President Nelson's Invitation for 2020

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Either you have a testimony or not. Logic is irrelevant. It's about the effects of the belief in your life- either you want them or not.

History doesn't even show that Jesus was who he said. It's about the pragmatic effects of a belief system in your life. Either you want that or not.

Yep.  you have to want it so bad that when you pray about it, or seek God to tell you it's true, you'll definitely without a doubt be told it's true.  That's just how we work.  We tend to favor whatever it is we want.  Once it stops working for you, you learn quickly what made it work is really you just wanting it to work.  

[Raingirl]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yep.  you have to want it so bad that when you pray about it, or seek God to tell you it's true, you'll definitely without a doubt be told it's true.  That's just how we work.  We tend to favor whatever it is we want.  Once it stops working for you, you learn quickly what made it work is really you just wanting it to work.  

That’s not how it’s worked for me. 

I was an Orthodox Jew when someone shared their testimony with me, and invited me to go to Sacrament Meeting, after I was diagnosed with MS. I had zero interest in the Church and was frankly ticked off.  But their approach was vastly different from other Christians who were sure I was going to hell because I was Jewish. 

Long story short, I was totally against the whole idea until, well, until I wasn’t. It’s too difficult and too personal to go into details on a forum such as this. 

[Nacho2dope]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I just cannot get my head around your approach and I am highly skeptical of it. It leaves the door open for humans to pretty much believe what ever and claim some special knowledge without evidence of almost anything. And then act on it. And often those acts can be detrimental to the person and to society as well.

I don't know that there should be evidence for everything. Some we just have to have faith and work it out on our own. I don't think it would be any better if there was evidence for everything. We all just have to figure out what works for us and go with it. My brother left the Church several years ago, he still supports his children and their decision to stay in the Church. He sees the Church differently then they do but they make it work. 

[california boy]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

Joseph didn’t forget that the Father was there.  There are many accounts of building 1 only without mentioning building 2, and vise Versace.  There are many accounts of both buildings.  In fact, it is curious and ironic that you neglected to mention flight 93 and the Pentagon.  Was that not all part of 9/11?  Did you forget?  Did it not really happen?  Or, were you simply focusing on one aspect of the larger picture...much like Joseph did?

Really?  Can you point to someone retelling 9/11 who totally emits the fact that there were two buildings?  I would be extremely interested in the context of the accounts you mentioned.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Nacho2dope said:

I don't know that there should be evidence for everything. Some we just have to have faith and work it out on our own. I don't think it would be any better if there was evidence for everything. We all just have to figure out what works for us and go with it. My brother left the Church several years ago, he still supports his children and their decision to stay in the Church. He sees the Church differently then they do but they make it work. 

But there is evidence.  The accounts of the first vision is part of that evidence.  Claims of the B0M is evidence.  Teachings of Joseph Smith and later prophets is evidence.  People just evaluate that evidence and come up with different conclusions. 

[ksfisher]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

Really?  Can you point to someone retelling 9/11 who totally emits the fact that there were two buildings?  I would be extremely interested in the context of the accounts you mentioned.

There were 3.  You've forgotten the Pentagon. 

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

There were 3.  You've forgotten the Pentagon. 

Maybe not forgotten but he sure didn't mention it, did he.  And what side of the buildings were hit?  How many people were there?  How many were killed?  Including those who were killed on the planes.  He didn't mention any of those details.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Ahab

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Nacho2dope said:

I don't know that there should be evidence for everything. Some we just have to have faith and work it out on our own. I don't think it would be any better if there was evidence for everything. We all just have to figure out what works for us and go with it. My brother left the Church several years ago, he still supports his children and their decision to stay in the Church. He sees the Church differently then they do but they make it work. 

Why is faith such a protected "virtue/"

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

There were 3.  You've forgotten the Pentagon. 

I see your point, but. I don't think not mentioning the Pentagon is the same as not mentioning God the Father when writing a recount of a vision of such magnitude.  Personally. I would be terrified to not include the mentioning of God the Father in recounting such an event.  It is not a detail.  It is the vision.  And if I was making an account of 9/11, not only would I be sure to include all three main events, I would also include the crashing of the 4th plane.  

I can see how the content/emphasis of what was in the vision (repentance of sins, which church to join etc.) could vary.  But not mentioning God the Father?  I find that pretty impossible to emit from any account.

