your disappointment:

Quote

The Church in its divine mission and we in our personal lives seem to face increasing opposition today. Perhaps as the Church grows in strength and we members grow in faith and obedience, Satan increases the strength of his opposition so we will continue to have “opposition in all things.”

Some of this opposition even comes from Church members. Some who use personal reasoning or wisdom to resist prophetic direction give themselves a label borrowed from elected bodies—“the loyal opposition.” However appropriate for a democracy, there is no warrant for this concept in the government of God’s kingdom, where questions are honored but opposition is not (see Matthew 26:24).

I think Elder Oaks was quite right in his assessment.  I'm willing to listen to a rebuttal (although conclusory stuff like "I was extremely disappointed" and "I think he did a lot of harm" are not very persuasive to me).

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would love to see this change over time as I really don't think its a safe place in this culture to have mature and honest discussions about really important issues.  

I think there is.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm fine using miraculous.  I don't see the negative connotations for the word supernatural though.  

The Rush Limbaugh comment, I accidentally posted in the wrong section of my response.  

No, not to him personally. 

So your comparing him to vitriolic (and, in may quarters, heavily disliked) personalities like Limbaugh and Hannity was intended as . . . a compliment?

Wanna try that again?

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

He just has a very different perspective and I don't think his talk comes close to having an intelligent discussion on the topic. 

As you like.  But again, you'll understand why conclusory stuff like this is not persuasive, particularly given the extensive quotes and reasoning provided in DCP's talk.

DCP is presenting substantive ideas and arguments.  And your response is that he doesn't even "[come] close to having an intelligent discussion on the topic."  Not much to say, then, other than to dismiss your failure/unwillingness to meaningfully address the points raised by DCP.  No problem, really.  We all have finite amounts of time on our hands.  But if you are looking to persuade, to have a discussion, this sort of approach doesn't work well.

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not ad hominem either, I'm not insulting him personally.  My example earlier of a far left wing person making observations about the right wing is really quite appropriate.  I see the same kinds of things happening on the polar extremes of both sides.  It is similar to Limbaugh or Hannity too.  You don't see them getting into thoughtful discussions with people in the middle or the other side. 

You are faulting DCP for not "having an intelligent discussion" during a presentation.  He wasn't trying to have a "discussion."  He was presenting his thoughts and arguments.  And he does a pretty good job of it.  You feel otherwise, but have repeatedly refused to address the substance of what he said.  So that's the end of that, I guess.

DCP has literally spend decades engaging critics and oponents of the Church.  A lot.  In many different venues and media.  And he has done so by providing substantive ideas and arguments and reasoning and analysis and data.

In contrast, your rebuttal is to utterly disregard and refuse to engage the substance of what he has said, and to compare him to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

It is simply absurd (and, given your refusal to address his article, very ironic) for you to suggest that DCP has not engaged in "thoughtful discussions" regarding the Church.

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Their rhetoric is not capable of respectful debate, so instead they really just strawman and caricature the opposition in ways that don't even remotely show an accurate represent the complexity of the issues. 

For you, Daniel Peterson is like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are "not capable of respectful debate, so instead they really just strawman and caricature the opposition in ways that don't even remotely show an accurate represent the complexity of the issues."

Ergo, you refuse to address the article written by Daniel Peterson.

That is classic ad hominem, hope.  Nothing but.  You may as well be saying "Daniel Peterson says X, but Daniel Peterson is a jerk, ergo I can dismiss X without addressing it substantively."

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

They are playing to a specific audience.  I see Dan as a similar kind of actor in apologetic circles.  

Classic ad hominem.

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I’m not broadly familiar with the science and study of morality, but that book offered a perspective that rid me of the notion that because we do “good” that means there is a god, and he gave us those morals.

Human morals do not prove god’s existence in my mind.

