'Lazy learner'

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

A la what JLHPROF said-Pres. Monson was likely talking about the priesthood and the ordinances while Pres. Nelson seems to be referring to the reality of the 9th article of Faith and that there are still more revelations coming to Christ's church before the church is in its final state.

If that's accurate, then both men are right.  No change in narrative, contradictions, or 'fact versus opinion' is necessary.

Exactly.  

There will always be new truths, new administrative instructions, and new revelations to deal with current circumstances.
But from Baptism to Calling and Election - the entire program has been restored to the earth for the final time.  (Whether we follow it or not.)

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Memes don't tell the full story. 

And in fact, it is the very nature of memes to obscure the full story.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[HappyJackWagon]

Would anyone like to add context to show how these various quotes are not contradictory or is that just going to be the assumption? Kind of like assuming that the gospels all harmonize.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Would anyone like to add context to show how these various quotes are not contradictory or is that just going to be the assumption? Kind of like assuming that the gospels all harmonize.

If you are really wondering, you could add context to show that they are contradictory.  You don't need anyone else to do it.  Unless of course you are comfortable just continuing to assume it.   

I've already explained my thoughts on it and said they could be contradictory (wouldn't be the first time), and I've got a busy day and do not see the benefit of tracking down 10 different quotes from unknown sources to analyse. 

But if you see it as an important subject that should be clarified then I say go for it.

[HappyJackWagon]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you are really wondering, you could add context to show that they are contradictory.  You don't need anyone else to do it.  Unless of course you are comfortable just continuing to assume it.   

I've already explained my thoughts on it and said they could be contradictory (wouldn't be the first time), and I've got a busy day and do not see the benefit of tracking down 10 different quotes from unknown sources to analyse. 

But if you see it as an important subject that should be clarified then I say go for it.

True. But since the quotes appear to be so blatantly contradictory I have no reason to think that they aren't contradictory so why go through the effort to try to prove that what appears contradictory really isn't? On the other hand, if someone looks at contradictory quotes and wants to explain why they really aren't contradictory, that person would need to provide the context.

If something looks, quacks, and walks like a duck I'm willing to believe it's a duck...unless someone shows me why I'm wrong and why it matters.

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True. But since the quotes appear to be so blatantly contradictory I have no reason to think that they aren't contradictory so why go through the effort to try to prove that what appears contradictory really isn't? On the other hand, if someone looks at contradictory quotes and wants to explain why they really aren't contradictory, that person would need to provide the context.

If something looks, quacks, and walks like a duck I'm willing to believe it's a duck...unless someone shows me why I'm wrong and why it matters.

Do you know that the people who are quoted actually said what is purported?  I'm not saying they didn't, but there is no context or references given in the meme. 

[InCognitus]

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If something looks, quacks, and walks like a duck I'm willing to believe it's a duck...unless someone shows me why I'm wrong and why it matters.

I see this as an extremely dangerous way of thinking, especially in the internet age.  Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True. But since the quotes appear to be so blatantly contradictory I have no reason to think that they aren't contradictory so why go through the effort to try to prove that what appears contradictory really isn't? On the other hand, if someone looks at contradictory quotes and wants to explain why they really aren't contradictory, that person would need to provide the context.

If something looks, quacks, and walks like a duck I'm willing to believe it's a duck...unless someone shows me why I'm wrong and why it matters.

Normally I'd agree with you, but in the case of random internet memes, no way am I going to just assume they are accurately representative of something.

But I agree with the last thing you said.  I just don't really think this topic matters all that much.  I don't think it matters in terms of faith crises or in terms of faith support. It's a niche topic that doesn't really impact living the gospel either way.

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do you know that the people who are quoted actually said what is purported?  I'm not saying they didn't, but there is no context or references given in the meme. 

I tried googling the first one by JS and nothing came up.  

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Normally I'd agree with you, but in the case of random internet memes, no way am I going to just assume they are accurately representative of something.

But I agree with the last thing you said.  I just don't really think this topic matters all that much.  I don't think it matters in terms of faith crises or in terms of faith support. It's a niche topic that doesn't really impact living the gospel either way.

