Hype for April 2019 Conference

[clarkgoble]

54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Yes, a lot of the same types of stories appear in the Colorado press, just without the Mormon connection. Even the LGBT connections.

I don't think I'm applying different levels of scrutiny. The suicide rise starts in 2010 and get going solid in 2011. The policy on children's baptism happens 2015. Prop 8 happens in 2008. The time frames for your explanations just don't line up. Contrast this with the rise of social media and smart phones where the correlation is nearly exact. The only reason it's not confidently causal is because there may be a third confounding variable.

Edited December 12, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, a lot of the same types of stories appear in the Colorado press, just without the Mormon connection. 

I don't think I'm applying different levels of scrutiny. The suicide rise starts in 2010 and get going solid in 2011. The policy on children's baptism happens 2015. Prop 8 happens in 2008. The time frames for your explanations just don't line up. Contrast this with the rise of social media and smart phones where the correlation is nearly exact. The only reason it's not confidently causal is because there may be a third confounding variable.

There are always possibilities for a number of other variables.  I think the possible correlation with current events is strong.  LGBT issues have been prominent in the past decade and part of the culture wars and there have been constant stories and issues nationally and locally.   I'm also connected with Mormon support groups for LGBT individuals and their families and I'm aware of unique circumstances that give me strong reasons to be concerned about this issue and contributing factors.  

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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.

Okay.

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

Thanks, I hope so.  But I find it odd that within this same post that you're dialing things back you still accuse me of slanders, slurs and insults.  I'm thinking we have a different idea of what dialed back rhetoric looks like.  

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The scripture sounds eerily accurate and applicable from my vantage point.  You don't see any problems with the current leadership, you're comfortable, you think all is well, you don't see a problem with the vast wealth the church has amassed and the way they allocate these resources.  The scripture is a warning that could be applied individually or institutionally.  

As for finding a hero in our past that is "deeply religious" but doesn't believe in God according to the specific you've created, I don't know.  I can tell you many good contemporary Christian influential figures, people like Marcus Borg, or John Shelby Spong, or Richard Rohr, or Rob Bell.  Those were the kind of people I was thinking of originally.  

I am not comfortable and I do not think all is well with me and I am not wrapped in peaceful carnal security. You are right that I do not see any problems in the current leadership but that was never what that scripture was about. You would be hard-pressed to find scriptures about tearing down your leaders. Even Jesus, despite insulting the leadership, encouraged obedience and they were outright apostate. You can find a little more in the Old Testament but there God was just condemning them directly and not calling on everyone else to criticize them. 

I am naive enough to trust God to expose false leaders in our midst in his own time and to deal justly with those who would misuse church funds. He did not ask for my input on the matter. I have enough beams of my own to worry about without being concerned about the motes in the eyes of my leaders. Of course criticism is always more popular then self-reflection for improvement. Criticism is so much easier.

[Avatar4321]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I wish. By their fruits they are falling very short.  

Which is exactly how I know we have substantive and principled leadership 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"Puerile" is a good 25 cent word, but do you really mean that? Do you really believe that temporal concerns like food, water, shelter, safety, belonging, are really just childish concerns?

I'm curious what you think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and how it might illustrate the very human needs to have temporal concerns met before higher needs like self-actualization become the focus.

It seems to me that meeting those puerile needs will help prepare them for spiritual growth. It's hard for someone who is constantly, hungry and scared to focus on self-actualization through spiritual growth.

IF that is the case and physiological, safety, love/belonging are the foundations upon which an individual can grow into higher levels of morality and spirituality, then it would seem like a solid plan for the church to try to help address those needs. In fact, I think we can see through the church's humanitarian aid programs that they recognize that meeting these puerile needs is actually important, maybe just not as important as the tip of the pyramid.

Thinking of it another way, how useful is it to focus on something like temple attendance and family history when a family can't feed itself or receive the medical attention they need? I have no doubt that there are some wonderful, exceptional people who seek and achieve the top of the pyramid before even their basic needs are met, but that hardly seems like a sustainable or generally successful strategy for the church.

Or am I misunderstanding your "puerile" comment?

