Conference discussion

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, member10_1 said:

I think people are generally genuine in their disagreement about what will help them be happy or, at the very least, survive in what can be a very difficult world, even if they admit that Truth is elusive to the senses. 

I don't doubt that many are geniune. But the fact is if my truth isn't true then it's not truth no matter how much I want it to be.

[member10_1]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I suppose we could say that the person who created it gets to say what the true pattern is. 

How is this not relativism?

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, Lemuel said:

Did I miss the statistical report?

It wasn't presented in conference again.  Not faith promoting.  The SLTrib has a story on it:  

Lowest net increase in 40 years, and the largest number of membership records ever removed in a single year — 140,868.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/04/06/lds-church-tops-million/

[Avatar4321]

Not seeing much change or controversy. That's probably a good thing.

I haven't heard all the talks yet. But I did want to let you guys who have strayed know I love you. You frustrate me sometimes but I love you

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

OrdainWomen made a big noise imo about having the same opportunity as men to hear the words prophets were speaking as they were spoken.  Which I didn't have a problem with.  They got their wish when the Church announced it would be broadcasted.  My husband rejoiced and probably lots of others as well as now he could watch it at home.

Otoh, the news footage showed them just talking with each other in the park where they met during the session, so it didn't look like anyone took advantage of it when offered in this fashion.  Not to say whether or not they watched or listened or read talks later, I just thought it was rather strange after making such a big deal about hearing the word at the same time.  Even for PR purposes I think it would have looked better to show women intent on listening when given the chance.

That always bothered me with Kate Kelly, if she really wanted the PH, then her testimony wasn't strong enough to sustain it apparently. 

[member10_1]

21 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I don't doubt that many are geniune. But the fact is if my truth isn't true then it's not truth no matter how much I want it to be.

What would you propose a person do to test whether their truths are absolute truths?

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

About ten years ago I served a two-year Stake mission.  I used to go on splits with the full-time sisters, and teach the new member follow-up lessons... I loved my mission.  It was in 1954 that the stake missionaries taught the discussions to my step-father who then converted... and a year later on Oct 3, 1955, he, my mom, along with me and my sis were kneeling around the altar in the Salt Lake temple being sealed as an eternal family.  That was the first time our family attended Gen Conf. where everyone fit into the Tabernacle and an adjacent meeting hall... those that spilled over sat on the lawn and listened via loud speakers on a beautiful October weekend... What memories I have of that time as I watch Gen Conf today, my family now all gone (I lost my sis at age 80 in January 2018)... two weeks ago I was humbled as I stood proxy for her in the Portland temple and completed her initiatory/endowment ordinances.  Now I feel that our family is truly intact... 

GG

Awhile back I pm'd on FB your cousin Dusty, forgot his name on the board here, was it country boy? Anyway, I reached out because he was speaking in Salt Lake back in February at a fireside and I wanted to attend, but then a terrible storm came through town and I didn't want to drive in it. He mentioned that your sister had passed away, and I forgot to reach out to you and send my condolences, I'm so sorry for your loss. That's so difficult to lose your loved one. I know you two were close, too bad you lived so far apart.

[mfbukowski]

Oh my gosh.

Here we go again

I am not going to go into it for the millionth time here- this is the issue:  We all know what truth is, we just cannot define it.

No one can define it. Not prophets, not philosophers not duffers writing silly stuff on the internet they have not thought through,

 That is totally evident in this thread.

 

[Wade Englund]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Disagree of course.

In your perspective, probably.

I suggest you listen to more than one line of the talk and see the whole thing as the perspectives evolve.

Are you suggesting that the truths you got from the talk are not Scott's truths?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

No Dane would ever make that error.

Or Swede, for that matter. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh.

Here we go again

I am not going to go into it for the millionth time here- this is the issue:  We all know what truth is, we just cannot define it.

No one can define it. Not prophets, not philosophers not duffers writing silly stuff on the internet they have not thought through,

 That is totally evident in this thread.

