Elder Kevin S. Hamilton emphasizes importance of Christ’s organized church

[Nofear]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How is this different than what happens at the resurrection? It’s my understanding that members believe that perfection is unobtainable in this life. That we all sin. That no perfect being in this life existed except for Jesus. Yet in the celestial kingdom, everyone will be sinless. So what changes between here and there? If we pass this test, doesn’t God change is so that we are “good” by nature?

My understanding of the doctrine is entirely different than what you suggest. The resurrection doesn't change us in that way. We will still have our agency and our new resurrected body in no way will remove that agency (indeed, I quite suspect that much of what we don't have control over we'll have control over (e.g. whether or not to sneeze)). Those that qualify for the Celestial Kingdom will be there because they have been changed and renewed by the Atonement and voluntarily choose to abide the laws and principles of that Kingdom -- not by persuasion, compulsion, or any other external or biological mechanism but because the individuals choose to do so by the nature -- a nature wrought anew ("born again") by the Atonement.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, Nofear said:

My understanding of the doctrine is entirely different than what you suggest. The resurrection doesn't change us in that way. We will still have our agency and our new resurrected body in no way will remove that agency (indeed, I quite suspect that much of what we don't have control over we'll have control over (e.g. whether or not to sneeze)). Those that qualify for the Celestial Kingdom will be there because they have been changed and renewed by the Atonement and voluntarily choose to abide the laws and principles of that Kingdom -- not by persuasion, compulsion, or any other external or biological mechanism but because the individuals choose to do so by the nature -- a nature wrought anew ("born again") by the Atonement.

What’s different between here and there? Why is perfection possible there but not here?

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, helix said:

When a rumor spreads like wildfire, how effective is it to just say "How about we give the mob some patience?  They'll look carefully for the truth and will arrive at an honest conclusion."

Oh please.  Reactive hyperbole.

9 hours ago, helix said:

We saw this with the Jeffery Holland BYU talk. How many people will actually go through and listen to the entire talk, or read the entire transcript?  Or analyze the talk for title, theme, supporting evidence, and conclusion, to see what the talk actually says?

Compare that to how many people will just accept a two sentence sound byte and the cynical interpretation prepackaged for them? 

Rumors and lies need to be called out early and hard. This talk is not what the ex-member circles are portraying it to be.

Well Mr. Helix I think that to fully accept Jesus one must accept the church and its leaders.  That is what he said.  When you have questions about what the leaders do replace the church with savior.  You all can spin away all you want but it says what is says.  You want to soften it because it appears to be a message of exclusiveness and equate with what teh LDS leader do to the same thing Jesus would do.  And ultimately this really is what the LDS Church teaches. The claim is it is the only True and Living Church and one must be baptized (the church rejects any other Christian sects baptism) and receive the other LDS ordinances to receive the best reward in heave.  Oh sure there is proxy work for the dead.  That is a wonderful inclusive doctrine.  And there are still ultimate glories for almost everyone, though many will have to suffer horribly (D&C19).  But own it.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What’s different between here and there? Why is perfection possible there but not here?

1) Time is on our side after this life to learn.

2) The veil will be removed as another life (pre-life) of experience opens to our view.

3) Satan will be bound.

 4) Christ will be among us for a thousand years before judgment.

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What’s different between here and there? Why is perfection possible there but not here?

In theory sinlessness is possible. But, only one person actually actualized that possibility -- the rest of need/needed/will need help, often a lot of help.

Note, however, that being sinless is not exactly the same as perfection. Compare Matthew 5:48 and 3 Nephi 12:48 for some insight into that.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

The word perfect there is the Greek word for "complete."

Absolutely, and that is often pointed out in our talks and lessons. The Church is that we may be complete in one and not complete alone. We can be complete as we are made whole in Christ, and also complete as a united body, “fellowcitizens with the saints.” I see Ephesians 2 as speaking to this idea (especially in such terms as “all the building fitly framed together,” “builded together,” etc.; more so I think Ephesians 4, “the whole body fitly joined together and compacted”). The “whole armor of God” also comes to mind.

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, helix said:

When a rumor spreads like wildfire, how effective is it to just say "How about we give the mob some patience?  They'll look carefully for the truth and will arrive at an honest conclusion."

We saw this with the Jeffery Holland BYU talk. How many people will actually go through and listen to the entire talk, or read the entire transcript?  Or analyze the talk for title, theme, supporting evidence, and conclusion, to see what the talk actually says?

Compare that to how many people will just accept a two sentence sound byte and the cynical interpretation prepackaged for them? 

Rumors and lies need to be called out early and hard. This talk is not what the ex-member circles are portraying it to be.

