Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[BlueDreams]

21 minutes ago, Paloma said:

By the way, when Brad said "You're saying 'there's so much space between God and me'", he wasn't repeating anything Steve had said.  Brad was actually misrepresenting the non-LDS Christian position in my view, but Steve didn't interrupt or correct him.  I thought this often as I watched the video (that I've only partially watched so far).  While I was sensing Brad's misapprehension of our beliefs, I also understood Steve's focus on listening rather than correcting.  I probably would have done the same as Steve.

It's interesting how we can both get something different from the same thing. I have a couple of things I need to do, but I'll be sure to come back with my experience of it as well. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Paloma]

Oh wow, Blue Dreams, now I'm really inspired to listen to the rest of the conversation in that video between Brad and Steve.

And I want to read and reflect on your post more fully too, as there's so much there!

So I'll definitely be getting back to you when I've had more time to listen and reflect!

[Paloma]

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

It's interesting how we can both get something different from the same thing. I have a couple of things I need to do, but I'll be sure to come back with my experience of it as well. 

 

With luv,

BD

My last reply to you was based on your longer post just previous to this.

In response to what you've said here, I'm very aware that I've only listened to the first 40 minutes of the whole, while you've listened to the entire video.  My impression may well change upon watching and listening to more!

[MrShorty]

On 2/18/2022 at 2:19 PM, CV75 said:

I would like to hear your working model, please share.

Just so hard to keep up with you guys, especially when I'm sick.

Working model of prophets and revelation. The naive, younger version was essentially the model proposed by Pres. Nelson fall of 2019 -- prophets may not speak what is popular but they always speak truth. (emphasis by Pres. Nelson). Of course, the triviial part of the issues we're talking about here is that prophets clearly did not always speak truth. They sometimes spoke from false traditions laid down by past prophets and even some false traditions imported from broader American culture.

Current working model is kind of a blend of Spackman's "accommodationism" and Winegar's "restorative light". God accommodates or tolerates our collective blind spots while "hoping" (is that as much as God can do in the face of stubborn Church members and leaders?) that He can eventually correct our false traditions. In hindsight, it is nice to look back and be glad that we are no longer living under false traditions, but, in the moment, what false traditions are we perpetuating because we are blind to the truth?

Perhaps the part of what I see you saying that is hardest to incorporate into the current model is that my model still generally assumes that the revelations calling for communal repentance will come from the prophets and apostles. Unfortunately, as you note, the prophets and apostles seem to lag behind broader society, so that the revelation for communal repentance seems to be coming from broader society (some even speculate that part of waiting until '78 was to obscure the outside pressures so that it would look more like internal revelation rather than external pressures). The hardest thing to incorporate is the possibility that prophets are not leading out in the call for communal repentance, but communal repentance cannot really take place until the leaders recognize and call for that repentance. Maybe the hardest part is that sometimes prophets don't seem to really be the watchman on the tower that I expect them to be.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Just so hard to keep up with you guys, especially when I'm sick.

Working model of prophets and revelation. The naive, younger version was essentially the model proposed by Pres. Nelson fall of 2019 -- prophets may not speak what is popular but they always speak truth. (emphasis by Pres. Nelson). Of course, the triviial part of the issues we're talking about here is that prophets clearly did not always speak truth. They sometimes spoke from false traditions laid down by past prophets and even some false traditions imported from broader American culture.

Current working model is kind of a blend of Spackman's "accommodationism" and Winegar's "restorative light". God accommodates or tolerates our collective blind spots while "hoping" (is that as much as God can do in the face of stubborn Church members and leaders?) that He can eventually correct our false traditions. In hindsight, it is nice to look back and be glad that we are no longer living under false traditions, but, in the moment, what false traditions are we perpetuating because we are blind to the truth?

Perhaps the part of what I see you saying that is hardest to incorporate into the current model is that my model still generally assumes that the revelations calling for communal repentance will come from the prophets and apostles. Unfortunately, as you note, the prophets and apostles seem to lag behind broader society, so that the revelation for communal repentance seems to be coming from broader society (some even speculate that part of waiting until '78 was to obscure the outside pressures so that it would look more like internal revelation rather than external pressures). The hardest thing to incorporate is the possibility that prophets are not leading out in the call for communal repentance, but communal repentance cannot really take place until the leaders recognize and call for that repentance. Maybe the hardest part is that sometimes prophets don't seem to really be the watchman on the tower that I expect them to be.

Hey I hope you feel better soon!

Is it this talk: https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson/love-laws-god/ ? The context is teaching “the Father’s requirements for exaltation in the celestial kingdom,” and the operative word is “teach” not “speak.”

“…we are accused of being uncaring as we teach the Father’s requirements for exaltation in the celestial kingdom. But wouldn’t it be far more uncaring for us not to tell the truth—not to teach what God has revealed?

“It is precisely because we do care deeply about all of God’s children that we proclaim His truth. We may not always tell people what they want to hear. Prophets are rarely popular. But we will always teach the truth!”

So, if as a result of brother Wilcox’s firesides (for example), we are talking about the requirements for the exaltation of Black people during the time of the ban, the requirements were still the same, even then, as for white people. If we are talking about the restored keys, those ordinances are the same for all God’s children no matter their denomination. Or, if we are talking about priesthood and women, the requirements are the same with or without conferral and ordination. There is also the issue of doubt and struggle; the same requirements are in place.