I'm not talking about random internet memes  that say things like "Everything you see on the internet is true"- Abraham Lincoln.

We're talking about quotes from past and current prophets saying things that are completely reasonable and familiar to everyone in the church. If any of those quotes are incorrect I'd be interested in knowing that but those are all things I've seen, read and heard my entire life so why should I expect they are incorrect? Could I possibly be wrong? Sure. I'm open to that. But I'm not going to spend time searching to disprove quotes that seem perfectly reasonable and familiar. If we did that with everything we saw, read, heard etc. we would never accomplish anything. Now if I see something that contradicts what I think is true, I will likely research that to see what is correct. 

21 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I see this as an extremely dangerous way of thinking, especially in the internet age.  Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.

No it's not. I dare you to "prove all things" for 1 day. It would be debilitating. You wouldn't be able to do anything other than prove the things you already know,/believe/think. The sky is blue. Prove it with the science to ensure what you believe is blue is actually blue and not green. We should prove things when we make unreasonable claims and/or have reason to believe there may be some error.

[smac97]

On 4/17/2021 at 11:41 AM, Teancum said:

The Church is authoritarian. 

The Church is not authoritarian in any meaningful sense.

On 4/17/2021 at 11:41 AM, Teancum said:

If it not it would not kick people out who may disagree with some of the things it teaches.

With respect, I disagree.  That the Church moves heaven and earth to keep people in the Church, that it resorts to discipline only as a last and rarely-utilized resort, belies your point.

Don Bradley spoke on this topic back in 2015:

Quote

In the thread about the excommunication of the Calderwoods, Smac made a comment that I think is important enough that it merits discussion on its own, apart from the details of their case.

Smac:

Quote

Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community.

 

Those who know my personal history and the tenor of my posting in the last few years will not be surprised to hear that I would like to see us make our LDS sub-culture more tolerant of doubt and disagreement. So, when I say how much I like what Smac says here and how important I think his insight is, I hope it's clear that it's decidedly not because I'm trigger happy to see people be labeled apostates and kicked out of the church. 

 

What Smac says above is simple realism. Abundant sociological research shows, unsurprisingly, that strong community boundary maintenance helps maintain strong communities: i.e., if communities want to thrive, they should set high standards and hold people to them.

 

My point isn't to comment on the Calderwoods' case: I don't know enough about it; and I'd prefer to leave discussion of it to the other thread. 

 

But I think it's worth pointing out how this principle might apply to the recent cases I know more about, particularly that of Kate Kelly. While there are definitely some gray areas regarding appropriate ways to express disagreement with church policy, and while I think we need more cultural "space" for such disagreement, there are also clear boundaries. For instance, no one (in their right mind) with an LDS background could seriously think that it's okay with the church to do protest-style actions and form national pressure groups to change church policy. 

 

When people knowingly flout the boundaries, and then refuse to take into account or even compromise with instructions on this from their church leaders, the church is not obligated to allow them to perpetually continue these actions as members in good standing. Nor would the church be wise to do so. To not take disciplinary action in such cases fails to reinforce the boundaries, sends the message that the actions taken are okay, and weakens the community. 

 

While I personally, for several reasons, wish Kate Kelly's stake president had taken a lesser disciplinary action, such as disfellowshipping, I think it's simply unrealistic when people expect the church to allow with impunity dissent in any and every form, no matter how at odds with the church's norms and doctrine the forms of dissent may take. Confronted with clear, and particularly with extreme, violations of its norms and boundaries the church is both right and wise to take steps to reassert and reinforce those norms and boundaries. This is part of how communities remain vital.

Good points, these.

On 4/17/2021 at 11:41 AM, Teancum said:

And even more so, you will get the boot as soon as you publicly oppose the top leaders.  The Church teaches obedience is one of the first laws of heaven. That is authoritarian.

No, it's not.

