Jump to content

April 2021 Conference Predictions/Rumors


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Given the appreciative laughter that followed her lightning response, I’m confident the audience understood well what she meant. 

What she meant that she did not say.  That's a neat trick.  Or maybe everyone just thought it was funny that she said she didn't have a thing to say after her husband asked her if she had anything to say.  For whatever reason they thought that was funny.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What she meant that she did not say.  That's a neat trick.  Or maybe everyone just thought it was funny that she said she didn't have a thing to say after her husband asked her if she had anything to say.  For whatever reason they thought that was funny.

Sometimes in the context of an event, a meaning can be quite clear without having to be explicitly articulated. 
 

But many of us who observed or read about President and Sister Hinckley recall that they had an endearingly candid and comfortable relationship, an outgrowth of their individual personalities, wherein each never regarded himself or herself or the other too seriously. 
 

The sense most of us got on that occasion was that, as much as they respected and loved each other, she was not about to be backed into a corner wherein she felt obligated to speak extemporaneously when she really had no inclination to do so at the moment, and he was not about to press the matter. 
 

And if the prophet doesn’t have that sort of presumptuous control over his wife, I think it obvious that you or I don’t either. 

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sometimes in the context of an event, a meaning can be quite clear without having to be explicitly articulated. 
 

But many of us who observed or read about President and Sister Hinckley recall that they had an endearingly candid and comfortable relationship, an outgrowth of their individual personalities, wherein each never regarded himself or herself or the other too seriously. 
 

The sense most of us got on that occasion was that, as much as they respected and loved each other, she was not about to be backed into a corner wherein she felt obligated to speak extemporaneously when she really had no inclination to do so at the moment, and he was not about to press the matter. 
 

And if the prophet doesn’t have that sort of presumptuous control over his wife, I think it obvious that you or I don’t either. 

I think it's interesting to see what goes on in the minds of others when someone simply says she doesn't have anything to say in response to someone asking if she did.  People are free to come up with their own ideas even when someone says nothing.

If I was on a stand and my wife was up there with me, if I asked her if she had anything to say i think she would probably tell me.  And she rarely if ever doesn't have anything to say.

Link to post
26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When? I would think inclusion is traceable back to Jesus. I think it's a matter of getting back to inclusion instead of excluding people or groups based on what we think we know and what we believe to be our righteous judgements about them.

The inclusion usually centers around the behaviors of the people within the church and the culture of the church, and I would argue, the misunderstandings perpetuated overtime within that culture.

I agree for the most part.  Christ ate with sinners, Paul fought Peter to extend missionary work to gentiles, Pres Kimball pled with the Lord to extend Priesthood blessings.

But there are limits as you realize.  Not everyone is going to be welcome in an organization or society who won't abide it's rules.  And it's not more important to bring them in the boat than to abide by the requirements keeping it afloat.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think it's interesting to see what goes on in the minds of others when someone simply says she doesn't have anything to say in response to someone asking if she did.  People are free to come up with their own ideas even when someone says nothing.

If I was on a stand and my wife was up there with me, if I asked her if she had anything to say i think she would probably tell me.  And she rarely if ever doesn't have anything to say.

Too bad we can’t all be you. 

Link to post
28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree for the most part.  Christ ate with sinners, Paul fought Peter to extend missionary work to gentiles, Pres Kimball pled with the Lord to extend Priesthood blessings.

But there are limits as you realize.  Not everyone is going to be welcome in an organization or society who won't abide it's rules.  And it's not more important to bring them in the boat than to abide by the requirements keeping it afloat.

That's fair. For me the problem lies in the assumptions about how the rules are made. In the church and society at large their is a hierarchy of sin. Lets be honest, some sins are more acceptable than others, right? IMO the church (and religion in general) has assigned values for what sins are really worth condemning and which ones are more...understandable/acceptable.