Listening again:

"You cannot accept Jesus Christ and reject his church or his authorized messengers."

"You cannot come to Christ without accepting his church and you cannot come to his church without accepting his prophets."

Quoted Oaks re loyal opposition.  Not appropriate for the church. Questions ok,opposition is not.

When questioning church leaders "Substitute the word Savior, or Lord or Jesus Christ for the Church."  Like "I don't agree with the way Jesus Christ does this or that."

The good old don't steady the ark example is given.

 

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have not read the talk, I am speaking to the questions some have raised, probably they have misinterpreted it

BUT

Nothing trumps what God tells me.

God can tell little old ME if this Authority is right or wrong

That is the prime directive on how to find "if the church is true".

If God does not affirm it to ME there is no reason to believe any authority who might be taken to say otherwise.

Some interpretations might see this as category errors; do you obey the King, or several of His servants?

If the King says yes and the servants say no, and if my prime devotion is to the King, it is the King who wins.

Obedience to anyone other than God denies the principle of Testimony itself.  And that goes for EVERY talk et al.

The decision is as easy as pie.

Key lime.  🤗

Please listen and opine. I would love to hear your thoughts.

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Please listen and opine. I would love to hear your thoughts.

K.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

And in this diespensation His only authorized servants those found in the LDS church? Does that correctly complete your thought?

Somewhat. That is my belief, and also that there are many other servants of God who do not believe that. This more correctly perfects, I mean completes, my thought!  

 

[T-Shirt]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I listened to it.

Then I don't understand why you continue to misquote him and attribute to him things he did not say.

[Teancum]

52 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Then I don't understand why you continue to misquote him and attribute to him things he did not say.

I don't. Not one whit.  See my post to Helix.  Feel free to show any misquotes and me putting things down he did not say.  Consider this a CFR.  Or stop saying this.

[helix]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Listening again:

"You cannot accept Jesus Christ and reject his church or his authorized messengers."

"You cannot come to Christ without accepting his church and you cannot come to his church without accepting his prophets."

Quoted Oaks re loyal opposition.  Not appropriate for the church. Questions ok,opposition is not.

When questioning church leaders "Substitute the word Savior, or Lord or Jesus Christ for the Church."  Like "I don't agree with the way Jesus Christ does this or that."

The good old don't steady the ark example is given.

 

Remember when I said people would take two sentence soundbytes and then prepackage a cynical interpretation?  There it is. Well, the above went to four sentences and not two.  But that's how talks should be analyzed. The cynical interpretation is implying Hamilton was referring to things not said. As though his sentences don't end in periods, but in ellipses, and we all know how to fill those in. For example, when he says "You can't accept his prophets", is he referring to everything a prophet does? Every minutiae of policy, every opinion, to the point of inerrancy? No, no he isn't.  His points are something else entirely.

Talks should be analyzed by looking for a theme and supporting evidence.

Analysis:

Title: Why a Church? - The talk is not "Why infallibility" or "Don't question" or "Follow leaders because they can't be wrong".   It's "Why a Church?"

Audience:

It's to BYU, not the church.  "Brothers and sisters, I love this university. I attended BYU as a freshman."

Key points:
"My remarks today are centered on a fundamental question, why a church?  Why do we need a church, "

"We need an organized church, one that can deliver the blessings of the atonement of Jesus Christ"

"Jesus Christ himself organized a church even his church as we read in Ephesians and he gave some Apostles and some prophets and some evangelists and some..."

"But the question remains why do we need a church? Why isn't it enough for me to simply worship God directly on a beach or a mountaintop? Why do I need the intermediary of a church?"

"Jesus Christ established His church to enable individuals and families to do the work of salvation and exaltation."

"the church provides priesthood authority and keys, covenants and ordinances, prophetic direction, scriptures, gospel learning and teaching support service and leadership opportunities, and a community of saints"

"The Church of Jesus Christ is how we come to Christ. It is His church it teaches His doctrine it provides His ordinances and covenants"

This is the theme...it's similar to 3rd Nephi Chapter 11. It's about the atonement, and using priesthood for ordinances and covenants to apply the atonement. At no point is he talking about anything beyond a simple doctrinal level of saving ordinances and covenants.  He's not talking about, say, whether to pay gross or net on tithing, or that prophets are perfect when they agree, or that everything in the church handbook is correct and shouldn't be questioned. He has completely avoided that and defined his talk about how the church has priesthood, and the priesthood performs the few sacred saving ordinances.