I commented on this a few weeks ago:

Quote

Your comment about "edicts ... passed down from the President of the Church" as evidence of authoritarianism doesn't work, as evidenced by . . . the everyday behavior we see on this board and others like it, on Reddit, on YouTube, on social media, and so on.  I think your position is derivative.  Efforts to paint the Church as malevolent and authoritarian come across as hollow, sometimes even funny, given how little actual authority the Church has over its members, how easy it is for members of the Church to stop participating or withdrawing their membership, how unfettered cranks and critics are to go out and publicly rail against and disparage the Church and its leaders, doctrines, etc.

What authority does the Church have over Denver Snuffer?  None.  It withdrew his membership, but he is otherwise alive and kicking.  He's still a lawyer.  He still has his home and other assets.  He has his liberty.  He can say and do whatever he wants.  

What authority does the Church have over John Dehlin?  None.  He's at liberty to "coach" whomever he likes, do his podcasts, and demonstrate his superior moral fiber.

What authority does the Church have over Kate Kelly?  None.  She's at liberty toi do whatever she likes.  Same with Bill Reel, Sam Young, Jeremy Runnells, Natasha Helfer, and so on.

...

The Church asks its voluntarily associated members to constrain their behavior to the commandments set by God.  How is this surprising or problematic?

The Church believes it has mandates from God regarding sharing the gospel, redeeming the dead, perfecting the Saints and helping the poor.  How is "maintain{ing} the momentum of the organization" with these objectives surprising or problematic?

I am flummoxed at your attitude, which comes across as quite facile.  Have you ever worked in a group setting?  Ever been in a band?  A choir?  A sports team?  A political group?  A business?  

Every group has "predefined boundaries."

Every organization wants to "maintain the momentum" of its objectives.

Every organization has leaders.

Every organization requires some measure of compliance with internal rules, policies, guidelines, etc.

...

"Control mechanisms" are in place in every group.  Some groups, like governments or gangs, use coercion, violence, threats of violence, etc. to maintain cohesion and order.  On the other hand, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not.  It is constrained from doing so by its own doctrines.  Membership in the Church is voluntary.  There is no coercion.  There is no threat of deprivation of life, liberty or property.  There is no threat of physical punishment, no violence or threat of violence.  The only authority the Church has over its members is the authority the individual chooses to cede to it.  And if the member has a change of heart, he can alter the deal and walk away, for any reason or no reason whatsoever, and there ain't jack squat that the Church can do about it.  All we can and ought to do is continue to love the individual, pray for him, and encourage him to return.

This is "authoritarian?"  No.  No it's not.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I tried googling the first one by JS and nothing came up.  

EDITED: I'm not finding anything for Smith, Taylor, Woodruff, Grant or Monson.  Not concerned about Young or Kimball because neither "quote" gives the impression of being "fully" restored.

I did find several of the "quotes" on a hubpages site that I won't link to since I am not sure of the nature of the site and don't want to look further.  Either way the site doesn't tell where they came from so it doesn't help anything. 

I fully admit I don't have great search skills.  I actually thought I found several on the church website at one point, but upon checking it wasn't it.

I am finding a lot of buildings, "consciousness", health, memberships etc were "fully restored".  

Interestingly a SLTrib article had this to say:

Quote

With the new book, coinciding with the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision,” Mason investigates what “restoration” has meant in the Mormon past — and what it could become in the future.

A quick search of the General Conference Corpus website confirms that “restored church” and “restored gospel” weren’t just absent from Smith’s thought; they weren’t common Latter-day Saint concepts at all until the 20th century. They’ve become particularly important in the 21st century, just in the past two decades.

That’s not what Mason expected to find. “It was a big surprise for me, too,” he said in an interview. “I did that research on the phrases ‘restored church’ and ‘restored gospel’ fully expecting that Joseph Smith used those phrases. So what really interested me were the ways in which Joseph Smith did use the term ‘restoration.’ It turns out that most of the time, when he referred to restoration, he was referring to people, specifically the House of Israel and the Lamanites.”

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Rain

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Would anyone like to add context to show how these various quotes are not contradictory or is that just going to be the assumption? Kind of like assuming that the gospels all harmonize.

We first have to wade in the deep and find the quotes in context, and as much free time as I do have, I don't care to spend it doing that. But I'm sure the truth really is that it doesn't matter if the quotes are contradictory since every prophet trumps the last.