By puerile I meant only by comparison. Better to die of starvation and find eternal life then to life in comfort and be damned. Of course leaving people to starve is not a good thing. I am pointing out that the gospel is concerned primarily with the eternal world. Temporal charity is a religious duty but it is probably the least exclusively religious obligation because lots of people do it. To focus the church’s efforts primarily on problems that other organizations can deal with squanders our unique ability to lead people unto Christ and his gospel and to administer the ordinances of salvation and exaltation. It would be like the breadbasket of a nation focusing on making sure the needy are clothed. It is not what we are best built for. That being said we should still definitely make efforts in those areas both in and outside the institutional church. I just have no sympathy for those who say we should give up the temples and our proselyting efforts to run more soup kitchens.

As for Maslow, I am not sure I agree. It places too much emphasis on carnal security in my opinion.

Edited December 12, 2018 by The Nehor

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

By puerile I meant only by comparison. Better to die of starvation and find eternal life then to life in comfort and be damned. Of course leaving people to starve is not a good thing. I am pointing out that the gospel is concerned primarily with the eternal world. Temporal charity is a religious duty but it is probably the least exclusively religious obligation because lots of people do it. To focus the church’s efforts primarily on problems that other organizations can deal with squanders our unique ability to lead people unto Christ and his gospel and to administer the ordinances of salvation and exaltation. It would be like the breadbasket of a nation focusing on making sure the needy are clothed. It is not what we are best built for. That being said we should still definitely make efforts in those areas both in and outside the institutional church. I just have no sympathy for those who say we should give up the temples and our proselyting efforts to run more soup kitchens.

As for Maslow, I am not sure I agree. It places too much emphasis on carnal security in my opinion.

The church has $Billions. Eternal life costs nothing in $$$. I think the only thing others are suggesting is that perhaps the church could spend it's billions in this world for temporal needs so that people can be prepared to receive spiritual growth. The truth of the matter is there are always opportunity costs. For every $$ the church spends to build/refurbish/maintain church buildings and temples, those same $$ become unavailable to aid those in critical need. So the determination needs to be made whether new chandeliers in the temple are more important than the starving child. I'm sure you won't like that characterization, yet it's true.

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not comfortable and I do not think all is well with me and I am not wrapped in peaceful carnal security. You are right that I do not see any problems in the current leadership but that was never what that scripture was about. You would be hard-pressed to find scriptures about tearing down your leaders. Even Jesus, despite insulting the leadership, encouraged obedience and they were outright apostate. You can find a little more in the Old Testament but there God was just condemning them directly and not calling on everyone else to criticize them. 

I am naive enough to trust God to expose false leaders in our midst in his own time and to deal justly with those who would misuse church funds. He did not ask for my input on the matter. I have enough beams of my own to worry about without being concerned about the motes in the eyes of my leaders. Of course criticism is always more popular then self-reflection for improvement. Criticism is so much easier.

This is a good old fashioned Nehor Bazinga, right?

Jesus insulted leadership yet also taught his disciples to be obedient to those leaders? Really? Was Jesus obedient to those leaders?

I'm incredulous that you think Jesus taught his followers to obey the Pharisees and Sadducees. If that's the case, Jesus really failed in his mission, as evidenced by...Christianity.

[Avatar4321]

5 hours 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.  

You also don’t need to read brains if you’ve been healed by the Spirit as I have

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

There are always possibilities for a number of other variables.  I think the possible correlation with current events is strong.  LGBT issues have been prominent in the past decade and part of the culture wars and there have been constant stories and issues nationally and locally.   I'm also connected with Mormon support groups for LGBT individuals and their families and I'm aware of unique circumstances that give me strong reasons to be concerned about this issue and contributing factors.  

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.

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Jesus insulted leadership yet also taught his disciples to be obedient to those leaders? Really? Was Jesus obedient to those leaders?

I'm incredulous that you think Jesus taught his followers to obey the Pharisees and Sadducees. If that's the case, Jesus really failed in his mission, as evidenced by...Christianity.