The discussion of covenants and the atonement and love continues, over and over and over.  By minute 10, one-third into his talk, he is still hitting this point "These covenants and ordinances are only found in his church"

"His church is led and directed by his Apostles just as it was in New Testament times because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His plan has not changed, His doctrine does not change, His covenants do not change. His church exists so that he can accomplish His objective which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children."

At 13:30, almost halfway into his talk, he stops defining why we need church, and he moves into corollary issues related to that theme.  Here is where critics start to misread and get cranky.

"I have heard some that would try to decouple or disconnect Jesus Christ from His church and his apostles by saying things like I follow Jesus not the church or I follow the Savior not the Apostles. To those who say this I would simply say it's not possible you cannot accept Jesus Christ and reject His church or His authorized messengers."

The critic latches on this. "A ha! Pharisee! He's preaching inerrancy!"  No. Look at the prior 13 minutes. He's talking about ordinances and covenants via priesthood as organized by Christ to reach the atonement.  He said "covenants" 8 times by this point, ordinances 6 times, and priesthood 5 times. His theme is laid out, and he is talking about people who say you don't need Apostles or covenants or priesthood at all.

He gives a great example of this simplicity: "You cannot separate Jesus Christ from the Church of Jesus Christ. He taught this to the Nephites of the Book of Mormon.  'Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen to minister unto you and to be your servants.'" In 3 Nephi chapter 11, did Christ get into details? No, Christ kept his doctrine very simple and made a point of that. You can't separate the leaders preaching this gospel from Christ.

"With all of his Church experience, President Kimball had undoubtedly sat through his share of meetings where the speaker read their talk, or spoke in a monotone, or gave a travelogue. But President Kimball understood that we do not go to sacrament meeting to be entertained but to Worship the Lord renew our covenants and be taught by the Spirit"

Here's another critic issue: "Occasionally I have heard people say that those who serve in the First Presidency in the Quorum of The Twelve are only human and are capable of making mistakes. While it is true that we are all fallible human beings the safety net for all of us is the council system that we use at every level of the church." He states fallibility. Hamilton isn't worried about disagreements about policy, he's worried about covenants and humility.  He gave Kimball's analogy just prior, that Kimball went through his share of boring monotone meetings or travelogues, but that's not the point of church. We need core saving doctrines and ordinances.

"... in the government of God's kingdom where questions are honored but opposition is not"

Read all of this in the context of the talk given prior. Priesthood, and those saving  doctrines, covenants, and ordinances aren't up for debate. They are part of Christ's church, and you can't separate leaders preaching these saving ordinances from Christ. 

"Another comment that I hear from time to time especially on social media is and I quote 'Be the change' as in 'I will be the change you know as in I will stay in the church and work for change from within'. But how does this square with the invitation to simply be humble followers of Christ?  Besides true change the kind of change that makes a difference in the eternities comes from within. We change our hearts and minds"

Elder Hamilton says humility is the point of church membership, and focusing on disagreements over humility means you are doing something wrong.

Another good example comes near the end of the talk "I now quote from Elder Malachi: President Pinegar had me come to his office and I rehearsed what had happened and voiced my decision to return home to South Africa. I told him that I could not
be a member of a racist Church. After listening patiently to me my mission president said 'Elder Malachi all that I know is that all worthy men can now be ordained to the priesthood and that Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son and the sacred grove.' President Pinegar ... helped me understand two things during that exchange.  One while it is true that the church did not ordain black people to the priesthood for a season, that is the past, and we do not have reasons as to why it happened. And two he helped me understand that since I have a testimony of the restored gospel including Joseph Smith having been called of God to restore Jesus Christ Church to the Earth why should I walk away with those two truths firm in my heart"  There is the theme of humility over disagreements. Work with what you know and be humble. That's more important.

Elder Hamilton doesn't worry about the flaws, he worries about humble testimonies.

Concluding remarks:

The last 2-3 minutes covers the theme again: "We will all be under the same obligation to repent and come to him all who will receive the blessings of exaltation will be required to make and keep the same baptismal and Temple Covenants which are only found in his church administered by his priesthood we are the children of the Covenant"

My thoughts:

Hinckley was a master of speaking in a way so not to be misunderstood. Hamilton does not, and I found his talk rather dry. I personally don't consider it to be a great talk.  But his point is straightforward: He discussed saving ordinances and covenants over and over and over again. Priesthood is essential to these. Christ instituted this, and if you disagree with this you disagree with Christ.  He discussed that we follow leaders with a goal of that we should first be personally humble, that's what's important for us, blind obedience is not important. We must all eventually use Christ's ordinances and covenants to be saved through the Atonement. 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by helix

[T-Shirt]

39 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't. Not one whit.  See my post to Helix.  Feel free to show any misquotes and me putting things down he did not say.  Consider this a CFR.  Or stop saying this.