For example, will the church allow someone who lies to be baptized and enjoy the blessings of ordinances? Will the church accept someone who looks at p0rn or even someone who has had premarital relations? Sure. What about someone who is married to someone of the same gender? Nope. So obviously some sins are considered to be more grave than others and the trick would be separating out the reasons why the hierarchy exists as it does. Did God mandate that or is it at least in part a reflection of the culture and religious tradition?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's fair. For me the problem lies in the assumptions about how the rules are made. In the church and society at large their is a hierarchy of sin. Lets be honest, some sins are more acceptable than others, right? IMO the church (and religion in general) has assigned values for what sins are really worth condemning and which ones are more...understandable/acceptable.

For example, will the church allow someone who lies to be baptized and enjoy the blessings of ordinances? Will the church accept someone who looks at p0rn or even someone who has had premarital relations? Sure. What about someone who is married to someone of the same gender? Nope. So obviously some sins are considered to be more grave than others and the trick would be separating out the reasons why the hierarchy exists as it does. Did God mandate that or is it at least in part a reflection of the culture and religious tradition?

Well part of the hierarchy does rely on how much light has already been received.  And of course there is a hierarchy of sin, whether we get it right or not.
image.png.6f963ec273e9410cde854f6c85a44716.png

Link to post
1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Well part of the hierarchy does rely on how much light has already been received.  And of course there is a hierarchy of sin, whether we get it right or not.
image.png.6f963ec273e9410cde854f6c85a44716.png

That's a great Sheldonism. Big Bang is the best!

I'm not at all convinced we have organized the hierarchy of sin in a way that is more right than wrong.

IMO it should look something like...

1- Love God

2- Love everyone else

The rest are just details that are less significant to God than these first 2, yet we often let the details govern how we do #2 and I think that's backwards.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's a great Sheldonism. Big Bang is the best!

I'm not at all convinced we have organized the hierarchy of sin in a way that is more right than wrong.

IMO it should look something like...

1- Love God

2- Love everyone else

The rest are just details that are less significant to God than these first 2, yet we often let the details govern how we do #2 and I think that's backwards.

I'd agree with you if God hadn't said otherwise in so many revelations and even when Christ walked the earth.
But yes, these are the top two commandments.  Doesn't make the rest details.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 3/23/2021 at 5:56 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I think from Ballard's perspective he knows and understands the boat. It works well for him. He finds value there and wants others to find value as well. I have no trouble believing that Elder Ballard believes the church is Christ's church. But that only illustrates why he's using fear to warn people not to leave. He believes it's 100% the one and only way and apparently can't fathom any other way. It's not just that he seems to think it's the "best" place for someone to connect with God. He seems to think it is the ONLY place. So if he shares that view, it would absolutely be scary to get out of the boat. He seems incapable of recognizing that people have needs and find connection with God outside of the boat. He recognizes the boat is not perfect yet it is still the only option. He's not inspiring everyone to stay in the boat because of how great it is, he's telling everyone it's way worse outside of the boat. That is fear based.

So what? Almost everything is based on fear. Or, using a less biased term, almost everything is based on consequences.

  • if I rob a bank, and I get caught, I will serve time in prison. 
  • if I don't file my 1040 form by April 15, the IRS will fine me. 
  • if I allow my drivers license to expire but continue driving, I will be fined (if I'm caught)
  • if I withdraw my money from my certificate of deposit before it matures, I will lose interest
  • if I stop attending or fail a university class that is mandatory for graduation, I will not receive my degree
  • if I don't go to work, my employer will fire me
  • if I refuse to work at all, I may become homeless and have to live on the streets
  • if I decide to stop breathing, I will die

In every single one of these scenarios, there is a consequence for action or inaction. Do you fear any of these consequences? Does that fear motivate you? If it does, aren't they all fear-based? And when you get down to it, isn't pretty much everything in life fear-based? If one says that one doesn't rob banks out of desire to do what's right, and not from fear of the consequences, then one is telling a falsehood. What one is actually saying is that one doesn't rob banks because of fear of the icky feeling of violating one's conscience. One fears feeling guilty. Our desire to do what is right is nothing more than fear of the guilt that will result from our action or inaction.

There's nothing wrong with that, by the way, because that's the way of it. It's quid pro quo everywhere, baby. It's consequences, pure and simple.