Umm. Yes, famously Jesus was - at least in the portrayal in the gospels. Even at his arrest he doesn't resist and criticizes Peter for raising violence. The famous quip, "render unto Caesar..." is an illustration of that point. More to the point though many of the famous Jesus quotes are actually Jesus accepting key Pharisee teachings particularly by Rabbi Hillel one of the key figures of the two main Pharisee groups. It's worth noting that Judaism was split. There were the Sadducees, two Pharisee groups, the Essenes, and probably groups whose nature didn't survive historically. They often disagreed with each other. So Jesus disagrees with say the Sadducees over what was permitted on the Sabbath but was in keeping with the Pharisees. But compare the tensions with Jesus and it appears to pale compared to the tensions among the Pharisees between the Shammaites and the Hillelites. It's much more complex than you suggest.

About the only place we can see Jesus breaking with Jewish leaders was over Kosher foods. However there (Mark 7:19) where Jesus declares all foods clean isn't found in Matthew and contradicts the portrayal by Luke where this is seen as a major revelation and innovation of Peter well after Jesus' death.

Christianity doesn't really break from Judaism until after the first destruction of the temple since there were clear benefits to not being thought Jewish in terms of Roman restrictions in Palestine. By the time of the second destruction after the Bar Kokhba revolt and the full diaspora there are huge incentives to break with Judaism. Not the least of which by then the majority of members are gentile. Now of course from Paul, we see increased tensions with the Pharisees (although even there things are more complex than the stereotype) presumably over the shift to seeing Jesus as the messiah after his death. But that's precisely evolution after Christ's death. Even if those were teachings of his, they were likely primarily kept to an inner circle even if elements leaked out. (In some ways a situation paralleling Nauvoo tensions - with Judas being the William Law figure)

Edited December 12, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Avatar4321]

It’s always interesting to see that when people realize not all is well in Zion they always think it’s because of the other guy rather than themselves

[HappyJackWagon]

44 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. Yes, famously Jesus was - at least in the portrayal in the gospels. Even at his arrest he doesn't resist and criticizes Peter for raising violence. The famous quip, "render unto Caesar..." is an illustration of that point. More to the point though many of the famous Jesus quotes are actually Jesus accepting key Pharisee teachings particularly by Rabbi Hillel one of the key figures of the two main Pharisee groups. It's worth noting that Judaism was split. There were the Sadducees, two Pharisee groups, the Essenes, and probably groups whose nature didn't survive historically. They often disagreed with each other. So Jesus disagrees with say the Sadducees over what was permitted on the Sabbath but was in keeping with the Pharisees. But compare the tensions with Jesus and it appears to pale compared to the tensions among the Pharisees between the Shammaites and the Hillelites. It's much more complex than you suggest.

Christianity doesn't really break from Judaism until after the first destruction of the temple since there were clear benefits to not being thought Jewish in terms of Roman restrictions in Palestine. By the time of the second destruction after the Bar Kokhba revolt and the full diaspora there are huge incentives to break with Judaism. Not the least of which by then the majority of members are gentile. Now of course from Paul, we see increased tensions with the Pharisees (although even there things are more complex than the stereotype) presumably over the shift to seeing Jesus as the messiah after his death. But that's precisely evolution after Christ's death. Even if those were teachings of his, they were likely primarily kept to an inner circle even if elements leaked out. (In some ways a situation paralleling Nauvoo tensions - with Judas being the William Law figure)

 

I'll admit that when the armed Temple guards arrested him he did not think it wise for Peter to fight back. Seems pretty logical and protective of Peter. I don't think Jesus expected Peter to obey the guards, but rather expected Peter to obey him. "Render unto Caesar" has nothing to do with religious leadership. As you say, Jesus wasn't obedient to the laws of the Sabbath and he taught his followers why. The Sabbath was made for man, not the man for the Sabbath. Did Jesus respect and obey temple leaders when he overturned the money changers? Did Jesus follow the law of the day and stone the adultress and encourage others to d o likewise? Of course not. What lessons do you think his actions and words taught his disciples? He didn't say, or imply that his followers should obey the Pharisees and Sadducees. Jesus was in constant conflict with religious leaders, calling them vipers and hypocrites. Is there a passage you can point me to in which he tells his followers to obey these religious leaders?   I'm open to being wrong about this, but I need some much better examples.  I think it's a fallacy to presume that because Jesus did NOT abandon all religious teachings and culture of his time, that he encouraged his disciples to obey the other religious leaders. His sermon on the mount was the creation of new law, not a plea for them to obey the old.