I can also see telling only the first part of a vision.  Say Christ appeared first, and then the Father appeared.  You might tell only the first part of the vision.  But when both appear from the very beginning and one introduces the other, that is, for me, not a detail or an unimportant part of such a vision, it becomes easily the most amazing event in certainly modern human history.  To treat such earthshaking of an event to dismiss that important part of the story would, in my opinion, be blasphemy. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by california boy

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Why is faith such a protected "virtue/"

I'm not sure that it is.  How is someone saying they are sure about something (an expression of faith) protected?  Someone else can come along at any time and say something in contradiction to it.  Or kill that person because he said that.

What kind of protection are you talking about?

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I see your point, but. I don't think not mentioning the Pentagon is the same as not mentioning God the Father when writing a recount of a vision of such magnitude.  Personally. I would be terrified to not include the mentioning of God the Father in recounting such an event.  It is not a detail.  It is the vision.  And if I was making an account of 9/11, not only would I be sure to include all three main events, I would also include the crashing of the 4th plane.  

I can see how the content/emphasis of what was in the vision (repentance of sins, which church to join etc.) could vary.  But not mentioning God the Father?  I find that pretty impossible to emit from any account.

I understand what you're saying, the Pentagon is not the same as God.

However, it does illustrate that how we relate an event may not reflect everything that takes place.  Some thing may take on more importance at certain times of our lives or be dependent on the audience.

What you our I find improbable may not reflect what someone in the past or someone in the future may or not find improbable. 

[Nacho2dope]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why is faith such a protected "virtue/"

I don't know if I understand your question completely. I don't think my faith make me better then anyone else or morally superior then others. I think faith is very personal. I am sure there are some out there that act is if they are better the others because they feel they have more faith. I am not sure what you mean by protected. I personally try to live in a way that strengthens my faith and I guess in that way its protected.  

[pogi]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Really?  Can you point to someone retelling 9/11 who totally emits the fact that there were two buildings?  I would be extremely interested in the context of the accounts you mentioned.

Why are you so surprised?  You yourself completely emitted the two other airplanes from what actually happened on 9/11.  

Most of the stories in this article only mention 1 building, or none at all.

https://www.businessinsider.com/7-incredible-stories-of-heroism-on-911-2015-9#7-a-tour-guide-at-the-pentagon-gave-medical-aid-to-the-injured-outside-then-went-back-in-to-the-building-while-it-was-still-in-flames-7

One thing you are right to be "extremely interested in" is the context of the accounts - something you neglect to consider with the first vision accounts.  That is my point. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by pogi

[california boy]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Why are you so surprised?  You yourself completely emitted the two other airplanes from what actually happened on 9/11.  

Most of the stories in this article only mention 1 building, or none at all.

https://www.businessinsider.com/7-incredible-stories-of-heroism-on-911-2015-9#7-a-tour-guide-at-the-pentagon-gave-medical-aid-to-the-injured-outside-then-went-back-in-to-the-building-while-it-was-still-in-flames-7

One thing you are right to be "extremely interested in" is the context of the accounts - something you neglect to consider with the first vision accounts.  That is my point. 

You do realize that the article you posted mentions Towers, not tower.  Shows pictures of two towers burning.  And refers to the World Trade Center, which was two towers, not one.

That said, I know this is a rabbit hole to go down.  I get that some people are perfectly comfortable with Joseph Smith completely eliminating God the Father from the narrative.  I personally find that extremely problematic.  There are a lot of things people may very well leave out of a narrative of an event that happened.  Leaving out God the Father seems like something I personally would never see myself leaving out.  But then I grew up where lesson after lesson never left out God the Father in retelling the story of the first vision at church.  So maybe my expectations of Him always being in the narrative are pretty high.

 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I understand what you're saying, the Pentagon is not the same as God.

However, it does illustrate that how we relate an event may not reflect everything that takes place.  Some thing may take on more importance at certain times of our lives or be dependent on the audience.

What you our I find improbable may not reflect what someone in the past or someone in the future may or not find improbable. 

Could you explain how leaving out God the Father becomes unimportant to the narrative of the First Vision?  Maybe that will help me understand you point of view better.  

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Ahab said:

I'm not sure that it is.  How is someone saying they are sure about something (an expression of faith) protected?  Someone else can come along at any time and say something in contradiction to it.  Or kill that person because he said that.

What kind of protection are you talking about?

The reason I put protected in quotes is because it was an allusion and not a concrete thing. Essentially what i am trying to say is that it seems to me that it in our US culture that is predominately Judaeo Christian it seems to be a bad thing to criticism the concept of faith. It is highly unlikely that the US would elect and atheist president. More than 50% of Americans have a negative view of Atheists. A minority of American accept evolution as fairly factual scientific theory, 22 percent of Americans believe Jesus will return in the next 50 years and the other 22 percent believe he will return sometime. All these things are because of faith and are believed without evidence. One cannot publicly criticize Islam these days in the USA and it is a faith system that poses a large threat to humanity. 

