General Conference

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Wrong.  This is the definition of politically correct (per Merriam-Webster):

conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

Not wrong. 
 

Perceived “history of usage” leads some  to take offense driven by their own “political sensibilities” and to desire to control the public narrative by demanding that certain “language and practices” be eliminated. That’s political correctness. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

If I am wrong, I would be very interested to hear how you think meaning is created.

I didn’t say you are wrong. I said what you described is the essence of political correctness. You did a good job of putting a positive spin on it, but it’s political correctness, notwithstanding. 
 

But I’m bowing out of this exchange with you and rockpond, because I can see a thread derailment developing here that I prefer not to be a part of. I think you’ve both had your say, and neither of you is likely to change my mind. 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t say you are wrong. I said what you described is the essence of political correctness. You did a good job of putting a positive spin on it, but it’s political correctness, notwithstanding. 

You have left me mystified if you are saying I am right about how meaning is created, but it is also the same thing as political correctness.

Maybe I need more sleep, but it isn't making sense to me.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Chances are given historical usage the mob would have happily claimed the title for themselves:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism

Perhaps what I wrote was not recognized as sarcasm.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hmm. Kind of like it being politically incorrect to say “same-sex attraction” but politically correct to say “attraction to the same sex.”

Exactly what I thought. But of course now I have been schooled to say the word "person" in front of it all and which makes it okay.

So you still messed up.

It would have to be "person who is attracted to the same sex". Actually make that "gender".  Actually make that -

.....I don't know. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not wrong. 
 

Perceived “history of usage” leads some  to take offense driven by their own “political sensibilities” and to desire to control the public narrative by demanding that certain “language and practices” be eliminated. That’s political correctness. 

History of usage may be a factor in what is causing the offense to someone's political sensibilities.  But history of usage, as Calm pointed out, is how words come to mean what they mean.  History of usage, by definition, is not the "essence of political correctness" as you incorrectly claim.

 

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Is it more important how kind it is or how true it is?

That is a false dichotomy/binary question. Biblically speaking, both kindness and truth are important. You might as well ask, which is more important, faith or works? The only correct answer is both! Kindness needs tempered with truth. Truth as any individual or group understands it needs tempered with both humility and kindness.

The New Testament word most often translated as truth comes from the word aletheia. It is in turn made up of a which usually negates what follows and lanthano which means hidden or secret.  So, truth means not hidden or secret. It is used of someone who is honest with no guile. It refers to how things really are since they aren’t hidden or secret.  How do we today approach what we believe is true or truth? I would suggest we do that with self-realization, humility, and pragmatism.

Self-realization is important because we must recognize there is a difference between my truth and thee truth and not confuse the two. My profound truth is not negated by yours.

My wife is the most beautiful woman in the world!

Thompson is the best brand of water-seal paint!

I just read a poll and The Eagles are the best rock band ever!

Mexico is the very best country that one can live in!

How many of these are truths? Well in Navidad’s mind, they all are! Based on all that I know and all of my experience, they each represent the truth. But, what about those who think otherwise? Are they wrong, deluded, foolish, silly? Are they less than for thinking their wife is the most beautiful woman in the world or that Germany is the best country that one can live in? How can they be so wrong? No, in this sense there is no “thee truth” regardless of opinion, polling, genuineness, or sincerity. This is a lived truth. It is not thee truth. Most of the truth as we know it is lived truth.

Humility is important because we must realize that when others have truths that differ from our own, they are not failed attempts at being us. Truth is wrapped up in beliefs, faith, meaning, and experience. Therefore, being certain about our truth belies the very core concept of truth as something that is lived. What we can say with certainty is “for me this is my truth.” But when our peer or friend demurs, we must respond with humility knowing that like pride and arrogance, certainty can be a sin. See the book by Peter Enns, The Sin of Certainty – It is the best book! That is my truth!

Pragmatism is important because we must acknowledge no matter how fervently we claim truth, it is always subject to the practical reality that our most certain truths are those that are most useful for us to believe, that are the result of inquiry, that have withstood ongoing examination, that meet a standard of warranted assertibility (they can be proved). William James and others put these forward as determinants of truth and they are expressed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In this sense truth and facts are similar constructs.