 

How about Oprah Winfrey? Can she define it?

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

Are you suggesting that the truths you got from the talk are not Scott's truths?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course!!   He sees what confirms his thoughts and so do I !!

He sees "one true" perspective on the dots and I see several and question if even the "eye" is "true"- is that the object of the display?   

And what do dots have to do with the world?  My eyes are blue and have lashes- all I see there are dots that perhaps outline the "shape" of an eye but they are not an "eye" or even a good representation of one.  NO color. the iris does not move- how is such an image "true"?

All we have to talk about is language- because words are not things. When we speak about chairs, what kind of chair are we talking about?  Do chairs come out of our mouths which re-construct the chair we are talking about?  Is it better desribed as a "stool" - or what IS a chair?   If you are tired on a trail hiking can a rock be a "chair" in that context because it is used as a chair when you sit on it

This is about as serious as Scott saying a rock can be a "chair" and me disagreeing and saying a chair is a chair and it is not a rock!! 

None of us sees the world the way anyone else does- and that is true of each of us here on the board and everywhere else.

Our views of reality and how the world works is unique to each of us and all that is dependent on family constellation, how we were raised, our kinds of education or lack thereof, our religious backgrounds, and if you study social psychology and aesthetics, you will find that even different cultures will interpret photographs differently.  One article points out that if Americans and Japanese see photos of people in a landscape and are later asked what the picture was "of"- the Japanese will tend to describe the landscape aspects and ignore the people and the Americans will describe the people and not the landscape.

Then there is this sort of thing:

 

Quote

 

Abstract

Abstract: This paper examines how the Japanese public perceives the natural world und its conservation, mainly wildlife. Limited comparisons are made to the United States. Data was collected in both countries using similar conceptual and methodological frameworks. Closed‐ended surveys were conducted of random samples of the Japanese and American publics, and in‐depth interviews were conducted with 50 environmentally knowledgeable Japanese.

A central interest was the apparent inconsistency of a presumed special Japanese appreciation of nature concurrent with u pattern of widespread environmental abuse extensive@ reported in the literature. The results of this study partially elucidate this paradox. Japanese appreciation for nature was found to be very narrow and idealized, primarily focusing on single species and lacking an ecological and ethical perspective. The Japanese and American publics were both found to possess strong affection for particularly favored species and enjoyed direct experiential contact with individual aspects of the environment. Both cultures were similarly pragmatic toward nature, and somewhat indifferent regarding the environment when it possessed little emotional value. The Japanese public placed far greater value on satisfactions derived from control and mastery over nature. Additionally, the Japanese expressed far less ethical or ecological concern for nature and wildlife than citizens of the United States. Americans also had significantly greater knowledge of wildlife.

 

 

 

So no, of course there is overlap with the way Scott sees the world and the way I see it, but our direct experience is, I am certain VERY different

The question of truth is for me a question of how we see the world.

 

Let's go back to atheism- For the atheist, does God exist?   What difference does God make in the life of an atheist?  How do they react to the importance of religious belief in their lives?

 

If some belief is irrelevant in your life, does it "exist" for you?

What is the favorite color of a blind person?

Is it true or false that the favorite color of a given blind person is blue and not red?

It must be one or the other right? 

Or is the question itself irrelevant to the situation?

There are no simple answers to any of this!!

 

What color is courage?  If truth is a property of the world, what about courage?  Is truth and courage "real" or is it dependent upon behavior and statements?

All these seem to be "real problems"- yet there is no one single way to see them

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

When did they start broadcasting the priesthood session?

In 2013. See this link:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-expands-options-for-viewing-priesthood-session?lang=eng

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about Oprah Winfrey? Can she define it?

There are none so blind as those who will not see or even try to learn.

You are supposedly standing for truth and cannot explain how God cannot be shown to exist scientifically and yet it is "true" that he exists.

