rockpond Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Knowing President Nelson personally and having conversed with him a few times and having heard him speak on numerous occasions, I don't believe that has happened in this instance. Then again, I would bet that you never have doubted anything he’s said.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 27 minutes ago, rockpond said: Then again, I would bet that you never have doubted anything he’s said. I don't accept it blindly, if that's what you're hinting at.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: ..................... President Nelson has said the Lord impressed it upon His mind. That strikes me as revelation. But not dialogic revelation? If my bishop tells me that the Lord impressed something upon his mind, I might take that as a general direction, but I might also take it as a specific confirmation of something he is doing in furtherance of his calling. Depends upon the actual circumstances. Perhaps all inspiration is revelation. Perhaps all revelation is prophecy. Perhaps no distinction is to be made among the various types of influence of the Holy Spirit. However, all gifts of the Spirit might differ in intensity and application according to the immediate situation. 1
rockpond Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't accept it blindly, if that's what you're hinting at. Not what I’m getting at.
CV75 Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 7 hours ago, rockpond said: The prophet is fallible and capable of being wrong about an interpretation of inspiration. I’m interested in how misinterpreting inspiration manifests (e.g. “I thought the Lord told me X and I later realized He was actually telling me Y,” or, “I later realized I misapplied the impression the Lord gave me due to my biases”), which is different from someone thinking/hoping/rationalizing he was inspired and later realizing he was in fact not, or continuing revelation which brings changes over time. Do you have some examples of being erong about an interpretation of inspiration from the scriptures or from your own life?
rockpond Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 8 minutes ago, CV75 said: I’m interested in how misinterpreting inspiration manifests (e.g. “I thought the Lord told me X and I later realized He was actually telling me Y,” or, “I later realized I misapplied the impression the Lord gave me due to my biases”), You seem to have answered your own question. 8 minutes ago, CV75 said: which is different from someone thinking/hoping/rationalizing he was inspired and later realizing he was in fact not, or continuing revelation which brings changes over time. Do you have some examples of being erong about an interpretation of inspiration from the scriptures or from your own life? No. I am infallible.
CV75 Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 47 minutes ago, rockpond said: You seem to have answered your own question. No. I am infallible. No, I haven't answered my own question. My academic description of what I think you are portraying as the issue with President Nelson is not the practical example I am asking you to provide. You haven't any supporting examples or confirmed (or even fake) precedents, and deflecting the reason for that with facetiousness renders your statement to be of little practical relevance to your assertion. Edited August 28, 2019 by CV75 1
ALarson Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 8 hours ago, JulieM said: Yes, I highly doubt they’d announce it. I don't believe they will either....why should they? I have to believe they still want members to use the actual name of the church. They have just softened their approach (or policy) regarding it being acceptable to also use the word "Mormon" as an identity. That's reasonable and I do hope that word gets out so that members will stop feeling guilty if they slip up and use it or correct others who use it. That's not a good attitude or feeling to have about all of this, IMO. 2
MustardSeed Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: so that members will stop feeling guilty if they slip up and use it or correct others who use it. Aaaaa.... men. 1
JulieM Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think you and I differ in our fundamental understanding of what constitutes revelation. If a prophet is inspired by God to say or do something, I'm inclined to view that as revelation. So do you believe Brigham Young received a revelation to start the Priesthood Ban? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: But not dialogic revelation? If my bishop tells me that the Lord impressed something upon his mind, I might take that as a general direction, but I might also take it as a specific confirmation of something he is doing in furtherance of his calling. Depends upon the actual circumstances. Perhaps all inspiration is revelation. Perhaps all revelation is prophecy. Perhaps no distinction is to be made among the various types of influence of the Holy Spirit. However, all gifts of the Spirit might differ in intensity and application according to the immediate situation. In this instance the Church president prefaced his statement announcing a course correction in how we identify the Church with the words “the Lord has impressed upon my mind that ....” To me, it seemed he was referencing one of the ways in which revelation is given, and yes, it did impress me as being an account of an instance of his receiving revelation on the Church’s behalf. And while we’re on the subject, I’ll say I’m bothered by a tendency I see in some of our people to say that unless a prophet says something along the lines of “on this date at such and such a time, the Lord spake unto me in these words and I wrote them down and I presented them to the Twelve to sign off on and so let it be written, so let it be done and so on and so forth” that it cannot be viewed as revelation. I believe that in the course of carrying out their divine callings, prophets are exposed to a constant flow of revelation on matters great and small and we need to be wary about treating lightly the things they say when speaking in their prophetic role. They are, after all, watchmen upon the tower. 