Then there is the idea that “I know it is true. I just know it. God told me. I prayed about it, and so on.” I know it is thee truth. Perhaps this is the type of truth about which we need to be most humble, most pragmatic, and most self-realized. If God has told me and no one else, I must be humble about it. If God has told me and my group, but hasn’t told 99.4% of the rest of Christianity, maybe that calls for some humility in our collective certainty. Religions are replete with these revealed truths. I may say with great certainty that I believe the scriptures are composed of the 66 books of the Bible and are true! My Catholic friend asserts with great certainty that the scriptures are composed of the 73 books of the Bible and are true. My LDS friend asserts with great certainty that the scriptures are composed of the KJV Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, the revelations of the modern prophets, and general conference talks! Oh, and they are all true.  My Jewish friends recognize the Talmud and the Torah as sacred texts. And so on . . . So which group has thee truth? The answer must be provided with humility, pragmatism, self-realization, and kindness.  Boy, is this hard!

Many spiritual truths are beliefs. They are faithed. I like that my British friends use faith as a verb. That helps a lot. The truth is that, in this world the truth is not often aletheia. It is letheia -hidden. Much truth is hidden from us. It is behind the veil not to be known until we literally pass through. The Christian Science Monitor tells us, “For something to be known, it really has to be true. You can't know - correctly - that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth, although for centuries people thought they knew those fallacies to be accurate. They didn't know; they believed.” Their beliefs did not represent truth.

Yet, Christ has told us in John 8:32 that “and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” So what is this truth that we can “know” and be “set free” by? This truth is thee truth – the person and work of Jesus Christ. A few verses later in John 8 Jesus said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. . . ³⁶ If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Christ is thee truth incarnate. Christ, the truth, the Aletheia, the Son, makes us free from sin through his atonement. That is something that all of Christianity agrees on. It is thee one universal truth of Christianity.

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Navidad

[Prof]

On a different note wasn't it great that they played Come thou font of every blessing!!! Great song for the occasion!

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Prof said:

On a different note wasn't it great that they played Come thou font of every blessing!!! Great song for the occasion!

I love hearing the Tabernacle Choir sing Come thou Font.  I'm hoping it's a sign that it'll be in the new hymnbook.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps what I wrote was not recognized as sarcasm.

No, it was.  I was just pointing out there are those who would embrace the label even if others view it for some reason as inherently insulting (which implies to me it is not inherent).

Edited April 9, 2020 by Calm

[Prof]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I love hearing the Tabernacle Choir sing Come thou Font.  I'm hoping it's a sign that it'll be in the new hymnbook.  

YouTube has a great version of the choir singing it!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Their beliefs did not represent truth.

Great post, thanks!

But I of course would argue that beliefs cannot "represent" truth, but that the use of the word "true" in such situations might be justifiable.  Or not. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

History of usage may be a factor in what is causing the offense to someone's political sensibilities.  But history of usage, as Calm pointed out, is how words come to mean what they mean.  History of usage, by definition, is not the "essence of political correctness" as you incorrectly claim.

 

It doesn’t always cause the kind of over-sensitivity that results in political correctness, but when political correctness rears its ugly head, history of usage gets the blame. 
 

So no, my claim is not incorrect. 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

I love hearing the Tabernacle Choir sing Come thou Font.  I'm hoping it's a sign that it'll be in the new hymnbook.  

It’s not all that unusual an occurrence. It has been performed often since Mack Wilberg created a new arrangement for it years ago, the one that sparked its renewed popularity after it was left out of the old hymn book  because it had been sung so infrequently. 
 

I don’t doubt it will be reinstated in the new hymn book, but I don’t know that it’s performance at this conference is necessarily a sign of that. It has been a popular selection from the choir’s repertoire for years. 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Prof said:

YouTube has a great version of the choir singing it!

The choir really only has one version of it, the arrangement by Mack Wilberg as performed at the conference. 

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

That is a false dichotomy/binary question. Biblically speaking, both kindness and truth are important. You might as well ask, which is more important, faith or works? The only correct answer is both! Kindness needs tempered with truth. Truth as any individual or group understands it needs tempered with both humility and kindness.

The New Testament word most often translated as truth comes from the word aletheia. It is in turn made up of a which usually negates what follows and lanthano which means hidden or secret.  So, truth means not hidden or secret. It is used of someone who is honest with no guile. It refers to how things really are since they aren’t hidden or secret.  How do we today approach what we believe is true or truth? I would suggest we do that with self-realization, humility, and pragmatism.

