Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

General Conference

rodheadlee

By rodheadlee
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

JAHS Grand Master

JAHS

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Sure I have.

The Lord told Moses no one could see Him and live, yet he and the elders ate and drank with "the Lord." The latter was Yeshua. The former was the Father. Which would scripture mandate was talking to the brother of Jared? Obviously, Yeshua as YHWH Elohim. Scripture we have received through Joseph Smith himself shows this distinction. May I suggest you study up on it? The Father has never just physically appeared to a sinning boy who holds no priesthood, and cannot have been quickened. Joseph himself calls it a vision because that is exactly what it was. The Church needs to drop its inaccurate and conflicting narrative. I believe it causes problems for investigators. I wonder why this narrative only seems to bother me? Is there no one else in the Church which felt chords of dissonance being plucked on this issue as they grew up in the gospel? I am not saying there are no others. I am sure there are others who feel similarly... maybe for instance jhlprof.

In the scripture (D & C 84:21-23),

"21. And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22. For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live. 
23. Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;"

This scripture is actually repeating something that Moses said while trying to get his people, who did have access to the priesthood and ordinances, to become sanctified so they could 'behold the face of God" (See verse 23).

Also, the Lord made it a requirement, at the time he gave the D&C 84 revelation, that a man must hold the priesthood and have received its ordinances in order to see God. The Lord said: "this revelation...is in force from this very hour upon all the world..."(D&C 84:75).
This would mean that prior to this revelation, neither the priesthood nor its ordinances were necessary for a man to see the face of God and live. When Joseph Smith went into the grove to pray, he had not been ordained to the priesthood by someone on the earth, neither had he received any of the ordinances. When the two personages appeared they forgave him of his sins, making it possible for Joseph to see the face of God and live.

In 1966 Joseph Fielding Smith had this to say:

"If you will look at the date of this revelation, you will discover that it was given in September 1832, which was two years after the organization of the Church and several years after the appearance of the Father and the Son to the Prophet Joseph Smith. Therefore, permit me to emphasize this fact: There is no law or commandment which declares that the Father could not appear to a man in person when the Holy Priesthood was not among men on the earth. In this day when the divine authority is here and men are appointed to officiate in its ordinances, there is no occasion for the Father to come to any man who has no divine authority. At a time when the priesthood is conferred, and there are authorized servants who bear divine authority, there could hardly arise a time when the Father and the Son should have occasion to appear to any man who was without that authority." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1966) Vol. 5., pp. 84-85.)

There are also other scriptural passages which indicate a person must have qualities other than the priesthood to see God. The Doctrine & Covenants states: "No man hath seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" (D&C 67: 11).  After all is said and done, we find several aspects to the subject of seeing God. No doubt today men must hold the priesthood to see God, but prior to the restoration of the Priesthood, this was not necessarily so. At the time of the First Vision, what was required to see God was humility, faith, and the spirit of God.

1
Bernard Gui Grand Master

Bernard Gui

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I was able to connect. 

admittedly I’m distracted by all the nose wiping and podium touching, mic sharing and facial touching. 😕  stay safe leaders! 

 

I reckon there are very competent medical folks on site keeping a sharp eye on things.

Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I heard correctly, yes? Brad Wilcox as 2nd Counselor in the General Young Men Presidency?

yes and Matthew Holland as a new GA, but we don't believe in nepotism, no, no🤔 you wonder with all these relations if these guys can get jobs on their own with help from Dad

1
Stargazer Grand Master

Stargazer

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yes and Matthew Holland as a new GA, but we don't believe in nepotism, no, no🤔 you wonder with all these relations if these guys can get jobs on their own with help from Dad

Who said we don't believe in nepotism?

It's not in the Articles of Faith. I know, I've looked.

Yes, haha and all that, but don't you think Elder Holland couldn't raise righteous children who were qualified by the Lord? Must we disqualify from service someone who is capable merely because he or she is related to someone who has been called as an authority?  In fairness, it doesn't happen all that often. I think it might look suspicious if it were a common occurrence, but it's not. 

Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

Who said we don't believe in nepotism?

It's not in the Articles of Faith. I know, I've looked.

Yes, haha and all that, but don't you think Elder Holland couldn't raise righteous children who were qualified by the Lord? Must we disqualify from service someone who is capable merely because he or she is related to someone who has been called as an authority?  In fairness, it doesn't happen all that often. I think it might look suspicious if it were a common occurrence, but it's not. 

it happens, just not as blatant anymore as it used to be. I know Pres. Hinckley said he was sensitive to nepotism even though two of his kids were general Church Leaders. I would believe someone like Pres. Kimball, Benson who's kids didn't serve on the general level.