[Tacenda]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church is not authoritarian in any meaningful sense.

With respect, I disagree.  That the Church moves heaven and earth to keep people in the Church, that it resorts to discipline only as a last and rarely-utilized resort, belies your point.

Don Bradley spoke on this topic back in 2015:

Good points, these.

No, it's not.

I commented on this a few weeks ago:

Thanks,

-Smac

Emphatically disagree with the bold. I've read instances where the church sometimes asks members if they want to resign, I kid you not. And the bishop in my ward probably wishes I'd leave the place, lol. Every member a missionary my foot. 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

Calling an organization with no direct political power authoritarian doesn’t really work.

Authoritarianism is characterized by stifling political plurality which doesn’t really apply, some kind of strong political force dedicated to the status quo (usually an executive power), the rule of law is malleable and enforced unequally, and things like democratic participation and limitations on government powers are diminished or eliminated. For legitimacy they tend to rely on appeals to emotion that the regime is a necessary step to combat some group or ideology that the state crushes. It often includes a political strongman who is idealized as a celebrity and protector by either the people or the state or both but this is not mandatory.

Church doesn’t fit. It is not a government. It doesn’t wield executive power unless you count God’s power. It seeks change and not a return to a status quo. It doesn’t have punishments it can enforce beyond expulsion from the organization. There is no democratic participation to curtail.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Emphatically disagree with the bold. The church sometimes asks member if they want to resign, I kid you not. And the bishop in my ward probably wishes I'd leave the place, lol. Every member a missionary my foot. 

I have asked members if they want to resign. It is because the things they said before I asked made it clear that they want to sever their relationship with the church or they feel the membership itself is actively harming them or their families or whatever. 

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

We first have to wade in the deep and find the quotes in context, and as much free time as I do have, I don't care to spend it doing that.

If you don't want to do the time to answer your own question please stop putting the burden of proof on the rest of us. i get questions if you lack enough knowledge of certain subjects and you want a good source.  I get it if you have done a search and can't find things.  But to call yourself lazy, make accusations with a meme and then expect us to do the easy work of simple searches is just frustrating.  

Next time I ask that you post where the quotes came from before posting a meme that tries to hurt the church and gospel many of us love.

Quote

But I'm sure the truth really is that it doesn't matter if the quotes are contradictory since every prophet trumps the last.

This feels like one last dig.  

Edited June 17, 2021 by Rain

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

If you don't want to do the time to answer your own question please stop putting the burden of proof on the rest of us. i get questions if you lack enough knowledge of certain subjects and you want a good source.  I get it if you have done a search and can't find things.  But to call yourself a lazy, make accusations with a meme and then expect us to do the easy work of simple searches is just frustrating.  

Next time I ask that you post where the quotes came from before posting a meme that tries to hurt the church and gospel many of us love.

This feels like one last dig.  

You didn't read my posts and my answering that I was wrong about posting the meme apparently. Also, why is it a dig to say the current prophet trumps the last. I don't know how that was offensive. My wording?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I have asked members if they want to resign. It is because the things they said before I asked made it clear that they want to sever their relationship with the church or they feel the membership itself is actively harming them or their families or whatever. 

I've heard of instances where they were inactive and were on do not contact lists and then were approached and asked if they would like to resign. But no one personally. I just know how I've felt after I told my new bishop in my new ward that I was struggling with things I've learned about the church that I hadn't known before. This after I was told on this board that is what I should do, talk to the bishop. Well, it has shown me that some in the church truly want people like me with doubts to not germ up others. Which I have tried not to do. 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

With respect, I disagree.  That the Church moves heaven and earth to keep people in the Church, that it resorts to discipline only as a last and rarely-utilized resort, belies your point.

Emphatically disagree with the bold.

Okay.

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've read instances where the church sometimes asks members if they want to resign, I kid you not.

Anecdotal stuff, sure.  I question how widespread that is.  More to the point, I can't help but think that the motive behind the question is benign.  As long as a person remains a member of record, he or she will receive visits and inquiries from other members of the Church.  If a person does not want to be bothered by such things, then they have the option of resigning.