ETA- I reject any comparison of Joseph to Jesus.

I would also suggest, that the claim you are making, namely that Jesus taught disciples to follow the Jewish religious leaders of the day, would be evidence that Jesus never intended to organize or create his own church.

Edited December 12, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[SouthernMo]

20 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

It’s always interesting to see that when people realize not all is well in Zion they always think it’s because of the other guy rather than themselves

So is it you, then who is not well?

😁

[Stargazer]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 8:54 PM, rockpond said:

And so it begins... or continues...

We had our stake conference this weekend (Dec 8-9).  In the concluding session on Sunday, Elder Randall K. Bennett of the Seventy was speaking.  After referencing President Nelson's comments:  "If you think the Church has been fully restored, you're just seeing the beginning" and "Eat your vitamin pills. Get some rest. It's going to be exciting."  He said, jokingly:  There's a rumor that they are installing seat belts in the Conference Center in preparation for next April's conference.

I'm curious if others are hearing similar comments from general authorities in your areas.

Given the above (and assuming it isn't only happening in my area), I imagine we'll have lots of guessing and rumors about "big announcements" in the lead up to April General Conference.

 

We just had our stake conference, a couple of area seventies attended, and the upcoming April conference wasn't even brought up.

Of course, the stake presidency was being reorganized, so maybe that's why.

[clarkgoble]

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"Render unto Caesar" has nothing to do with religious leadership.

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.

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As you say, Jesus wasn't obedient to the laws of the Sabbath and he taught his followers why. The Sabbath was made for man, not the man for the Sabbath.

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.

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Did Jesus respect and obey temple leaders when he overturned the money changers? 

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.

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

He didn't say, or imply that his followers should obey the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus was in constant conflict with religious leaders, calling them vipers and hypocrites. Is there a passage you can point me to in which he tells his followers to obey these religious leaders?   

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.

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

His sermon on the mount was the creation of new law, not a plea for them to obey the old.

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.

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would also suggest, that the claim you are making, namely that Jesus taught disciples to follow the Jewish religious leaders of the day, would be evidence that Jesus never intended to organize or create his own church.

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.

Edited December 12, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Avatar4321]

40 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

So is it you, then who is not well?

😁

I never claimed to be well

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not comfortable and I do not think all is well with me and I am not wrapped in peaceful carnal security. You are right that I do not see any problems in the current leadership but that was never what that scripture was about. You would be hard-pressed to find scriptures about tearing down your leaders. Even Jesus, despite insulting the leadership, encouraged obedience and they were outright apostate. You can find a little more in the Old Testament but there God was just condemning them directly and not calling on everyone else to criticize them. 

I am naive enough to trust God to expose false leaders in our midst in his own time and to deal justly with those who would misuse church funds. He did not ask for my input on the matter. I have enough beams of my own to worry about without being concerned about the motes in the eyes of my leaders. Of course criticism is always more popular then self-reflection for improvement. Criticism is so much easier.

These statements you’re making about scripture and church leaders could just as easily be made by an FLDS believer or any other religious devotee.  It seems to me that if one is unwilling to critically evaluate their own religion they are essentially falling prey to the all is well in Zion mindset.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Which is exactly how I know we have substantive and principled leadership 

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

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

You also don’t need to read brains if you’ve been healed by the Spirit as I have

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

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 12/12/2018 at 1:00 AM, rockpond said:

I called it secular because @JLHPROF said:

“Pres. Nelson has a vision for how he thinks the Church should look and he realizes his age and the accompanying time limit.”

which to me sounds like this is all about President Nelson’s ideas and timeline, not the Lord’s. 