I believe prophets can teach and speak the truth in fallible terms, manners and techniques (like the fireside at hand), but the keys and sealing power they exercise mean everyone can experience their fruits and know what they are really talking about (“real” as in Alma 32). This is where and how people repent, progress and build Zion. Because of this, it doesn’t matter where the call for societal repentance and improvement comes from (the prophets do this, the enlightened and the revolutionary do this, albeit not always in sync), only that the requirements of exaltation are proclaimed and followed (and only the prophets do this). The prophets remain watchmen in that they see and warn against those things that interfere with proclaiming and following those requirements

Sometimes society is on target with Zion (as I pointed out elsewhere, in general principle while not in execution), and in any case, the good that society establishes always misses the mark of meeting the requirements for exalting families. We often hear it said that society and the Church are moving further apart, and in part I think this has to do with society coming up with great ideas but applying them very badly in relation to the Father’s requirements for exaltation.

This is why we do not hear anyone say, for example, believably and with ecclesiastical common consent, “The Holy Ghost has borne witness to me that same-sex marriage is an eternal principle.” That is not something people can do in a secular society and government. Prophets will not say it, either, because they will only proclaim the Father’s requirements for exaltation in the celestial kingdom, and watch and warn against teachings and practices to the contrary. Oddly perhaps, this is similar to formula in D&C 129: 7-8; the just man will simply deliver his message and “not move,” or deviate from the “script.”

Edited February 21, 2022 by CV75

[Paloma]

I've now listened to the entire hour and a half of that 2017 conversation between Brad and his Evangelical counterpart, Steve.

I'm going to write out some comments as a whole before responding a little more specifically to points you had raised, Blue Dreams.

I see a very likeable Brad in this video - engaging, authentic, humourous, respectful ... among other good qualities.

I like how Steve comes across too, and continue to see him as more of a respectful listener trying to understand the LDS faith than intent on communicating his own faith (though there are times when that comes out).  

There continue to be times when Brad comes out with what I think of as stereotypes of non-LDS Christian faith such as "their salvation is just getting back into heaven, a 'get out of jail free card'" that Steve doesn't comment on but 'let's go' because it's said in passing in a long explanation of LDS faith offered by Brad. 

In that part of the conversation, I really appreciated and agreed with Brad's conviction that salvation is much more than 'getting into heaven'.  It's about how we live here and now.  It's about transformation, as he said.  I just wish Brad knew that was true for our understanding of salvation, as well.

It seemed to me that when Brad talked about exaltation in terms of 'more and more' and of continual learning, he thought that was completely different from how other Christians view eternity, but that's not so.  I think that Steve said something (not a lot, though) about how we're always learning and becoming more like Christ.  Certainly, at the end of the video Steve talked more emphatically about each of them (Brad and Steve) being on a journey of learning.  (I realize that Brad's talk of more and more was in the vein of the LDS church having more light and truth, but I thought both men were very gracious and as respectful and inclusive of each other as was possible.)

Around the 54 minute mark, Brad said to Steve:  "I compliment you ... you're respectful and that makes me feel safe".  (I wish Brad remembered and applied that in all of his teaching and conversations!)

Steve responded with "I want to know what you believe and why you believe".  He mentioned he wanted to hear about LDS beliefs from the source and not through reading materials.  I appreciated this in Steve.

At minute 58, some faulty mics were replaced, and Brad said with a smile, "Let's start over."  I smiled to myself and thought "How appropriate for right now!!

When Brad talked about the Bible being one part of the standard works and being for a previous dispensation (around the 1:03 mark), he mentioned that the living prophets are a vital part of the standards for LDS Christians.  I was really glad that Steve tried to make clear that we nonLDS Christians also have a living prophet when he quoted Hebrews 1:1-2:  "Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days , He has spoken to us through His Son."  This is a bedrock Scripture for me in understanding and even claiming authority from Jesus Christ alone who has fulfilled all of the prophetic and priestly requirements revealed in the Bible, and who stands supremely alone as Prophet, Priest and King.

Amongst the respectful disagreement, there was a lot of common ground and mutually edifying statements between Brad and Steve.

One conversation that you specifically mentioned, Blue Dreams, was where Brad said "this life isn't the last chance", and Steve replies "that scares us to death".  I don't identify with Steve in this and I'll explain why in a moment.  First, I have to say that I was really impressed with the way that Brad expressed appreciation for Steve's stance here (ie. no second chance after death) - saying he understands Steve's sense of urgency because of this belief he has.  Thus he sees the Evangelical desire to preach and "save people" as motivated by love. 

I admit that most non-LDS Protestant Christians would probably agree with this "no second chance"  belief.  But I do not and I know many Christians who are like me.  I began to question my own "no second chance" inclination after reading C.S. Lewis' book, The Great Divorce - probably at least 40 years ago!  Then years after that, when I was teaching a curriculum at a Bible school in Africa, the notes included this "no second chance" teaching, with a number of supportive Scriptural references attached.  I checked and double checked every reference (as was my practice) and concluded that none of them clearly and categorically stated "no second chance".  Two of the references I remember were "Today is the day of salvation: (found in Isaiah and 1 Corinthians).  I thought yes, I see a possible inference, but highlighting the urgency is not the same thing as what I'm expected to teach here.  Another reference was Hebrews 9:27:  "It is appointed unto men to die once, and after this the judgment".  Neither does that speak directly to "no second chance" and I wasn't about to use prooftexts unless the meaning was unmistakably clear.

Thankfully, I was surrounded by Christians who agreed with me that rather than being dogmatic about something that's not perfectly clear and that we can't know for certain this side of heaven, we are free to go with our own personal inspiration, praying and trusting that God's Spirit is our Guide.

Back to the video ...

At the very end, Brad and Steve reached a beautiful accord. 

Brad said about the "core" of faith they share:  "At that core, there's not a thing that you've said that I wouldn't say.  Because of that, I feel that connection with you.  Because I know you, I love you (referring to a song by _______ Perry".