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And the bishop in my ward probably wishes I'd leave the place, lol. Every member a missionary my foot. 

Alas, your bishop isn't here.

I think members of the Church can be a bit frazzled in terms of interacting with folks who are members of the Church but harbor some resentments/hostilities.  Do they want to be a part of our community, or not?  Do they want visits, or not?  Do they want to function in a calling, or not?  Do they want our fellowship, or not?  

There is no one-size-fits-all response to these questions. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You didn't read my posts and my answering that I was wrong about posting the meme apparently. Also, why is it a dig to say the current prophet trumps the last. I don't know how that was offensive. My wording?

I did read them. They don't matter to what I just said.  I'm asking that if you are going to post things like that (memes or quotes from other websites etc. that you post often) in the future that you do the searching first.  

If that last sentence wasn't a dig I apologize. It seemed to me you were being snarky, but it sounds now like you weren't. 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

Anecdotal stuff, sure.  I question how widespread that is.  More to the point, I can't help but think that the motive behind the question is benign.  As long as a person remains a member of record, he or she will receive visits and inquiries from other members of the Church.  If a person does not want to be bothered by such things, then they have the option of resigning.

Alas, your bishop isn't here.

I think members of the Church can be a bit frazzled in terms of interacting with folks who are members of the Church but harbor some resentments/hostilities.  Do they want to be a part of our community, or not?  Do they want visits, or not?  Do they want to function in a calling, or not?  Do they want our fellowship, or not?  

There is no one-size-fits-all response to these questions. 

Thanks,

-Smac

All I asked for was a phone call or text. And asked to not have ministering visits that are drop offs, which is all I was receiving. I'd love a phone call especially. My ministering couple's wife won't wave or speak with me. Her husband would make drop offs and items they'd buy made me feel guilty that they were spending $ on me. All I want is a conversation. The first ministering couple, he was an institute teacher at the LDS Business College, forget the new name, were incredible. But sadly they've moved to Boston. 

It's a long story, but I don't see members walking the walk. Just checking the boxes. Not all but a few, experienced it for a few years now. I hope I wasn't the way I see others treat the inactive. But I'm afraid I may have been a little stand offish from in-actives, thinking I didn't know quite how to handle them.

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

I did read them. They don't matter to what I just said.  I'm asking that if you are going to post things like that (memes or quotes from other websites etc. that you post often) in the future that you do the searching first.  

If that last sentence wasn't a dig I apologize. It seemed to me you were being snarky, but it sounds now like you weren't. 

I will for sure re-think posting meme's w/o references. 

And looking at other words that could mean the word "trump", I found the word "precedence" to be much better. ETA: Oops, not precedence, that one sounds bad. Still looking. 

Found this quote from a talk: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual-2016/chapter-2?lang=eng

We have some today willing to believe someone who is dead and gone and to accept his words as having more authority than the words of a living authority today”

Edited June 16, 2021 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church is not authoritarian in any meaningful sense.

With respect, I disagree.  That the Church moves heaven and earth to keep people in the Church, that it resorts to discipline only as a last and rarely-utilized resort, belies your point.

Don Bradley spoke on this topic back in 2015:

Good points, these.

No, it's not.

I commented on this a few weeks ago:

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry.  You are wrong and your comment that I bolded simply cannot be taken seriously. And yes speaking out publicly against the church leaders is a quick path out.  We are witnessing this frequently in real time. You might want to ponder one of your temple covenants in regards to the authoritarian nature of the church and the obedience to church leaders that is expected.

[Teancum]

On 6/15/2021 at 1:26 PM, mfbukowski said:

Notice that you appear to be asking for "evidence" for church authority  while at the same time blaming the church based on your own emotional reactions.

Not everyone experiences what you apparently experienced.

You are looking for factual evidence proving your own emotional biases.

That appears inconsistent 

I said that this was not good for me.  Others will experience the things I view as negative different than me. Some better some worse.  So what? I don't follow the point of the sentence above I have bolded.