I could go on but my point is culturally we seem very reluctant to criticize religion and the principle of faith. .People of faith make decisions based on their faith that certainly impact their life and how they live, what they do, what they teach their children and so on. Some of that is beneficial and some it not. Some may be harmful. And in religion faith is paramount and it is because religion simply lacks evidence for all its supernatural and extraordinary claims. Without faith as the bedrock principle of any religion the religion seemingly would crumble.

No please don't misconstrue my comments to mean that I am anti religion. This is just something I have been thinking about for a while and trying to get my head around better. 

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Nacho2dope said:

I don't know if I understand your question completely. I don't think my faith make me better then anyone else or morally superior then others. I think faith is very personal. I am sure there are some out there that act is if they are better the others because they feel they have more faith. I am not sure what you mean by protected. I personally try to live in a way that strengthens my faith and I guess in that way its protected.  

See my comments to Ahab.

[pogi]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

You do realize that the article you posted mentions Towers, not tower.  Shows pictures of two towers burning.  And refers to the World Trade Center, which was two towers, not one.

You do realize that this is a collection of 7 different articles/accounts?  No, they don't all mention "towers" or show pictures, etc. 

10 hours ago, california boy said:

 I get that some people are perfectly comfortable with Joseph Smith completely eliminating God the Father from the narrative.

He didn't leave the Father out of the narrative, in case you haven't noticed.  There are several versions focusing on different contexts and aspects of the vision. God is very clearly there.  Joseph clearly had testified to others of seeing Jesus with the Father even before penning the 1832 account, and God is clearly in the larger narrative in other versions focusing on other aspects.  I have already posted links above for references. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by pogi

[ksfisher]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Could you explain how leaving out God the Father becomes unimportant to the narrative of the First Vision?  Maybe that will help me understand you point of view better.  

I never said that the Father was unimportant.  I said that some things take on more importance depending on the context of the narrative.

You can hindsight anyones narrative of an event to death. 

[Bede]

On 1/16/2020 at 6:29 AM, stemelbow said:

I really dislike the acrimony that arises when it comes to discussing things like religion and politics.  It often causes mistreatment and overly emotive attacks.  

Of course.  I agree.  There are nuggets of goodness.

Yes to the first question, the second?  Not really.  Tried it, failed it.  But it's a happy and not a disappointing failure.  

Couldn't have said it better.  

So if there are nuggets of beauty, poetry, and maybe even spirituality in the Book of Mormon, does it really matter if we know where or when or even if the events actually took place? Can it not be a set of allegories that God wants to use to convey principles to his children? Can we not find value in a community built around the Book of Mormon?

When you said you tried to still be part of the church and failed, what do you mean? I am curious.

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

The reason I put protected in quotes is because it was an allusion and not a concrete thing. Essentially what i am trying to say is that it seems to me that it in our US culture that is predominately Judaeo Christian it seems to be a bad thing to criticism the concept of faith. It is highly unlikely that the US would elect and atheist president. More than 50% of Americans have a negative view of Atheists. A minority of American accept evolution as fairly factual scientific theory, 22 percent of Americans believe Jesus will return in the next 50 years and the other 22 percent believe he will return sometime. All these things are because of faith and are believed without evidence. One cannot publicly criticize Islam these days in the USA and it is a faith system that poses a large threat to humanity. 

I could go on but my point is culturally we seem very reluctant to criticize religion and the principle of faith. .People of faith make decisions based on their faith that certainly impact their life and how they live, what they do, what they teach their children and so on. Some of that is beneficial and some it not. Some may be harmful. And in religion faith is paramount and it is because religion simply lacks evidence for all its supernatural and extraordinary claims. Without faith as the bedrock principle of any religion the religion seemingly would crumble.

No please don't misconstrue my comments to mean that I am anti religion. This is just something I have been thinking about for a while and trying to get my head around better. 

I realize that people are different and have different ideas, but there are a lot of things people have in common and the following is a list of what I think is going on here in various mindsets:

1) They like to see people with the same values they have

2) They may be able to tolerate people who don't value the same things they value but they still like to see people value the same values they value

3) Since they value the principle of having faith in something, whether its religion or football or whatever, they don't value the principle of not having faith in anything

4) They don't like to feel like they are being criticized.

5) They don't like to feel like they are being criticized by people who don't value the principle of having faith in something

Probably some other things that are going on here but those are a few that I could think of in about a minute or so.