Brad also invited Steve to "see us Mormons as having a little 'more'".  Steve replied with "we're both on a journey for truth".

I would wish that both of them would continue to display this respectful and gracious approach to each other's  faith.

 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Paloma

[BlueDreams]

These area a few of my thoughts that I’ve had so far...note these are pretty spazzy

 

Preliminary, I felt timewise it was a little imbalanced and focused on brad explaining his beliefs than more of a more rounded dialogue. At first I kept wondering why Steve wasn’t taking more time but then I realized that part of that was the context of the dialogue. It was run by I assume Steve’s community and was predominantly evangelicals attending based on the amount of clapping some of his comments would receive compared to Brad’s. So there’s also less need for his beliefs to be equally fleshed out since it’s the main assumption in the room. I do wonder what this would have looked like if there was more equitable back and forth dialogue….probably a lot longer though and less helpful for a limited timeframe.

I envy your grace with this. It’s seriously helpful to see it and relook at my own thoughts. I keep thinking about my biases:

-        Brad’s style: I’m not a fan, even when he’s at his best. And I definitely agree this was a better dialogue. When I was at BYU I found there were often 2 types of religion teachers… ones teaching a really good Sunday school lesson and ones that were a little more academic in their approach. I went for the latter and Brad reminds me of the former. I think there’s people who that really resonates with them. But I prefer nuance and complexity and his comments aren’t that either. So my response was often…”yeah, technically but” or “I wouldn’t describe it that way” or “I wouldn’t be that absolutist in that description.” Like I said, it worked in the format and with his friend who shares a fairly similar style. But it’s not mine and I have a harder time with the style.

-        My own uncomfortable experiences being evangelized: At the same time, part of me empathically understands that earnest seeking to be understood or at least have my love of the savior recognized. I think it interesting how there’s been that sense as well in certain circumstances.

-        Steve’s small comments and format to sharing reminded me a lot of moments of definite exclusion or misinformation. It was definitely not steve’s purpose (particularly after reading your comments on this, which gives me a look outside my experience). Some of it, is likely more boundary maintenance. I think it’s a natural sensitivity to being in that minority experience in a community that was decidedly more conservative Christian as a teen and did draw hard lines where I was on the other side of said line. Though his was definitely softer in approach it still made me a little squeamish on certain lines, because I’ve seen how those in other less judicious hands came off as unintentionally offensive and alienating as opposed to teaching the good word and shedding their light. 

I think Steve’s comment caught me off guard because I’ve never thought something I view as beautiful as something another could deem scary. When I was a teen this was my 2nd strong spiritual confirmation I received about something I learned in church. There was a loving balance in the basic LDS epistemology of heaven. The first was that God loves all His children. But I could see how it could be a view that could be seen as building “false security” in one’s salvation, and I definitely liked Brad reframing it as a sign of love. I definitely think that was one of his most gracious moments and one that I fear my own experiences may have made me skip over if I were the one giving it.

But I would be lying if I said I wasn’t pleased to hear this stance wasn’t something you personally believe at this point…even if that’s a minority view. I found myself recently thinking about what it would be like to believe that a person was effectively going off a spiritual cliff because they were dying without a strong conversion to Christ. It would likely create more urgency…but I think it could lead to an urgency more based on fear for them leading to less patient and long-suffering means of sharing truth. That can lead to problematic choices or methods that may not actually bring people closer to Christ or is more than what God expects of us. Those that I’ve had reach out to me this way have been the experiences I’ve felt least connected to spiritually.

Meanwhile the more I’ve grown in my own faith the less anxious I’ve come with people’s spiritual development and bringing people to Christ. I do attribute that in part to building that understanding that all will be fair and right and that there’s a place for most anyone who can accept even a portion of truth. That my job is more to add to where they're at than convince them of every truth I've come to believe. But I also think it’s tied more and more with a transformation via God’s love in my life. I have been treated gently, carefully, and first with love…there was a patience to each step and an okayness to being wrong in the moment as long as  I was pointed in the right direction. So I reach out and see people more and more in that same way.

I should note a more anxious or dire take is not something that I see as limited to a non-lds Christian community. I’ve seen black and white thinking within my own church plenty that in different ways shoots people in the foot when assessing their own spiritual journey as well as others.

As you pointed out, Brad had slips that pointed to the problem I see in the other video where he paints with a broad brush, protestant and particularly more evangelical leaning groups.  I wish I could say I’ve never held some of those same poor assumptions at times, that’s taken time to either build nuance or reassess where I got these in the first place. Part of me wonders if it’s not both groups painting more with what makes them distinctive when we interact than first building on theological similarities.

On the transformation and sense of connection, I can see where Brad is going with the point, but I think this is a great example on how oversimplification can lose the point to some degree. For example, you mentioned that a non-lds Christian viewpoint is also about transformation, continual learning, and that there’s a close relationship between God and us. Brad’s view, I think simplifies this by focusing more on what he loves about his own view of LDS beliefs on this. Which I also love, but without a comparative recognition that non-lds Christians have certain similar beliefs, it makes it even more unique than it really is. Which can than lead to a comparison deficit than building on and finding ground in similarity.

Based more on what you mentioned, it seems more that the view I have just gives a more concrete assertion to what continual learning will include, a difference (or may just defined) of where our transformation can lead, and differing parameters of said close relationship. Which I think is where he was going with the “so much space” aspect. For example when you mentioned this:

 "Amen!  For me and for all of us non-LDS Christians, it's both/and.  Everything you've said is true for me except the implication that seeing God as infinite, above and beyond, immeasurably more than we can understand, negates a close and personal relationship with Him.  It does not negate in the slightest the reality of an intimate relationship with Him as our heavenly Father.  We have intimacy with Jesus and we have His Spirit within us  -  "I have been crucified with Christ;  nevertheless I live; yet not I but Christ lives in me (I could add 'by His Spirit'). Gal. 2: 20-22.