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 9 hours ago, phaedrus ut said: Look again it's not the same. 2006 says it's fine to call the Mormon Tabernacle Choir by that name as it was up until 2016. You'll notice that isn't there along with a few other parts of the entry. The church runs like a big corporation (not meant in a disparaging way). The MoTab reference was removed and the rest was left the same. I look at it from a Bayesian perspective with two competing hypotheses. One: The church over time is updating all its intellectual property to comply with the prophets wishes. Two: The church leadership aside from president Nelson are slowly walking back his directive. Now let’s look at the evidence. Church Handbook 2 was released. An outdated MoTab reference was removed. All the text around the word Mormon is left verbatim the same. Why? Which is more likely? That they just haven’t gotten to it yet so they took out the glaring error and ran with it? Or there is a secret plot to undermine President Nelson. As evidence for the former, I would ask you to look at the apostasy section in handbook one and note it has not been updated to remove gay marriage. How long before Mormon newsroom became just the newsroom? How long for the website update? Now if text had been added to support the use of the word Mormon you’d have a point, but it seems to me that this is just wishful thinking. I say this as someone who finds the name change silly.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 42 minutes ago, ALarson said: I don't believe they will either....why should they? I have to believe they still want members to use the actual name of the church. They have just softened their approach (or policy) regarding it being acceptable to also use the word "Mormon" as an identity. That's reasonable and I do hope that word gets out so that members will stop feeling guilty if they slip up and use it or correct others who use it. That's not a good attitude or feeling to have about all of this, IMO. Honest question for you. Does failure to remove the Nov policy from handbook 1 mean the church is silently walking back the reversal or does it mean they just haven’t gotten around to it yet?
ALarson Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Honest question for you. Does failure to remove the Nov policy from handbook 1 mean the church is silently walking back the reversal or does it mean they just haven’t gotten around to it yet? As shown, they did alter the part regarding the name of the choir. Do you believe the leaders would feel that is more important?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: As shown, they did alter the part regarding the name of the choir. Do you believe the leaders would feel that is more important? No. Just easier! Let’s say it’s press time and you don’t have new text yet for the complicated renaming. Do you remove the obvious error or simply let everything go as is? Asked another way, if the church has changed any part of handbook one, but left the Nov policy, does that mean they are silently walking it back? Edited August 28, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding
Damien the Leper Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: What I was referring to was your apparent unwillingness to regard it as revealed even though President Nelson has said the Lord impressed it upon His mind. That strikes me as revelation. So Nelson says and not necessarily the Spirit saying so. The great thing about Mormon prophets is that they never speak Ex Cathedra.
ALarson Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: No. Just easier! Really? How hard would it be to remove these four words: Quote and “Mormons” is acceptable. I think it's published just how they want to word it since they have actually altered it since Pres. Nelson's announcement. It's not the first time a policy was announced and then altered and then softened even more. Edited August 28, 2019 by ALarson 1
Damien the Leper Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 45 minutes ago, JulieM said: So do you believe Brigham Young received a revelation to start the Priesthood Ban? Nope. Just racist, rogue apostles going against the will of the Lord who obviously approved of the priesthood inclusion while JS was still alive. JS must have been rolling in his grave up until 1978 and the Lord in a constant state of face palming Himself.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 7 minutes ago, ALarson said: Really? How hard would it be to remove these four words: I think it's published just how they want to word it since they have actually altered it since Pres. Nelson's announcement. It's not the first time a policy was announced and then altered and then softened even more. I noticed you avoid the implications for the Nov policy...