Self-realization is important because we must recognize there is a difference between my truth and thee truth and not confuse the two. My profound truth is not negated by yours.

My wife is the most beautiful woman in the world!

Thompson is the best brand of water-seal paint!

I just read a poll and The Eagles are the best rock band ever!

Mexico is the very best country that one can live in!

How many of these are truths? Well in Navidad’s mind, they all are! Based on all that I know and all of my experience, they each represent the truth. But, what about those who think otherwise? Are they wrong, deluded, foolish, silly? Are they less than for thinking their wife is the most beautiful woman in the world or that Germany is the best country that one can live in? How can they be so wrong? No, in this sense there is no “thee truth” regardless of opinion, polling, genuineness, or sincerity. This is a lived truth. It is not thee truth. Most of the truth as we know it is lived truth.

Humility is important because we must realize that when others have truths that differ from our own, they are not failed attempts at being us. Truth is wrapped up in beliefs, faith, meaning, and experience. Therefore, being certain about our truth belies the very core concept of truth as something that is lived. What we can say with certainty is “for me this is my truth.” But when our peer or friend demurs, we must respond with humility knowing that like pride and arrogance, certainty can be a sin. See the book by Peter Enns, The Sin of Certainty – It is the best book! That is my truth!

Pragmatism is important because we must acknowledge no matter how fervently we claim truth, it is always subject to the practical reality that our most certain truths are those that are most useful for us to believe, that are the result of inquiry, that have withstood ongoing examination, that meet a standard of warranted assertibility (they can be proved). William James and others put these forward as determinants of truth and they are expressed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In this sense truth and facts are similar constructs.

Then there is the idea that “I know it is true. I just know it. God told me. I prayed about it, and so on.” I know it is thee truth. Perhaps this is the type of truth about which we need to be most humble, most pragmatic, and most self-realized. If God has told me and no one else, I must be humble about it. If God has told me and my group, but hasn’t told 99.4% of the rest of Christianity, maybe that calls for some humility in our collective certainty. Religions are replete with these revealed truths. I may say with great certainty that I believe the scriptures are composed of the 66 books of the Bible and are true! My Catholic friend asserts with great certainty that the scriptures are composed of the 73 books of the Bible and are true. My LDS friend asserts with great certainty that the scriptures are composed of the KJV Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, the revelations of the modern prophets, and general conference talks! Oh, and they are all true.  My Jewish friends recognize the Talmud and the Torah as sacred texts. And so on . . . So which group has thee truth? The answer must be provided with humility, pragmatism, self-realization, and kindness.  Boy, is this hard!

Many spiritual truths are beliefs. They are faithed. I like that my British friends use faith as a verb. That helps a lot. The truth is that, in this world the truth is not often aletheia. It is letheia -hidden. Much truth is hidden from us. It is behind the veil not to be known until we literally pass through. The Christian Science Monitor tells us, “For something to be known, it really has to be true. You can't know - correctly - that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth, although for centuries people thought they knew those fallacies to be accurate. They didn't know; they believed.” Their beliefs did not represent truth.

Yet, Christ has told us in John 8:32 that “and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” So what is this truth that we can “know” and be “set free” by? This truth is thee truth – the person and work of Jesus Christ. A few verses later in John 8 Jesus said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. . . ³⁶ If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Christ is thee truth incarnate. Christ, the truth, the Aletheia, the Son, makes us free from sin through his atonement. That is something that all of Christianity agrees on. It is thee one universal truth of Christianity.

 

Is it a false dichotomy? When Jesus the source of all truth taught a woman at the well:

19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Saying the Jews were right (for now) and the Samaritans wrong. Was it kind to say her religion was flawed? Was it true?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It doesn’t always cause the kind of over-sensitivity that results in political correctness, but when political correctness rears its ugly head, history of usage gets the blame. 
 

So no, my claim is not incorrect. 

So history of usage is how words get their meaning, thus history would be a natural part of any discussion of meaning.  But by your scenario, it seems you are claiming that such discussion automatically proves presence of political correctness when there is political correctness present.

That comes across like a claim a coverup is proven to exist by the lack of evidence since coverups hide evidence.  While often true coverups attempt to destroy evidence, such reasoning allows the label of coverup to be applied to almost anything.

If this is not your reasoning, I would like to be corrected.  Don't want to misunderstand.