Elder Ballard knows that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church organization upon the face of the earth that has divine authority to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and administer the divine ordinances that make it possible for peoples's sins to be forgiven on the condition of repentance. Christ said that the only way back to the Father is through Him, and through obedience to His commandments. Going one's own way does not fulfill this. One cannot go back to the Father by going off somewhere else trying to "connect with God" according to one's own supposed self-driven "needs." 

If one leaves the boat trying to find an alternative that doesn't actually exist, is one doing oneself a favor? Or is one going off on forbidden paths, as in Father Lehi's dream, and getting lost?  Elder Ballard is warning us of a real danger. You can disregard his warning if you want. You can urge others to disregard it. But in the end, one cannot disregard the consequences of one's actions and inactions. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So what? Almost everything is based on fear. Or, using a less biased term, almost everything is based on consequences.

  • if I rob a bank, and I get caught, I will serve time in prison. 
  • if I don't file my 1040 form by April 15, the IRS will fine me. 
  • if I allow my drivers license to expire but continue driving, I will be fined (if I'm caught)
  • if I withdraw my money from my certificate of deposit before it matures, I will lose interest
  • if I stop attending or fail a university class that is mandatory for graduation, I will not receive my degree
  • if I don't go to work, my employer will fire me
  • if I refuse to work at all, I may become homeless and have to live on the streets
  • if I decide to stop breathing, I will die

In every single one of these scenarios, there is a consequence for action or inaction. Do you fear any of these consequences? Does that fear motivate you? If it does, aren't they all fear-based? And when you get down to it, isn't pretty much everything in life fear-based? If one says that one doesn't rob banks out of desire to do what's right, and not from fear of the consequences, then one is telling a falsehood. What one is actually saying is that one doesn't rob banks because of fear of the icky feeling of violating one's conscience. One fears feeling guilty. Our desire to do what is right is nothing more than fear of the guilt that will result from our action or inaction.

There's nothing wrong with that, by the way, because that's the way of it. It's quid pro quo everywhere, baby. It's consequences, pure and simple.

Elder Ballard knows that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church organization upon the face of the earth that has divine authority to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and administer the divine ordinances that make it possible for peoples's sins to be forgiven on the condition of repentance. Christ said that the only way back to the Father is through Him, and through obedience to His commandments. Going one's own way does not fulfill this. One cannot go back to the Father by going off somewhere else trying to "connect with God" according to one's own supposed self-driven "needs." 

If one leaves the boat trying to find an alternative that doesn't actually exist, is one doing oneself a favor? Or is one going off on forbidden paths, as in Father Lehi's dream, and getting lost?  Elder Ballard is warning us of a real danger. You can disregard his warning if you want. You can urge others to disregard it. But in the end, one cannot disregard the consequences of one's actions and inactions. 

If you choose to live by fear appreciate having church leaders use fear as the motivation to toe the line. Enjoy! That's working for you. I expect more from religious leaders even if you don't.

I would argue that Elder Ballard "believes" those things which is different than "know". IF one leaves the boat in search of something better they can always return to the boat. Ballard seems to A- think there is no other option or B- is afraid people will find another option and is using fear to prevent them from looking. Like I said, if that approach appeals to you, stay in the boat.

Link to post
17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If you choose to live by fear appreciate having church leaders use fear as the motivation to toe the line. Enjoy! That's working for you. I expect more from religious leaders even if you don't.

So what "more" do you expect from church leaders in this matter? You expect Elder Ballard to tell everyone that they will be just fine whether they stay in the boat or not?

And by the way, did you read what I wrote? I made it very clear that fear of consequences governed EVERYTHING in life, not just what church one belongs to or doesn't belong to. Fear of consequences drives even you, dear HJW, and at every level. Even if it is only fear of loss. Can you argue against that?

Here's what I fear: disappointing my Father in Heaven. He knows who I am, has fond hopes for me, and wants to see me enter into His glory. I want what He wants; I fear I may fall short.