I will respond later when I have more time.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Of course, once we have done that we are led back into Holy Spirit-led interpretation. That is why I personally am a bit skeptical about those who study the Scriptures sans the aid of the Holy Spirit in that analysis. The Scriptures are not a work by Tolkien, MacDonald, or Lewis. It isn't a matter of removing faith from the analysis to arrive at a better analysis. It is a matter of correctly incorporating faith into the analysis. That is the really hard part because with faith often comes bias. Therein lies the challenge of "rightly dividing the word of truth."

OK so what trumps what?

Study or Spirit?

I could write a 900 page book on what the spirit has taught me, but who would care, and what would be the evidence?   It would all have to be included.  Any statement based on "study" in today's world IMPLIES a whole metaphysics and epistemology to justify anything scholarly based on the "spirit".  What is the spirit- what evidence?  How can you know MY revelation is "true" as opposed to your revelation?  What is reality- is your theory Platonic- ie what we think is real is illusion and the reality is all spiritual?   How does one justify that by study?

I suppose I seem to be gently slamming  you today, but YOU think I am hard to understand?  

Oy Vey, my dear friend!!!   I am just trying to see the logic in your beautiful spiritual statements when you are "skeptical about those who study the Scriptures sans the aid of the Holy Spirit in that analysis."

THAT is the perfect way to find your own path, but I suppose it depends on what you mean by "study".   The philosophies of men or "Scripture" and which is which?  I used to call it the "philosophies of men mangled by scripture".   😁

Quote

That is the really hard part because with faith often comes bias. Therein lies the challenge of "rightly dividing the word of truth."

Bold added

Every statement a person says is "biased"- but YES- this is EXACTLY the problem!

So what is Truth?  See the problem? 

Edited February 1, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, helix said:

Remember when I said people would take two sentence soundbytes and then prepackage a cynical interpretation?  There it is. Well, the above went to four sentences and not two.  But that's how talks should be analyzed. The cynical interpretation is implying Hamilton was referring to things not said. As though his sentences don't end in periods, but in ellipses, and we all know how to fill those in. For example, when he says "You can't accept his prophets", is he referring to everything a prophet does? Every minutiae of policy, every opinion, to the point of inerrancy? No, no he isn't.  His points are something else entirely

I know the context of the talk. I listened to it twice.  But the the context in know way changes the quotes I posted.  And I posted them without commentary.  The quote are not soundbites at all and then mean what they say. It is quite simple.  It is clear that he is teaching to fully accept Christ you need to accept what he says is his church and its representatives.  Do you disagree?  Further he says if you are a member and you disagree with leaders or THE CHURCH replace it with the Savior, the Lord or Jesus Christ?  Why doe you think  he does this?  What is he trying to get at and convince the members of? 

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I will respond later when I have more time.

Okie dokie.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How is this different than what happens at the resurrection? It’s my understanding that members believe that perfection is unobtainable in this life. That we all sin. That no perfect being in this life existed except for Jesus. Yet in the celestial kingdom, everyone will be sinless. So what changes between here and there? If we pass this test, doesn’t God change is so that we are “good” by nature?

What if perfection INCLUDES learning how to repent and change one's life? It's like marriage- making the covenant to never divorce is part of changing ourselves to learn how to always agree.  How can one do that without making mistakes

[manol]

On 2/1/2023 at 7:40 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s my understanding that members believe that perfection is unobtainable in this life. That we all sin. That no perfect being in this life existed except for Jesus. Yet in the celestial kingdom, everyone will be sinless. So what changes between here and there? If we pass this test, doesn’t God change [us] so that we are “good” by nature?

 

On 2/1/2023 at 7:56 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What’s different between here and there? Why is perfection possible there but not here?

I cannot reliably speak for how the LDS Church would answer these questions, but I think they are very good questions and will offer up a few thoughts, coming from a viewpoint which is largely informed by near-death-experiences and near-death-like experiences. 

My understanding is that coming to Earth is like going to the gym, in that we are working against enormous resistances which are not present in heaven, our intention being to strengthen various attributes and to benefit the whole by subsequently sharing our experience with all.  Imagine that our natural state is love, but that we deliberately left that state so we could have this earth-gym experience. 

So perhaps if we could see clearly, we'd see that everyone on earth is doing the very best they can with what they have, even if the outcomes often look horrific because "what they have" has been severely constrained by the veil, and mangled by crushing events and destructive ideas and physical/biochemical/neurological/psychological impairments and pervasive fear and negativity and whatever else.  We might even see "oneness" rather than separation as our underlying true nature.  In other words,  "who we are" in this world is NOT "who we really are".    