Since the only way to disprove political correctedness would seem to be a discussion of history of usage, this gets into Catch 22 territory.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly what I thought. But of course now I have been schooled to say the word "person" in front of it all and which makes it okay.

So you still messed up.

It would have to be "person who is attracted to the same sex". Actually make that "gender".  Actually make that -

.....I don't know. 

Oh, for crying out loud.  I don't give a damn.  If you want to be politically incorrect, be politically incorrect.  I don't care.  Again, you were corresponding with someone whose detractors used to hurl the derisive sobriquet "Crippled Kenny" at him.  That's about as politically incorrect as one can get.  Hell, if you want to call me that, call me that.  I don't care.  Again:

I am not an activist.

Again:

My first instinct isn't umbrage taking.

Still, both of those things having been said, I can see the point of those who prefer person-first, person-centered language because:

Nobody is his or her characteristics.  S/he is a PERSON with those characteristics

You heard it from me, and I'm not unsympathetic to the point you were making.  I GET it.

You're too smart to play stupid, as though the point I made in response is beyond you.  We have been corresponding for far too long for me to ever believe that about you.  But if you want to play stupid, play stupid. 

I ...

don't ...

care!

[Pretend I did this all the way across the page instead of giving up because I got tired of it.]

Edited April 9, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

So history of usage is how words get their meaning, thus history would be a natural part of any discussion of meaning.  But by your scenario, it seems you are claiming that such discussion automatically proves presence of political correctness when there is political correctness present.

That comes across like a claim a coverup is proven to exist by the lack of evidence since coverups hide evidence.  While often true coverups attempt to destroy evidence, such reasoning allows the label of coverup to be applied to almost anything.

If this is not your reasoning, I would like to be corrected.  Don't want to misunderstand.

Since the only way to disprove political correctedness would seem to be a discussion of history of usage, this gets into Catch 22 territory.

In spite of my expressed intention I got drawn back into this thread derailment by a rejoinder from rockpond that really didn’t add anything new to the discussion, but I really do intend now to make good on my earlier vow. I repeat: You both have had your say, but neither of you have changed my mind and, at this point, I don’t think you will. So I’ll leave it there. 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In spite of my expressed intention I got drawn back into this thread derailment by a rejoinder from rockpond that really didn’t add anything new to the discussion, but I really do intend now to make good on my earlier vow. I repeat: You both have had your say, but neither of you have changed my mind and, at this point, I don’t think you will. So I’ll leave it there. 

Sounds good.  I was going to reply back to you but Calm's response made the point I was trying to get at (and more eloquently than I would have said it).

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Is it a false dichotomy? When Jesus the source of all truth taught a woman at the well:

19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Saying the Jews were right (for now) and the Samaritans wrong. Was it kind to say her religion was flawed? Was it true?

Good morning from Chihuahua. You have chosen a wonderful passage to make your point. As might be expected, I interpret it a bit differently from you. A quick perspective:

This is the longest conversation in the New Testament between Christ and a woman. It is extremely important as Christ probably reveals more of himself to this Samaritan woman that he had to anyone else up to this point: Jew, Gentile or Samaritan.  That is not an unimportant point. They meet, he talks to her (unusual in and of itself) and asks for water. Yes, he was thirsty, but he also wanted to minister to her and give her the water that would quench her thirst forever. He asks her a question that gets to the heart of her need, about her husband. Uh oh! She responds in the typical manner; she tries to change the subject. To this day, that happens all the time!

She tries to distract Christ by getting into a religious debate. Again, this happens all the time in our discussions, even here on the forum. He doesn’t bite. He never answers which worship place is right. He simply tells her that salvation comes from the Jews. No debate about the Samaritans failure to follow the prophetic literature of the OT, thus they were not aware of the truth of the Messiah coming from the Jews. No mention of their worship of idols on the mountain. No castigation at all. In fact, he shifted the conversation quickly in two ways. He told her point blank the truth – that salvation in the person of himself, the Messiah comes from Judaism. The Greek preposition used here is “ek.” It means from, not of. He is pointing to the source of himself and quickly then moves on.