I thought this: “I definitely agree that seeing an infinite god above and beyond us does not negates having a close relationship. I think it would change my experience a little with God though, personally. I’ve had moments that he seemed immeasurable, above and beyond my current understanding and that that’s seemed BIG. I also am well aware that I’m no where near completely getting God in this life. But the times I’ve felt closest is when I’ve realized that I’ve come to more fully understand a part of God that I didn’t before, that I’m seeing as God sees in a moment or through an experience that has been sanctified. And that there is hope that I will completely see as God does one day…a hope bred on knowing that the core of me is divine to God. This will add to this infinite goodness that's God. Similar to how the view of a child to their parent changes as they grow and that watching as they grasp and experience the world more like an adult brings joy to the child and parent alike. For me, I struggle to understand a God that doesn’t expect us to become as He is one day. I struggle to understand what are we growing and expanding into.”

Also funny fact, I didn’t catch on what Steve was saying when he quoted heb 1:1-2 as having Jesus fulfilling prophetic requirements. I’ve never read that verse in that way and there wasn’t a lot of explanation around the quote so I was confused by the point he was trying to make with it. I didn’t catch on until you were explaining it. Just to make sure I’m understanding fully, what does the phrase standing “supremely alone as Prophet, priest, and king.” Mean to you?

 

I have to get to bed. I wanted to say, I’ve really appreciated your input @Paloma. You’re a voice I really respect and always learn a little bit more from. 

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

I wonder if religions, just say what they want to believe, to make the world obey certain aspects. I tend to think Joseph saw problems with religions as a young man, and wanted change and prayed for answers. He could have gotten divine revelation, but so did many others in his time, and even getting visions. 

I think we need to not say "we know", because we don't IMO. How can we? Unless, you've had a NDE, or maybe a vision. But I don't believe people get physical visions, I tend to believe Joseph's was not a physical vision, but through his mind. 

In the Bible there are many things happening that can't be possible, so I tend to think people ate magic mushrooms, or other plants that cause visions, and caused some silly stories put down as scripture, and everyone knows what I'm talking about.

I think people used/use mind altering drugs to get visions, or closer to the Divine. And it was happening in Joseph's time, IMO.

I don't like religions that tell youth what's true, and how if they don't believe or leave it, that there lives will be terrible, this is harmful. Because how can they know?

When Brad says that if they leave they'll lose everything, it's like an abusive spouse/boyfriend who tells their wife/girlfriend that. 

I believe that Steve (the Evangelical) saying that it's scary the thought that if you're not converted to Christ in this life you still have a chance. Him saying that's scary, is to me scary. Because how does he know that we're given only one chance on this earth? Of course he mentions the Bible, and believing it's the word of God, how can he know that for a surety? How much of it is straight from Jesus Christ? And how can he know it? How isn't the Koran the word of God, or the Hebrew Bible the only word of God? That Jews and Muslims believe.

I think it's all man made, the scriptures etc. Man wrote what they thought came to their minds to be beliefs. And words from on high. Feelings etc. How often we have those that hear voices in their minds, what of them, should we believe the voices are from God? What of those that want change and pray to God and then establish a religion that answers the questions that are unknown? Many religions try to say that they have the only answers, but do they?

I believe something is beyond this earth, I don't believe just evolution created the millions of species out there, I believe something created evolution. That's my belief, but I don't expect or think anyone is doomed if they don't believe it. 

 

 

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if religions, just say what they want to believe, to make the world obey certain aspects. I tend to think Joseph saw problems with religions as a young man, and wanted change and prayed for answers. He could have gotten divine revelation, but so did many others in his time, and even getting visions. 

I think we need to not say "we know", because we don't IMO. How can we? Unless, you've had a NDE, or maybe a vision. But I don't believe people get physical visions, I tend to believe Joseph's was not a physical vision, but through his mind. 

In the Bible there are many things happening that can't be possible, so I tend to think people ate magic mushrooms, or other plants that cause visions, and caused some silly stories put down as scripture, and everyone knows what I'm talking about.

I think people used/use mind altering drugs to get visions, or closer to the Divine. And it was happening in Joseph's time, IMO.

I don't like religions that tell youth what's true, and how if they don't believe or leave it, that there lives will be terrible, this is harmful. Because how can they know?

When Brad says that if they leave they'll lose everything, it's like an abusive spouse/boyfriend who tells their wife/girlfriend that. 

I believe that Steve (the Evangelical) saying that it's scary the thought that if you're not converted to Christ in this life you still have a chance. Him saying that's scary, is to me scary. Because how does he know that we're given only one chance on this earth? Of course he mentions the Bible, and believing it's the word of God, how can he know that for a surety? How much of it is straight from Jesus Christ? And how can he know it? How isn't the Koran the word of God, or the Hebrew Bible the only word of God? That Jews and Muslims believe.

I think it's all man made, the scriptures etc. Man wrote what they thought came to their minds to be beliefs. And words from on high. Feelings etc. How often we have those that hear voices in their minds, what of them, should we believe the voices are from God? What of those that want change and pray to God and then establish a religion that answers the questions that are unknown? Many religions try to say that they have the only answers, but do they?

I believe something is beyond this earth, I don't believe just evolution created the millions of species out there, I believe something created evolution. That's my belief, but I don't expect or think anyone is doomed if they don't believe it. 

 

 

 

I don't have a problem with any of your beliefs that you've shared here.  If they work for you and are bringing you happiness and fulfillment in your life then I'm glad for you.