[Bede]

On 1/16/2020 at 9:19 AM, Tacenda said:

I'm not stem, but just wanted to answer, if you don't mind. I was thinking the other day of returning to church because I miss the friendships made and the service done. It would be nice if what you describe could be real though. The church asks for more than that from it's members, IMO. Or they want you to work on attaining the testimony of more than what you describe here. But if it were okay for members to just have that, I think the church will be on the uphill and retain members through that avenue. Because the church has a problem of retaining members now, and the numbers are stagnant from recent reports. 

Why can't it be real? I am certain that in any given ward there are a variety of personal beliefs, from the hardliners to the very progressive. I think the tent is wide in most wards and stakes, and where it isn't we as individuals should work to make it so. To the best of my knowledge, all the church asks is that you don't actively campaign against it. It says nothing about particular beliefs of Book of Mormon geography; in fact, it says very little about particular beliefs in general. The majority of teachings are about loving one another, family, service, and the most important thing of all, the atonement. 

In any case, I personally believe it can be real, and I operate as if it is. And where it isn't, I am willing to stay and work to make it so.

[Nacho2dope]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

The reason I put protected in quotes is because it was an allusion and not a concrete thing. Essentially what i am trying to say is that it seems to me that it in our US culture that is predominately Judaeo Christian it seems to be a bad thing to criticism the concept of faith. It is highly unlikely that the US would elect and atheist president. More than 50% of Americans have a negative view of Atheists. A minority of American accept evolution as fairly factual scientific theory, 22 percent of Americans believe Jesus will return in the next 50 years and the other 22 percent believe he will return sometime. All these things are because of faith and are believed without evidence. One cannot publicly criticize Islam these days in the USA and it is a faith system that poses a large threat to humanity. 

I could go on but my point is culturally we seem very reluctant to criticize religion and the principle of faith. .People of faith make decisions based on their faith that certainly impact their life and how they live, what they do, what they teach their children and so on. Some of that is beneficial and some it not. Some may be harmful. And in religion faith is paramount and it is because religion simply lacks evidence for all its supernatural and extraordinary claims. Without faith as the bedrock principle of any religion the religion seemingly would crumble.

No please don't misconstrue my comments to mean that I am anti religion. This is just something I have been thinking about for a while and trying to get my head around better. 

A persons faith is there faith. My wife and I moved to a different state for my job, based on faith. We had prayed for months and during this time an opportunity presented itself and based on our faith we took the job and some research on the new company. I have several other coworkers who moved from other states to work for this company who did not due it based on faith because they are not religious. Every decision anyone make based in faith or not will impact their life and the life of others. Those who took the job her not based off of faith had to believe somehow it was the right decision. They had to believe that this company would be successful. So you may be correct that without faith a religion would crumble, without some kind of belief, hope, or whatever you call in then society would crumble. I cant imagine an Atheist taking a job just because it was offered and not at some level hoping or believing that company  will be successful. This is just my opinion and I could be way off base. Thanks  

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Nacho2dope said:

A persons faith is there faith. My wife and I moved to a different state for my job, based on faith. We had prayed for months and during this time an opportunity presented itself and based on our faith we took the job and some research on the new company. I have several other coworkers who moved from other states to work for this company who did not due it based on faith because they are not religious. Every decision anyone make based in faith or not will impact their life and the life of others. Those who took the job her not based off of faith had to believe somehow it was the right decision. They had to believe that this company would be successful. So you may be correct that without faith a religion would crumble, without some kind of belief, hope, or whatever you call in then society would crumble. I cant imagine an Atheist taking a job just because it was offered and not at some level hoping or believing that company  will be successful. This is just my opinion and I could be way off base. Thanks  

I had a very lengthy post that I did about faith and other reasons why I find faith and the way culture treats it as problematic. It took me sometime to draft. But when I posted it the site here went down and I lost it. Maybe that was fate or something else.  Don't have time to redo the post now.  But quickly i am talking about faith is a different way. Let's take faith of Christians, and say EV Christians or Latter day Saints. It is amazing to me that so many of both of those groups support one of the most amoral presidents we have ever had. And why do they do it?  Because based on their evidence lacking faith they think God brought this man to power to do things for our country that they, because of faith, think that is what God wants. This is a great example of why faith can be bad and dangerous and should be criticized and even scorned.

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This is a great example of why faith can be bad and dangerous and should be criticized and even scorned.

Faith should be scorned?

So if I give an example of how science and a "reasoned approach" has led to bad and even dangerous outcomes, should this be used to criticize and "scorn" that approach?

Because people can use good tools (faith or science/technology) in bad ways, doesn't make the tool bad.  

So much for the much heralded tolerance!

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by pogi