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would argue that Elder Ballard "believes" those things which is different than "know". IF one leaves the boat in search of something better they can always return to the boat. Ballard seems to A- think there is no other option or B- is afraid people will find another option and is using fear to prevent them from looking. Like I said, if that approach appeals to you, stay in the boat.

I would argue that he does know it. You're entitled to believe otherwise, of course.

And you're right about being able to return to the boat if one leaves it. But what is better? To never leave it, or leave it and then return? What is better, to commit no sin, or sin and then repent?  I argue it's better to stay, and not to sin.  There may be some people who have learned a great deal from having left and then having returned. They can be a great inspiration for the rest of us. Some of those even comment on this board. But for all that they may have learned, even if it was inevitable that they left for a time, it would have been better for them never to have left. Perhaps by leaving they left something on the table that is now unrecoverable because of their leaving, even if they come back. Like a man who leaves his wife for selfish reasons, then repents and tries to return. Even if she allows him to return, he will have at least partly damaged her trust in him, and that may be impossible to fully recover.  The prodigal son left and then returned -- which was cause for rejoicing -- but he lost his birthright by abandonment.

As for the options you give to Elder Ballards:

A. There are no other options -- outside of the Church of Jesus Christ there is no salvation. You're free to believe this is false, of course.
B. There are no other options -- only false options that will end in ultimate disappointment -- Elder Ballard is using fear of loss to warn against leaving the boat, and though you're right that you can always come back, I know plenty of people who have left the boat, some of whom have returned, some of whom have not yet, and some will not return in this life.  For those in the last category, would it not be better for them never to have left?

 

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

So what? Almost everything is based on fear. Or, using a less biased term, almost everything is based on consequences.

  • if I rob a bank, and I get caught, I will serve time in prison. 
  • if I don't file my 1040 form by April 15, the IRS will fine me. 
  • if I allow my drivers license to expire but continue driving, I will be fined (if I'm caught)
  • if I withdraw my money from my certificate of deposit before it matures, I will lose interest
  • if I stop attending or fail a university class that is mandatory for graduation, I will not receive my degree
  • if I don't go to work, my employer will fire me
  • if I refuse to work at all, I may become homeless and have to live on the streets
  • if I decide to stop breathing, I will die

In every single one of these scenarios, there is a consequence for action or inaction. Do you fear any of these consequences? Does that fear motivate you? If it does, aren't they all fear-based? And when you get down to it, isn't pretty much everything in life fear-based? If one says that one doesn't rob banks out of desire to do what's right, and not from fear of the consequences, then one is telling a falsehood. What one is actually saying is that one doesn't rob banks because of fear of the icky feeling of violating one's conscience. One fears feeling guilty. Our desire to do what is right is nothing more than fear of the guilt that will result from our action or inaction.

I disagree.  There is a subtle shift when you go from doing things out of fear to doing things because you want to do right/be like Jesus/love God.  The two do not have the same feeling. Or even the same consequences - there is also some anxiety that exists when you do things out of fear that doesn't exist when you do things because of love of God and fellow man.  

That doesn't mean that fear doesn't have its place.  It is just almost always less effective in making real and lasting changes.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

There's nothing wrong with that, by the way, because that's the way of it. It's quid pro quo everywhere, baby. It's consequences, pure and simple.

Elder Ballard knows that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church organization upon the face of the earth that has divine authority to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and administer the divine ordinances that make it possible for peoples's sins to be forgiven on the condition of repentance. Christ said that the only way back to the Father is through Him, and through obedience to His commandments. Going one's own way does not fulfill this. One cannot go back to the Father by going off somewhere else trying to "connect with God" according to one's own supposed self-driven "needs." 

If one leaves the boat trying to find an alternative that doesn't actually exist, is one doing oneself a favor? Or is one going off on forbidden paths, as in Father Lehi's dream, and getting lost?  Elder Ballard is warning us of a real danger. You can disregard his warning if you want. You can urge others to disregard it. But in the end, one cannot disregard the consequences of one's actions and inactions. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Rain said:

I disagree.  There is a subtle shift when you go from doing things out of fear to doing things because you want to do right/be like Jesus/love God.  The two do not have the same feeling. Or even the same consequences - there is also some anxiety that exists when you do things out of fear that doesn't exist when you do things because of love of God and fellow man.  