JulieM Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: No. Just easier! Let’s say it’s press time and you don’t have new text yet for the complicated renaming. “Complicated renaming”? There was no “renaming”. It makes no sense that they’d make changes about the Tabernacle Choir reference in the policy and leave in the simple words quoted by ALarson above. Especially with as strongly and forcefully as Pres. Nelson made this a huge issue. This is published on their website for all members to use as a reference or go to for help. But they’d leave inaccurate information there? Doesn’t make sense, imo. I’m glad it’s been softened some but will use the full name where I can still of course. Edited August 28, 2019 by JulieM 1
CV75 Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: In this instance the Church president prefaced his statement announcing a course correction in how we identify the Church with the words “the Lord has impressed upon my mind that ....” To me, it seemed he was referencing one of the ways in which revelation is given, and yes, it did impress me as being an account of an instance of his receiving revelation on the Church’s behalf. And while we’re on the subject, I’ll say I’m bothered by a tendency I see in some of our people to say that unless a prophet says something along the lines of “on this date at such and such a time, the Lord spake unto me in these words and I wrote them down and I presented them to the Twelve to sign off on and so let it be written, so let it be done and so on and so forth” that it cannot be viewed as revelation. I believe that in the course of carrying out their divine callings, prophets are exposed to a constant flow of revelation on matters great and small and we need to be wary about treating lightly the things they say when speaking in their prophetic role. They are, after all, watchmen upon the tower. I see this tendency as a form of blind faith or obedience. In this case, faith that has been blinded by an inordinate need for proof instead of an inordinate need to abdicate agency or responsibility. Or maybe it's just a clever way to meet both needs!
CV75 Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 37 minutes ago, JulieM said: “Complicated renaming”? There was no “renaming”. It makes no sense that they’d make changes about the Tabernacle Choir reference in the policy and leave in the simple words quoted by ALarson above. Especially with as strongly and forcefully as Pres. Nelson made this a huge issue. This is published on their website for all members to use as a reference or go to for help. But they’d leave inaccurate information there? Doesn’t make sense, imo. I’m glad it’s been softened some but will use the full name where I can still of course. That is well and good, but I don't see that the Lord has soften his command ("Thus shall my church be called..."). I don't see where President Nelson has softened his instruction, either, which calls for and allows for patience as the Lord leads individuals and the Church through the task of course correction (per his October 2018 general conference talk on the subject). Note that he uses "soft" words such as "could,' "might" and "do our best" in his counsel anyway! Policy is a practical, administrative guidance for applying the Lord's commands on an organizational level. The scriptures and the words of the prophets convey the Lord's commands on another level entirely. Some seem to yearn to have the policies do the thinking for them. Edited August 28, 2019 by CV75
rockpond Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 2 hours ago, CV75 said: No, I haven't answered my own question. My academic description of what I think you are portraying as the issue with President Nelson is not the practical example I am asking you to provide. You haven't any supporting examples or confirmed (or even fake) precedents, and deflecting the reason for that with facetiousness renders your statement to be of little practical relevance to your assertion. My claim was this: The prophet is fallible and capable of being wrong about an interpretation of inspiration. Which part do you disagree with?
rockpond Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Honest question for you. Does failure to remove the Nov policy from handbook 1 mean the church is silently walking back the reversal or does it mean they just haven’t gotten around to it yet? No. But this is not an equivalent comparison. The sections dealing with the Nov 2015 policy were not altered in this latest revision. Had they been edited but the policy not been changed (per the April news release) I would have questions. The section dealing with the name of the church was altered in this latest revision. As others have pointed out, I find it odd that they would review the section, decide to delete the Mormon Tabernacle Choir reference but fail to delete the Mormons reference unless they wanted it to remain. It's not a long section. But now that it has been highlighted all over social media, I expect it will happen in the next revision.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 2 hours ago, ALarson said: I don't believe they will either....why should they? I have to believe they still want members to use the actual name of the church. They have just softened their approach (or policy) regarding it being acceptable to also use the word "Mormon" as an identity. That's reasonable and I do hope that word gets out so that members will stop feeling guilty if they slip up and use it or correct others who use it. That's not a good attitude or feeling to have about all of this, IMO. Whoah Nellie! Even if we accept that there has actually been a retreat from recent direction and it’s not just an oversight, nothing in that handbook passage as it now stands gives approval to calling it “the Mormon church” or using any term that supplants the name of Christ in the name of the Church. It says it is “acceptable” to refer to members as Mormons. Surely you can see the distinction between those two things, i.e.referring to the Church itself as opposed to referring to members of the Church.
Recommended Posts