I do think we have to be careful in one regard though.  Sometimes we (people) have a tendency to believe that if we haven't experienced something, then no one can have experienced it, or if we don't know something, then no one can know it either, etc..  Saying "you can't know that is true" is really no different than someone else saying "I know this is true."  They are two sides to the same coin as both profess a knowledge of something that cannot be proven.

So it does sort of become, why do you feel comfortable saying that you know that something isn't true, but are uncomfortable when someone else says they know that it is?

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't have a problem with any of your beliefs that you've shared here.  If they work for you and are bringing you happiness and fulfillment in your life then I'm glad for you.

I do think we have to be careful in one regard though.  Sometimes we (people) have a tendency to believe that if we haven't experienced something, then no one can have experienced it, or if we don't know something, then no one can know it either, etc..  Saying "you can't know that is true" is really no different than someone else saying "I know this is true."  They are two sides to the same coin as both profess a knowledge of something that cannot be proven.

So it does sort of become, why do you feel comfortable saying that you know that something isn't true, but are uncomfortable when someone else says they know that it is?

You're right. I will say when I'm wrong, and that was wrong. Appreciate your feedback, you're respectful, and I appreciate that as well.

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think we need to not say "we know", because we don't IMO. How can we? Unless, you've had a NDE, or maybe a vision. But I don't believe people get physical visions, I tend to believe Joseph's was not a physical vision, but through his mind. 

Think that one through.

EVERYTHING you know is in your mind, or you would not know it or experience it.

Yes there is a world out there that causes you to know it's out there, but your senses and brain INTERPRET EVERYTHING 

Do you dream? Do dreams come from somewhere else, or are they "from your mind"?

Just a thought. Your mind organizes everything by the way YOU see it.

If you differ from someone else in ANYTHING, it is because your mind is organizing a different "world" than the world they "know".

If we all saw the same "reality" in the same way, everyone would agree on everything!

Yet again, 

Rabbit or duck?

Which is "in your mind" and which is "real"?

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You're right. I will say when I'm wrong, and that was wrong. Appreciate your feedback, you're respectful, and I appreciate that as well.

[mfbukowski]

On 2/19/2022 at 1:33 PM, Tacenda said:

I just watched clear to the end. Something I didn't care to see is Brad during the closing hymn and then closing prayer and right after his talk, he was pounding his fists like he was triumphant but I shouldn't put my interpretation in, I may be wrong, but during the song he spoke with the person next to him on the stand, and then right before the prayer he grabbed his cell phone and wasn't even reverent during the prayer to God/Savior. I guess I need to cut him some slack, but shouldn't he be an example, was he "playing" when he testified of Christ?

Sometimes this happens when on the stand.  You might receive a text that the other person thought was urgent- and so you check your phone when you need to.  Or even if it is NOT urgent you need to check to see if it IS urgent.   You might have to check with your neighbor for some reason; it might be some reasonably urgent message that still needs to be announced etc.   Or it might just be a sense of relief that makes one almost "forget" that they are "still on stage" and being judged by people who have never been in that situation in their lives.

I remember once being reprimanded by a visiting GA for referring to the folks in the congregation as "you guys".   It was kind of a jokey situation, I was keeping it light, but he didn't like it.   I must admit I still have a little resentment toward this individual, though he was just doing what he thought was right in pointing out the correct attitude that a new bishop should have.

I remember a story about Bringham Y who received- in the middle of a sacrament meeting- a message that a troupe of Saints were stuck in the freezing cold getting over the mountains, and he stopped the meeting in the middle of it and told all the able-bodied people to leave NOW to get up the mountain and help those folks get shelter.   And of course that included all those on the stand- and so suddenly the meeting was over.  LIKE, NOW!

Some things are more urgent than looking reverant during a hymn or prayer, when you are hit with a troubling message seconds before the prayer starts.

Besides, one is supposed to have their eyes closed, not looking around at others during a prayer.

Just think- the observer in this situation is perhaps even more guilty of the error than the one being observed- for doing the same thing AND judging others. 

Or Bro Wilcox might have just messed up.   Could be either one, but there is no way WE can know what he was thinking about in that moment.

I know that when I am the last speaker, I often try to assess how well I did and where I messed up during the talk I had just given- I am looking around the room toward the faces of the folks I know and try to read how they are taking it. 

 I have been in the "communication" mode with the congregation for a half hour, watching faces to see if I am getting through to them and suddenly that mode changes instantly to quite meditation and looking inward in a different form of communication- listening to another and their communication with God.

Errors happen!    That moment is a big change in just a few seconds!

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

She's such a nice human being who thinks for herself!  Those traits are hard to find.   I know I think for myself, but I wish I could learn to be kind.  When you think for yourself the tendency I think is to start thinking that whatever you yourself think is the "only true way" to think so of course you are always right and others are always wrong!

Getting both together is something I really like about @Tacenda!

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Think that one through.

EVERYTHING you know is in your mind, or you would not know it or experience it.

No everything I know is not in my mind. I know things that are outside my physical body.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes there is a world out there that causes you to know it's out there, but your senses and brain INTERPRET EVERYTHING 

Ok. So?

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you dream? Do dreams come from somewhere else, or are they "from your mind"?

Dreams come from your mind.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just a thought. Your mind organizes everything by the way YOU see it.

If you differ from someone else in ANYTHING, it is because your mind is organizing a different "world" than the world they "know".

If we all saw the same "reality" in the same way, everyone would agree on everything!

Yet we don't see things the same way but you think the way you see things is the best way. Better than those who based on their mind and experience think they have the best way.  Yet you refuse to acknowledge how problematic this is.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yet again, 

Rabbit or duck?