Morality certainly doesn't imply God. But you could just look at ethical systems without God to see that. So it's a trivial philosophical point. People who say God is necessary for ethics usually don't know what they're talking about. That's especially true in an LDS system where God isn't Being but is a material being who had a father himself. In such a system God can't be the source of ethics. That's not to say our knowledge of what is good or evil might not be affected by communication from God. Indeed I think that the Holy Ghost does that with everyone even if they don't have the right to its constant companionship.

Now some might say ethics as ethics is necessarily grounded in the source of existence. But that's not necessarily God. And for Mormons definitely can't be.

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Then why does it parallel Colorado? Why is Montana according to the latest data the highest? Why is it shooting up everywhere but particularly the mountain west? It's those questions you've not addressed that undermine local LGBTQ issues as the primary driving force.

I wasn't aware that LGBTQ suicides in Colorado and Montana were also higher than average.  I honestly don't have all the data, but you seem to be not applying the same level of scrutiny to the correlation between social media and suicide and the more local suicide correlation on the LGBT topic.  I'm not saying either situations are clear cut.  I'm the one taking the position of it looks a possible correlation and that these may be contributing factors, but I'm not willing to make a very strong direct claim on either issue.  

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

President Oaks is an apostle.  I am obligated to give his counsel some real consideration.

I don't know you.  You are an online critic of my Church, one voice in a huge cacaphony.  

You have no stewardship or authority, nor have you demonstrated why I should listen to your counsel. 

To be honest, I'm not sure what your counsel is.  Apart from endlessly disparaging the Church and its leaders (and its defenders, such as Daniel Peterson), what have you presented here that could be reasonably construed as "counsel?"

• "[The leaders of the Church are not addressing] pressing problems that need focus, and we need more than just window dressing and chair rearranging, we need substantive and principled leadership."
• "I hope the church doesn't try to declare official doctrine on gender.  I have no confidence they will get this anywhere right."
• "By their fruits they [the leaders of the Church] are falling very short."
• "We were talking about leadership.  And my observation that [the leaders of the Church] aren’t showing it."
• [Sarcastically/snidely] "All is well in Zion."
• "I think the current leaders are very flawed in the direction they are leading the church and the way they are doing it is missing the mark on the important core messages of the gospel."
• "I think the institution needs to repent."

This, in your view, is "counsel?"

And you are criticizing Pres. Oaks for not being on this board to listen to it ("I guess one could say that you and Oaks are ignoring and rejecting my counsel")?

It would be more fair and accurate to just say that we are both members of the same church with differences of opinion.  I'm not sure why you think one person's opinion qualifies as "counsel" and another's doesn't.  However, if you want to keep using exaggerated rhetoric, then that makes it hard to have a mutually respectful exchange.  

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You have publicly called the Church to repentance.  You have publicly accused its leaders of failing to address "pressing problems that need focus."  You have publicly disparaged the leaders of the Church as "falling ver short" in their leadership.  You have publicly declared that they are "very flawed in the direction they are leading the Church."

That's quite a bit more than "Better to just say that I have a difference of opinion."

I'm tempted to quote more from Elder Oaks' 1987 article, but given the contempt you've heaped upon him and the other leaders of the Church, I guess there's no point.

I stand by what I said, but not your characterization of it.  You are exaggerating and trying to stir the pot.  I'm not interested in a battle.  

 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It would be more fair and accurate to just say that we are both members of the same church with differences of opinion. 

Differences of opinion?  Sure.  Not sure that's "more fair and accurate," though.

Quote

I'm not sure why you think one person's opinion qualifies as "counsel" and another's doesn't. 

When the opinion is shot through with slanders and insults, when it's vague to the point of uselessness, then I don't see it as "counsel," let alone counsel worth consideration.

Quote

However, if you want to keep using exaggerated rhetoric, then that makes it hard to have a mutually respectful exchange.  

Okay.

Quote

I stand by what I said, but not your characterization of it.  You are exaggerating and trying to stir the pot.  I'm not interested in a battle.  

I'm pushing back against disparagements and slurs against the leaders of my Church.

But point taken.  I'll dial it back a bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 12, 2018 by smac97