Sorry- that calls for at least two different kinds of "Truth".   You play straight into the hands of the atheists who contend that God cannot exist because no one sees him

You have not illustrated a theory of truth that will cover that and yet you criticize and mock those who have the only way of seeing truth that can explain the confusion. You call them racists when they are fellow saints who serve in the temple and mock their views of truth, with the same temple recommend you have in your pocket, I presume.   And you think you are defending the truth as wonderful exemplar of the church of Christ.

Sad, very sad.

Edited April 7, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

No Dane would ever make that error.

A Pole might. Actually, my two of mom’s grandparents were Danish....Mortensen and Sandersen.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about Oprah Winfrey? Can she define it?

If you want to convert her followers you better be able to understand them 

You don't.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, member10_1 said:

How is this not relativism?

Relativism is that truth exists in relation to culture or historical context (etc.) and is not absolute; it changes.  The 'true picture' as i described it does not change.  It is not dependent on culture or history.  It is absolute.  Just because the creator of the piece declares what the absolute truth is does not make it relative. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If you want to convert her followers you better be able to understand them 

You don't.

I think I do understand her. What she calls "truth" (as in "your truth" and "my truth") is personal perspective.

[Avatar4321]

10 hours ago, member10_1 said:

What would you propose a person do to test whether their truths are absolute truths?

“If any of you lack wisdom let Him ask of God”

we can also test truth by living it 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I felt a little empathy for President Oaks. He was trying very hard to be solid on his pronunciation but there were a lot of names.

I heard that there was some pronunciation guidance on the teleprompter. I presume -- and hope -- this is true.

[Avatar4321]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh.

Here we go again

I am not going to go into it for the millionth time here- this is the issue:  We all know what truth is, we just cannot define it.

No one can define it. Not prophets, not philosophers not duffers writing silly stuff on the internet they have not thought through,

 That is totally evident in this thread.

 

Truth is things as they were, as they are, and as they will be.

that’s definition used by the scriptures and which President Oaks used last conference for His talk on the matter

[Avatar4321]

I’m surprised no one has been discussing President Nelsons amazing talk on repentance. There is so much in it I think it may take 6 months just to parse it all

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I’m surprised no one has been discussing President Nelsons amazing talk on repentance. There is so much in it I think it may take 6 months just to parse it all

First time he has spoken in the conference, and he hit it out of the park.

I'm waiting for the availability of a transcript to review before discussing it.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Truth is things as they were, as they are, and as they will be.

that’s definition used by the scriptures and which President Oaks used last conference for His talk on the matter

I  have a feeling mfbukowski is not going to find this adequate.

[Sevenbak]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

OrdainWomen made a big noise imo about having the same opportunity as men to hear the words prophets were speaking as they were spoken.  Which I didn't have a problem with.  They got their wish when the Church announced it would be broadcasted.  My husband rejoiced and probably lots of others as well as now he could watch it at home.

Otoh, the news footage showed them just talking with each other in the park where they met during the session, so it didn't look like anyone took advantage of it when offered in this fashion.  Not to say whether or not they watched or listened or read talks later, I just thought it was rather strange after making such a big deal about hearing the word at the same time.  Even for PR purposes I think it would have looked better to show women intent on listening when given the chance.

I have a huge problem with the Kate Kelly stunt and the crowd she said she represented.  The news footage you saw was likely shot by me, as I was at the park with them during the "protest" for KSL.  I can tell you that the phones only came out AFTER the cameras showed up.  And even then it was very sporadic.  They were not there to watch the session on tv,  but to be on tv.   The whole event smelled fishy from the beginning and got worse as it went on.  Kate was supposedly the music director in her ward.  When she decided to lead everyone in a "hymn", with one of the most recognized and loved hymns in the church, The Spirit of God Like A Fire is Burning, she had to look up the words on her phone in order to lead just the first verse.   It wasn't the first time the media have been exploited in this fashion, but the event and subsequent events of that story still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Sevenbak