Enough of me and my interpretations; here are examples of what I'm talking about, the most relevant part only takes a couple minutes or so from where each one is cued up.   First is a clip of a man with vivid pre-birth memories cued up to his description of the veil being activated (the whole video is imo excellent): 

https://youtu.be/7PO-Op38o-k?t=317

Here is a near-death-experiencer describing "downloading" her earth-life experiences on the other side, apparently for the benefit of others (once again the whole video is imo excellent):

https://youtu.be/s8lQs1MccoU?t=392

Here is a near-death experiencer attempting to describe the love he encountered on the other side:

https://youtu.be/o8aHiwnbXY0?t=1873

Here is a compilation of clips of near-death experiencers describing "who we really are", cued up to a guy with an LDS background: 

https://youtu.be/IYhYhyenAWE?t=729

Edited February 2, 2023 by manol

[CV75]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What’s different between here and there? Why is perfection possible there but not here?

Because we die here and not there. John 12, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal."

[rodheadlee]

On 1/31/2023 at 12:16 PM, Teancum said:

 

•  

   

Sure you follow but not without question. I question everything and follow the Holy Spirit. I don't have time to look up all the verses for that right now. Blindly following is not what's expected.

[helix]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is clear that he is teaching to fully accept Christ you need to accept what he says is his church and its representatives.  Do you disagree?

You're leaving out the fundamental detail, which he covered over and over again. To fully accept Christ, you must accept priesthood, ordinances, and covenants. You get them via Christ's leaders.  That's it.

Quoting you from earlier, you insist this means "that leaders should pretty much be followed without question".  Even though in the talk he said leaders are imperfect and Jesus Christ is perfect, you said the talk "seems to promote a level on infallibility and unquestioning loyalty to the brethren". Even when he says in his talk "in the government of God's kingdom where questions are honored", you said talk was about "follow and obey and don't ask questions".  

You're forcing the talk into something it's not and at times directly contradicting the speaker.

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

Further he says if you are a member and you disagree with leaders or THE CHURCH replace it with the Savior, the Lord or Jesus Christ?  Why doe you think  he does this?  What is he trying to get at and convince the members of? 

Let me ask you this. Why does he spend most of his talk in simple terms of priesthood, doctrine, and covenants?  Why does he discuss simple stuff and only this simple stuff?  Why does he avoid complex minor policy issues and opinions? 

The critics argument seems to be that he simply wrote a cumbersome talk, with most of it at a 1st grade level (covenants, ordinances, priesthood). Then two-thirds of the way through he took a massive leap into a different topic, griping about all who disagreed with any church leader for any minor thing at any time since 1830? Is his talk that disjointed?

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, helix said:

You're leaving out the fundamental detail, which he covered over and over again. To fully accept Christ, you must accept priesthood, ordinances, and covenants. You get them via Christ's leaders.  That's it.

Hi helix. Welcome to the forum. Do you believe I have not fully accepted Christ? In case you don't know, I am not a member of the LDS church, but have attended a ward for going on six years now. I committed my life to Christ as a boy and have committed my life to Christian ministry in a personal, bivocational, and vocational sense. I agree with Peter about the priesthood, which he also deems a holy nation. I believe in the benefit and value of ordinances. I have made my share of covenants (if-then commitments) with Christ. I depend on the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life to guide me. I am committed to the atonement of Christ and his unique role as the only eternal high priest. I am guided by my own group's version of the Word of Wisdom. I served a mission within my own faith group in west Africa. I would dare even suggest that I have served as one of Christ's leaders within my own faith tradition.

So again, have I not fully accepted Christ? If not, in what way am I less than fully committed to and in fact in a relationship with Him? Oh, and every week at the time of the Sacrament, I examine myself, recommit myself to my covenants and repent of the ways I have let Him down that week. Thanks for your response and again welcome to the board.

[helix]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi helix. Welcome to the forum.

Hi Navidad, I've been here for 17 years. It's nice that someone finally welcomed me.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Do you believe I have not fully accepted Christ?

I'd be surprised if anyone has fully accepted Christ at this time. That comes many years down the road. In the meantime, the atonement can cover, and thank goodness for that.

At some point in the future, we believe ordinances like baptism are necessary for full acceptance.

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/31/2023 at 7:56 PM, Teancum said:

Sure the video was nice.  It did not sound like the Follow the Prophet song thought.

One could argue that if you are following them you are being led astray. 😉

To my musically trained ear, it is a reasonable effort at replicating Jewish folk music. 

One could argue just about anything, but that is not what I said.