The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yes and Matthew Holland as a new GA, but we don't believe in nepotism, no, no🤔 you wonder with all these relations if these guys can get jobs on their own with help from Dad

Yep, he sure sounds like a jobless layabout that dad just wants out of the spare room:

Quote

Holland was selected as UVU's sixth president by the Utah State Board of Regents in the spring of 2009 and officially began his tenure on June 1 of that year, succeeding interim president Elizabeth Hitch. Following the transition from a state college to a university in the summer of 2008, Holland became the first president of the university. Prior to joining UVU, Holland was an associate professor in the political science department at Brigham Young University (BYU) in Provo. Holland was valedictorian of BYU's political science department when he completed undergraduate work there in 1991. He studied early American political thought at Duke University in Durham, N.C. where he earned a Ph.D. in political science in 2000. Holland also received an academic fellowship to study at Princeton University as a James Madison Fellow, and at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem as a Raoul Wallenberg Scholar.

Building on his dissertation, Holland published Bonds of Affection: Civic Charity and the Making of America with Georgetown University Press in 2007.

As a professional, Holland was a special assistant to former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt, and he was chief of staff for the top executive of the international consulting firm Monitor Group. As a faculty member at BYU, his emphasis on applied learning concepts led to his selection as the institution’s “Civically Engaged Scholar of the Year” by Utah Campus Compact. Previous to service at UVU, Holland was on the board of the National Organization for Marriage, which is a political organization which opposes same-sex marriage.

Holland is a member of the American Political Science Association and the American Historical Association. He also serves on boards, including the Deseret News Editorial Advisory Board, Utah Technology Council and the Salt Lake Chamber. Holland received the NESA Outstanding Eagle Scout Award through the Utah National Parks Council of BSA in 2011.

On November 6, 2017, Holland announced that he would leave his position at UVU in June 2018 to serve as a mission president for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). He was subsequently assigned to the church's North Carolina Raleigh Mission. In April 2018 it was announced that Astrid S. Tuminez would succeed Holland as president. On April 4, 2020 he was sustained as a General Authority for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Edited by The Nehor
4
  • Popular Post
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yes and Matthew Holland as a new GA, but we don't believe in nepotism, no, no🤔 you wonder with all these relations if these guys can get jobs on their own with help from Dad

Christ got his job because of who his dad was, worked out well there. 

Edited by Calm
6
Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yep, he sure sounds like a jobless layabout that dad just wants out of the spare room:

 

in other words he was an associate prof who miraculously got his University Pres. Job, how????? How many associate profs. do you know that that happens to? then he somehow became a Mission President? and now a GA? It seems like his dad is pulling strings

Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Christ got his job because of who his dad was, worked out well there. 

didn't he volunteer?

teddyaware Grand Master

teddyaware

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Sure I have.

The Lord told Moses no one could see Him and live, yet he and the elders ate and drank with "the Lord." The latter was Yeshua. The former was the Father. Which would scripture mandate was talking to the brother of Jared? Obviously, Yeshua as YHWH Elohim. Scripture we have received through Joseph Smith himself shows this distinction. May I suggest you study up on it? The Father has never just physically appeared to a sinning boy who holds no priesthood, and cannot have been quickened. Joseph himself calls it a vision because that is exactly what it was. The Church needs to drop its inaccurate and conflicting narrative. I believe it causes problems for investigators. I wonder why this narrative only seems to bother me? Is there no one else in the Church which felt chords of dissonance being plucked on this issue as they grew up in the gospel? I am not saying there are no others. I am sure there are others who feel similarly... maybe for instance JLHPROF

You’re unwittingly making God out to be a liar. In Joseph Smith’s canonized account of the vision one of the two Personages points to the other and says, “This is my beloved Son, hear him.” Either the second personage really was the literal Son of the First Personage or the First Personage (or whatever ‘he’ or it  was) was misrepresenting the truth, something that God, by very nature, cannot do.

A question: If Joseph Smith wasn’t actually conversing with the literal Son of God and if it wasn’t the literal Son of God’s Father who introduced his Son, then to whom or what was Joseph conversing?

10 And he (the brother of Jared) answered: Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me.

11 And the Lord said unto him: believest thou the words which I shall speak?

12 And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie. (Ether 3) 

 

 

 

 

Edited by teddyaware
Jeanne Grand Master

Jeanne

Posted
Posted

That was a beautiful and yet heartbreaking story of grandfather and grandson 

1
Raingirl Veteran

Raingirl

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

yes and Matthew Holland as a new GA, but we don't believe in nepotism, no, no🤔 you wonder with all these relations if these guys can get jobs on their own with help from Dad

They are not jobs, they are callings.  I guess you believe there is no inspiration involved in callings. 

Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

They are not jobs, they are callings.  I guess you believe there is no inspiration involved in callings. 

Does God inspire nepotism? I hope not. He was born in 1966 so he'll be around for awhile yet. I have seen inspiration in callings and I have seen not that

ksfisher Grand Master

ksfisher

Posted
Posted
Just now, Duncan said:

Does God inspire nepotism? I hope not. He was born in 1966 so he'll be around for awhile yet. I have seen inspiration in callings and I have seen not that

So it's sounding like you voted no on his sustaining.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...