Which is "in your mind" and which is "real"?

Dumb.

[Nofear]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No everything I know is not in my mind. I know things that are outside my physical body.

You can play a semantic question on what to "know" means. Since it seems likely you and mfbukowski mean different things when you say "know" ... you might have to hash that out first.

It is not, however, a semantic question to say question to say what we experience is in our mind. Can we "know" anything that we do not experience? If you say, no, than everything we know is mental. If you say yes, than one can argue that we can "know" things that aren't in our mind.

[Paloma]

Blue Dreams, I thoroughly appreciate your last post here for all the thoughtfulness you brought into the conversation between Brad and Steve, and for interacting with my comments about it.

I had thought of responding to you section by section (trying to, as Calm gave me a clue as to how to even do that!!).  But I think it would be better just now for me to not chop up the conversation like that but work my way through various topics you raised in your post.  I have them before me here and I'll try to be as clear and concise as possible.

Yes, I like you would have preferred a more equitable back and forth dialogue between Brad and Steve.  I thought they did a good job of neither appearing to have an upper hand even as the event seemed geared toward Brad explaining LDS beliefs.  I am so glad that Brad felt "safe" in that environment as anything less I would have a problem with!

You mentioned Brad having a less academic and nuanced style than you prefer.  Blue Dreams, I so often think that when I hear my Christian colleagues speak!  I think we're soul sisters!  (And Navidad, if you happen to be reading ... I really like the way you express yourself - often all I could have hoped for and more!)

When I think of what Steve said throughout the video, most of the time there wasn't enough for me to think deeply about, though I did, as I said, love his Hebrews 1: 1-2 reference.  More on that later! Both you and Tacenda have reacted to Steve's remark about finding the possibility of salvation  after death "scary".  I reacted much the same as you two.  How could you find that scary?!  - though I think that lots of Evangelical Christians would find it so.  And I think that a big part of the reason is that "It doesn't fit my theology" ..."It's outside the bounds".  I fully recognize that 'comfortable' way of thinking about Christian faith in the Protestant Evangelical community.  When people think they "know", there's comfort (even the potential for smugness and judgmentalism) in that.  

When I was doing my Masters of Theology, I took several courses in Systematic Theology.  That kind of trying to understand God and God's way with people can lend itself to putting everything into boxes and then living out of those boxes, as we bring our best historical and current understanding to subjects like Humanity, Sin, the Trinity, Christology, Salvation, Sanctification, Ecclesiology, etc.  etc. etc.  I am thankful for wise and humble professors who started the courses with warnings about "boxes" and closed systems.  One of my professors said the first day of class:  "We're all filled with biases and heresies.  Let's recognize that and go from there with a spirit of humility."

I also took courses in Biblical Theology which differs from Systematic Theology in that we don't start with categories like the Trinity but we look at Books and passages in the Bible and see what we learn about God through them, not concerned about mysteries and paradoxes to be solved or reconciled but simply see what's there.

Back to Steve ... I'm wondering if he's uncomfortable with the unknown or with the thought that his assumptions/beliefs could be shaken.  I think that a lot of nonLDS Christians wouId feel that their whole basis for preaching and evangelizing would be questioned if the possibility of second chances after death were entertained.  I can't know and don't want to speculate but I can say for myself that I love to look at everything with an open mind.  (One professor wondered how open I could be without losing myself but I am pretty grounded!)

I find nothing scary about thinking God's love, mercy and compassion extend beyond a cutoff point at death!  And I believe that the closer I get to the heart of God, the more I sense His heart is far more inclusive, loving and merciful than I could imagine. (This is somewhat similar to your own statement, Blue Dreams, that "the more I've grown in my own faith the less anxious I've come with people's spiritual development and bringing people to Christ ...tied more and more with a transformation via God's love in my life".)

You talked about the core of you being divine in God (and I'm sorry I'm jumping ahead in your post here, and leaving out a lot of wonderful things you said).  I also feel this in some way - otherwise, what could it possibly mean that I have God's Spirit in me.  'He in me and I in Him' is very much what I believe, along with all or most nonLDS Christians.  I think many of us don't think about this nearly enough - probably because we live in a materialistic world where we don't understand spiritual reality very well.  (I learned a lot during my many years in Africa, because Africans are so much wiser and so rich in experience when it comes to the spiritual realm.) 

On to Hebrews 1: 1-2.  I'm so glad you picked up on what I said.  I really love the book of Hebrews because it's all about how Jesus has fulfilled every different "way" of saving grace and access to Himself that God has provided through human history.  Hebrews shows that Jesus is greater than angels, greater than Moses and the prophets, greater than Aaron and Levi and the whole priestly  sacrificial system, "having made sacrifice for sin and sat down at the right hand of God" Heb. 1:3.  The implication here is that Jesus, "heir" to the throne is now reigning with the Father.  So that's where I see Jesus "supremely alone as Prophet, Priest and King".  Over and over in the Book of Hebrews, the writer talks about Jesus accomplishing what He did "once and for all".  I see this theme throughout the Bible.  In the New Testament, I see it most clearly in Colossians and Hebrews.  The phrase means to me that there is no one to come after Jesus because all of salvation history was leading up to Him and He has fulfilled all of the roles - prophet (God's mouthpiece to and for us); priest (our conduit to God whereby God sees our repentance, obedience and longing for Him) and King (He holds all authority).

I do see Him inviting us into these roles as He gives us spiritual gifts - part of "He in us and we in Him".  