Rain, I do agree with you wholeheartedly. I was just being an extremist for HJW's benefit. But I don't think he will "get it." He certainly doesn't "get" what Elder Ballard was saying. Almost a deliberate act of misunderstanding -- or disunderstanding.

 

1 hour ago, Rain said:

That doesn't mean that fear doesn't have its place.  It is just almost always less effective in making real and lasting changes.

 

The most advanced obedience is in doing right because you desire to do right. And that is the obedience that God wants from us -- He just has to start at a lower level with most of us.

I remember vividly my first theft. I was something like 4 or 5 years old. I took some money (a $10 bill, which in 1956 was worth approximately $100 in today's dollars), and went to our local hobby and toy store, where I bought a large set of plastic army soldiers. I reflect nowadays that the proprietor gave me no change, even though that set should have cost a buck, if that. He cheated me, which I didn't notice because I didn't really know much about money. But in any case, once my father determined what had happened with the tenner, he treated me with great love. He explained that what I had done was wrong, and told me that stealing could subject me to arrest and jail. He picked up the phone, pretended to dial a number and said into it "Get me the police". Then he turned to me and asked me if I had learned my lesson, to which I said "Yes!" Then he said into the phone, "Nevermind." And hung up the phone. He then took me into my bedroom and together we played with the soldiers. And though he was never a member of any church, his was a perfect example of "Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;"

From then, while I was at first afraid to take that which was not mine, it gradually became a real desire to give to everyone that which they were due, and more besides. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Rain, I do agree with you wholeheartedly. I was just being an extremist for HJW's benefit. But I don't think he will "get it." He certainly doesn't "get" what Elder Ballard was saying. Almost a deliberate act of misunderstanding -- or disunderstanding.

Please don't put a judgment on him.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The most advanced obedience is in doing right because you desire to do right. And that is the obedience that God wants from us -- He just has to start at a lower level with most of us.

I remember vividly my first theft. I was something like 4 or 5 years old. I took some money (a $10 bill, which in 1956 was worth approximately $100 in today's dollars), and went to our local hobby and toy store, where I bought a large set of plastic army soldiers. I reflect nowadays that the proprietor gave me no change, even though that set should have cost a buck, if that. He cheated me, which I didn't notice because I didn't really know much about money. But in any case, once my father determined what had happened with the tenner, he treated me with great love. He explained that what I had done was wrong, and told me that stealing could subject me to arrest and jail. He picked up the phone, pretended to dial a number and said into it "Get me the police". Then he turned to me and asked me if I had learned my lesson, to which I said "Yes!" Then he said into the phone, "Nevermind." And hung up the phone. He then took me into my bedroom and together we played with the soldiers. And though he was never a member of any church, his was a perfect example of "Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;"

From then, while I was at first afraid to take that which was not mine, it gradually became a real desire to give to everyone that which they were due, and more besides. 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But in any case, once my father determined what had happened with the tenner, he treated me with great love.

You've been in England a while now haven't you...:D

  • Haha 1
Link to post

Like @Rain said.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to post
On 3/25/2021 at 9:49 PM, JLHPROF said:

You've been in England a while now haven't you...:D

Since 2017... before that, from 1969-71.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Rain said:

Deleted.  Not worth it.

Yeah, me, too.

Link to post

I personally find it reassuring that God will take those driven to Him by fear. I am not sure I could do it. Imagine how that looks. “You are coming to me only because you fear the alternative?” A spouse that accepts you only because you are the only option other than being single or a friend that accepts you grudgingly because loneliness is marginally worse.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I personally find it reassuring that God will take those driven to Him by fear. I am not sure I could do it. Imagine how that looks. “You are coming to me only because you fear the alternative?” A spouse that accepts you only because you are the only option other than being single or a friend that accepts you grudgingly because loneliness is marginally worse.

Yes, but God loves us beyond our imagining. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...