I understand. That's my very point: whether motivated by a fundamentalist rejection of living prophets in favour of dead ones or a secular/progressive rejection of living prophets in favour of more 'enlightened' teachers, the outcome sounds almost exactly the same much of the time.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church has $Billions. Eternal life costs nothing in $$$. I think the only thing others are suggesting is that perhaps the church could spend it's billions in this world for temporal needs so that people can be prepared to receive spiritual growth. The truth of the matter is there are always opportunity costs. For every $$ the church spends to build/refurbish/maintain church buildings and temples, those same $$ become unavailable to aid those in critical need. So the determination needs to be made whether new chandeliers in the temple are more important than the starving child. I'm sure you won't like that characterization, yet it's true.

I don't like that characterization but not out of shame. I just know it is stupid. The idea that if we would donate $100 children who would die will live ignores how this kind of thing works. Yes, if we had free and unfettered access to every child and knew perfectly which were malnourished it might be that stark a decision but it is not. Despite herculean efforts by government agencies, charities, and individuals we cannot find all the children who are malnourished and feed them in the United States. Go to Africa or South America and the obstacles get even harder. There are governments, warlords, and more blocking help or just outright stealing it. So I reject your characterization outright as a rhetorical device with no basis in reality. 

Futhermore I doubt you are living as if you believe it. Are you driving a beater or a decent car? How many children could the difference feed? How about your shelter absolute needs versus wants? How many children could that feed? Yet it is used as a brickbat against the Church because you like hitting it. Consistency in your beliefs.........probably not there.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a good old fashioned Nehor Bazinga, right?

Jesus insulted leadership yet also taught his disciples to be obedient to those leaders? Really? Was Jesus obedient to those leaders?

I'm incredulous that you think Jesus taught his followers to obey the Pharisees and Sadducees. If that's the case, Jesus really failed in his mission, as evidenced by...Christianity.

Yes, Jesus was observant of the leadership of his day. He pointed out that the Temple tax should not be asked of him but paid it anyways.

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."

Furthermore he was deferential during his arrest and trial even when he was unlawfully assaulted in court. Compare to Paul who did not react so deferentially but quickly corrected himself:

"And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest?

Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."

I like that story because Paul is such a crafty guy. Immediately afterwards while standing before a divided audience of Pharisees and Sadduccees he brought up the Resurrection to get them at each others throats but it shows his deference to their religious and secular authority.

 

Now, I am not conceding by this comparison that the LDS leadership are comparable in any way, shape, or form.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Propaganda from the great and spacious sure does make it seem that way.

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

These statements you’re making about scripture and church leaders could just as easily be made by an FLDS believer or any other religious devotee.  It seems to me that if one is unwilling to critically evaluate their own religion they are essentially falling prey to the all is well in Zion mindset.  

I just prefer not to deal with the middlemen when it comes to my faith. My covenants are not with my bishop or my stake president or an apostle and critically evaluating them is not critically evaluating my religion. Furthermore, if God needed my help evaluating his leadership He knows how to find me. My faith is based on visions and the power of God driving a testimony into me through the Holy Ghost.

Other faiths can use that argument too I suppose but that is their business and, if they are lying, their problem.

Edited December 13, 2018 by The Nehor

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 12/12/2018 at 3:21 AM, smac97 said:

"Nearly all prophets since Joseph have said it was fully restored?"  Could you elaborate on what you mean here?

It's a too-clever-by-half internet meme that's currently making the rounds in apostate/critical circles. As your subsequent quotes make abundantly clear, it's not accurate in any way, but why let accuracy get in the way of a zinger of an internet meme?

Edited December 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[SouthernMo]

40 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I never claimed to be well

Me neither, man!  We all got problems!

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It's a too-clever-by-half internet meme that's currently making the rounds in apostate/critical circles. As your subsequent quotes make abundantly clear, it's not accurate in any way, but why let accuracy get in the way of a zinger of an internet meme?

It's all semantics.  Depends on how restoration is being defined.

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

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.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I understand. That's my very point: whether motivated by a fundamentalist rejection of living prophets in favour of dead ones or a secular/progressive rejection of living prophets in favour of more 'enlightened' teachers, the outcome sounds almost exactly the same much of the time.

The difference being the word eternal.