Christ’s intent was not to debate. His intent was to convert the lady and perhaps through her, other Samaritans to be followers. You noted only a few verses of the conversation. You left out the meat of it. He quickly, within one verse tells her that true worship from that time forward would be in spirit and in truth. That could happen anywhere – in the temple or on the mountain or anywhere. The mountain versus temple debate was irrelevant. So Christ’s intent was not to straighten her out about Samaritans or Jews, mountain or temple. It was to show her that true worship, the living water from which she would never again thirst came in the form of worship in spirit and truth. Christ didn’t play her game. He was a Jew. The prophetic literature of the OT, which the Samaritans rejected as canonical taught that the Messiah would come from the Jews. Christ was the Messiah. Christ was a Jew. Ergo salvation came from the Jews. He merely stated the fact. He didn’t say she was wrong. He didn’t point out anything of the sort. In fact, in her desire to quickly change the subject she simply brought up a doctrinal debate issue. Christ did not bite. He never said the Jews were "right." The debate about the mountain was irrelevant to Christ’s purpose. Verse 23 and 24 are the keys to understanding the entire conversation. You ended your quote a few verses too soon to try and make a point that somebody was right and somebody was wrong! The truth in the passage is found in the living water, not in the temple versus mountain debate.  

Perhaps the greatest significance for this forum is to understand the anger and rancor sometimes bordering on hatred that existed on both sides between the Jews and the Samaritans. I would hesitantly compare it to the rancor between the LDS Christian and the non-LDS Christian. Many of the debates are the same – this mountain or that one? This baptism or that one? This priesthood or that one? And on and on. If Christ were to post on this forum, I think he would not bite. I think he would scold both and remind us to consider him as the true object of worship that is only correctly done when it is done in spirit and in truth.

Yes, Christ quickly and in a few words indicated that salvation came from the Jews in the form of his person. But time and again when he was in the presence of those very same Jews, he was not so positive about them. He excoriated them more directly than he did the Samaritan woman or the Samaritan people in this passage. Oh, and if you read farther, you will find out that Christ’s was the correct response – Many of the Samaritans, according to verses 39-41 responded by following Him. In fact, He changed plans and stayed with them (sleeping in a Samaritan village! Horrors!) and taught them. After two days of teaching and making them his disciples he had accomplished his purpose in speaking with the woman. Salvation may have come from the Jews, but it went to the Samaritans, and most likely from them via an imperfect Samaritan woman who both offered and took water from the Master.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Navidad

[Navidad]

I would appreciate any clarification because I have received conflicting answers from my LDS friends on this subject. Are General Conference talks considered to be Scripture on a par with the four better-known LDS Scriptures? If so, when did that start and if so, are they Scripture as soon as they are presented, when transcribed and published in the official record of the Conference, or ????? Thanks so much.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would appreciate any clarification because I have received conflicting answers from my LDS friends on this subject. Are General Conference talks considered to be Scripture on a par with the four better-known LDS Scriptures? If so, when did that start and if so, are they Scripture as soon as they are presented, when transcribed and published in the official record of the Conference, or ????? Thanks so much.

You're likely to get conflicting answers here as well.  I'd recommend reading this gospel topic entry from the church website titled "Scriptures".

Here is the opening paragraph:

"When holy men of God write or speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, their words “shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” (Doctrine and Covenants 68:4). The official, canonized scriptures of the Church, often called the standard works, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price."

From Section 68:

Quote

2 And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.

Using this standard, I think general conference messages are often considered scripture.  But there are three qualifiers:

1. Ordained to the priesthood.  (All the men who speak in GC are ordained to the priesthood.)
2. Appointed mission. (All who speak in conference have been appointed to do so.)
3. Moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

#3 is particularly difficult to know.  So I think it is tough for any individual to claim that all talks given in General Conference are scripture.

It's tough to conclude that every talk uttered in General Conference is scripture, as it is given, since a number of them were changed when published in written (and also video) form.

Edited April 10, 2020 by rockpond

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would appreciate any clarification because I have received conflicting answers from my LDS friends on this subject. Are General Conference talks considered to be Scripture on a par with the four better-known LDS Scriptures? If so, when did that start and if so, are they Scripture as soon as they are presented, when transcribed and published in the official record of the Conference, or ????? Thanks so much.

Lol. Yes and no.  It depends on who you talk to. And some who consider them to be scripture will say some of it is and others that it all is. That's why you are getting conflicting info.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Rain

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Lol. Yes and no.  It depends on who you talk to. And some who consider them to be scripture will say some of it is and others that it all is. That's why you are getting conflicting info.

Thanks so much. That settles it!!! 🙃