That's all for now, as I need to prepare for a Healing Care course I'm helping to facilitate in just over an hour.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Paloma

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Paloma said:

 

On to Hebrews 1: 1-2.  I'm so glad you picked up on what I said.  I really love the book of Hebrews because it's all about how Jesus has fulfilled every different "way" of saving grace and access to Himself that God has provided through human history.  Hebrews shows that Jesus is greater than angels, greater than Moses and the prophets, greater than Aaron and Levi and the whole priestly  sacrificial system, "having made sacrifice for sin and sat down at the right hand of God" Heb. 1:3.  The implication here is that Jesus, "heir" to the throne is now reigning with the Father.  So that's where I see Jesus "supremely alone as Prophet, Priest and King".  Over and over in the Book of Hebrews, the writer talks about Jesus accomplishing what He did "once and for all".  I see this theme throughout the Bible.  In the New Testament, I see it most clearly in Colossians and Hebrews.  The phrase means to me that there is no one to come after Jesus because all of salvation history was leading up to Him and He has fulfilled all of the roles - prophet (God's mouthpiece to and for us); priest (our conduit to God whereby God sees our repentance, obedience and longing for Him) and King (He holds all authority).

 

Thank you for explaining this better Paloma.  I was also confused by Steve's explanation on that video.

I think that one reason that LDS wouldn't understand that verse in Hebrews the same way is because we believe the bolded was just as true about Christ during the OT as during the NT, or after the Atonement had been completed.  

So our need for prophets (or rather, God's use of prophets), in our belief, is not tied to Christ fulfilling His role as the Messiah or Savior.  

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thank you for explaining this better Paloma.  I was also confused by Steve's explanation on that video.

I think that one reason that LDS wouldn't understand that verse in Hebrews the same way is because we believe the bolded was just as true about Christ during the OT as during the NT, or after the Atonement had been completed.  

So our need for prophets (or rather, God's use of prophets), in our belief, is not tied to Christ fulfilling His role as the Messiah or Savior.  

Very true.  Christ's doing what he did did not detract from the need for prophets etc. doing what they do:

Quote

 

Ephesians 4:11-13
King James Version

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

That passage almost sums up the mission of the church and the role of these callings in proclaiming the gospel and perfecting the saints...

Prophets do not detract from Christ's mission or diminish his all encompassing role; on the contrary they continue to fulfill Christ's mission by taking part in the body of Christ in their unique part as arms, feet, etc, with Christ at the head guiding and directing the body in their respective roles.    Christ called them to assist in the unity, knowledge, towards the perfection and "measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".

Christ did not make the role of prophets obsolete, on the contrary he made them germane and apropos and endowed them with purpose and power.   

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Very true.  Christ's doing what he did did not detract from the need for prophets etc. doing what they do:

That passage almost sums up the mission of the church and the role of these callings in proclaiming the gospel and perfecting the saints...

Prophets do not detract from Christ's mission or diminish his all encompassing role; on the contrary they continue to fulfill Christ's mission by taking part in the body of Christ in their unique part as arms, feet, etc, with Christ at the head guiding and directing the body in their respective roles.    Christ called them to assist in the unity, knowledge, towards the perfection and "measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".

Christ did not make the role of prophets obsolete, on the contrary he made them germane and apropos and endowed them with purpose and power.   

It's always interesting how different denominations can interpret the same verses of scripture so differently.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

She's such a nice human being who thinks for herself!  Those traits are hard to find.   I know I think for myself, but I wish I could learn to be kind.  When you think for yourself the tendency I think is to start thinking that whatever you yourself think is the "only true way" to think so of course you are always right and others are always wrong!

Getting both together is something I really like about @Tacenda!

Reading over what I say sometimes...maybe not so nice, especially if I'm disagreeing with scriptures in the Bible, which include scriptures about the Savior. Which is what I shouldn't do and may cause some who do believe in every scripture, feel like their faith is tromped on.

But appreciate you and others that have patience with me during this journey of what to believe.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sometimes this happens when on the stand.  You might receive a text that the other person thought was urgent- and so you check your phone when you need to.  Or even if it is NOT urgent you need to check to see if it IS urgent.   You might have to check with your neighbor for some reason; it might be some reasonably urgent message that still needs to be announced etc.   Or it might just be a sense of relief that makes one almost "forget" that they are "still on stage" and being judged by people who have never been in that situation in their lives.

I remember once being reprimanded by a visiting GA for referring to the folks in the congregation as "you guys".   It was kind of a jokey situation, I was keeping it light, but he didn't like it.   I must admit I still have a little resentment toward this individual, though he was just doing what he thought was right in pointing out the correct attitude that a new bishop should have.

I remember a story about Bringham Y who received- in the middle of a sacrament meeting- a message that a troupe of Saints were stuck in the freezing cold getting over the mountains, and he stopped the meeting in the middle of it and told all the able-bodied people to leave NOW to get up the mountain and help those folks get shelter.   And of course that included all those on the stand- and so suddenly the meeting was over.  LIKE, NOW!

Some things are more urgent than looking reverant during a hymn or prayer, when you are hit with a troubling message seconds before the prayer starts.

Besides, one is supposed to have their eyes closed, not looking around at others during a prayer.

Just think- the observer in this situation is perhaps even more guilty of the error than the one being observed- for doing the same thing AND judging others. 

Or Bro Wilcox might have just messed up.   Could be either one, but there is no way WE can know what he was thinking about in that moment.

I know that when I am the last speaker, I often try to assess how well I did and where I messed up during the talk I had just given- I am looking around the room toward the faces of the folks I know and try to read how they are taking it. 

 I have been in the "communication" mode with the congregation for a half hour, watching faces to see if I am getting through to them and suddenly that mode changes instantly to quite meditation and looking inward in a different form of communication- listening to another and their communication with God.

Errors happen!    That moment is a big change in just a few seconds!

 

You're probably right, I remember awhile back watching a short video shared by some disgruntled LDS or ex LDS of Pres Eyring during General Conference that someone video'd of him and he wasn't bowing his head or closing his eyes during the opening prayer but thumbing through his binder. It shouldn't be that big of deal, he had a lot on his mind and most likely was conducting the session. And I will give Brad a break as well. It was likely exactly what you say, and he's human and worried about how the talk he'd just given went over.  I watched the below video, and it's a cute video of he and his wife and his wife said Brad doesn't like animals, and she said how much she loves animals, particularly dogs, and how she allows him to go out and speak, because he loves speaking at engagements. And he allows her to have her dogs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZfgFMv0PZo

 

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if religions, just say what they want to believe, to make the world obey certain aspects. I tend to think Joseph saw problems with religions as a young man, and wanted change and prayed for answers. He could have gotten divine revelation, but so did many others in his time, and even getting visions. 

I think we need to not say "we know", because we don't IMO. How can we? Unless, you've had a NDE, or maybe a vision. But I don't believe people get physical visions, I tend to believe Joseph's was not a physical vision, but through his mind. 

Technically everything experienced on earth is filtered through the mind, including physical vision. Personally I believe strongly that one sees godly things through "spiritual eyes" as described in moses 1:1. And there's a spectrum of experiences that one can have through seeing things spiritual, including visions. 

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

In the Bible there are many things happening that can't be possible, so I tend to think people ate magic mushrooms, or other plants that cause visions, and caused some silly stories put down as scripture, and everyone knows what I'm talking about.

I think people used/use mind altering drugs to get visions, or closer to the Divine. And it was happening in Joseph's time, IMO.

I can understand one's skepticism for things that seem impossible. Though as a person who's experienced something that doesn't have a very probable explanation I give a lot more space for others to as well. 

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't like religions that tell youth what's true, and how if they don't believe or leave it, that there lives will be terrible, this is harmful. Because how can they know?

Speaking broadly I don't like it. But I also have this vivid memory as a therapist of sitting across the room from a person who was starting to go down a path I would not recommend. I could see clearly where this was going, it wasn't good, and the person felt fated to go down it. I remember interrupting them and stating that they always have a choice about where they go.  I think there are ways that you can know that there will be some negative consequences to leaving...just as I knew sitting where I was and knowing this person's problems that where they went would not heal them it would only act as a short term reprieve. I'm not so fatalistic about leaving church and I don't think it's universally applicable (my husband left and definitely didn't have a "terrible" life when he was out of the church, for example). But I do think that sometimes leaving doesn't fix as much as we'd like and can leave us without some of the tools that may have help. But I do agree, there is no sure knowledge for most cases as to where this will take someone. And I wish either way, people would place better nuance and understanding in this discussion. 

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

When Brad says that if they leave they'll lose everything, it's like an abusive spouse/boyfriend who tells their wife/girlfriend that.

 

I probably wouldn't go that far. In abusive relationships, it's usually about controlling people for a self-oriented motive. I'm not reading that in Brad.

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe that Steve (the Evangelical) saying that it's scary the thought that if you're not converted to Christ in this life you still have a chance. Him saying that's scary, is to me scary. Because how does he know that we're given only one chance on this earth? Of course he mentions the Bible, and believing it's the word of God, how can he know that for a surety? How much of it is straight from Jesus Christ? And how can he know it? How isn't the Koran the word of God, or the Hebrew Bible the only word of God? That Jews and Muslims believe.

I think it's all man made, the scriptures etc. Man wrote what they thought came to their minds to be beliefs. And words from on high. Feelings etc. How often we have those that hear voices in their minds, what of them, should we believe the voices are from God? What of those that want change and pray to God and then establish a religion that answers the questions that are unknown? Many religions try to say that they have the only answers, but do they?

I think there can be a solid middle ground between a surety that's likely too strongly married to one single religious viewpoint and another certainty that it's all man made. 

 

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe something is beyond this earth, I don't believe just evolution created the millions of species out there, I believe something created evolution. That's my belief, but I don't expect or think anyone is doomed if they don't believe it. 

 

That I can mostly agree with  

 

With luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You're probably right, I remember awhile back watching a short video shared by some disgruntled LDS or ex LDS of Pres Eyring during General Conference that someone video'd of him and he wasn't bowing his head or closing his eyes during the opening prayer but thumbing through his binder. It shouldn't be that big of deal, he had a lot on his mind and most likely was conducting the session. And I will give Brad a break as well. It was likely exactly what you say, and he's human and worried about how the talk he'd just given went over.  I watched the below video, and it's a cute video of he and his wife and his wife said Brad doesn't like animals, and she said how much she loves animals, particularly dogs, and how she allows him to go out and speak, because he loves speaking at engagements. And he allows her to have her dogs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZfgFMv0PZo

 

+1 😄

[Paloma]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Reading over what I say sometimes...maybe not so nice, especially if I'm disagreeing with scriptures in the Bible, which include scriptures about the Savior. Which is what I shouldn't do and may cause some who do believe in every scripture, feel like their faith is tromped on.

But appreciate you and others that have patience with me during this journey of what to believe.

Tacenda, I for one always appreciate people's honest expression of what they think.  I tend to think that Christians, of all people, should be able to handle that!  Certainly, I think God handles it just fine.  I'm sure He's not insecure!  And having said that, I'm perfectly comfortable with people saying "I don't think I even believe in God" or "I think your belief in God is ridiculous".  I get it ... I could easily think that myself, but it just happens I'm me seeing things as I do ... and that's okay too.

You are a breath of fresh air! 😀