General Conference Thoughts

[Smiley McGee]

3 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Are you trying to say that those who share my faith are the equivalent of a used car salesman? I'm not sure of your point, help me see what I am missing.

Your previous posts suggests you shouldn’t seek advice on matters from antagonists; why would you seek advice from others with different, but just as strong biases? 

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

In the following statement, who are the non-believers?

Reading the whole talk, what counsel is President Nelson referring to?

That's a really good question.  If reading the "whole talk" is it only those who are attacking the church or is it including good people who are thinking Terrestrial as well? I think that this part may be much less controversial if the talk had been about people who are attacking the church. But the majority of the talk is about thinking Celestial, being forever families, being sealed etc. so when he says to seek guidance it will hit people a little differently. 

[T-Shirt]

5 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Your previous posts suggests you shouldn’t seek advice on matters from antagonists; why would you seek advice from others with different, but just as strong biases? 

Do you advocate for getting the advice of neo-Nazis in your hiring practices? Why or why not?

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Rain said:

I know you do not mean to be this way, but I kind of feel like you are trying to push me rather than listen.  This part of his talk just didn't bother me that much despite how my words may be coming across, though I understand why many are really struggling with it.  I pretty much agree with what you have been saying - context.  But the context of the whole talk with celestial families etc also plays into how people are feeling about this particular quote from it and it's hard on people.

No, sorry.  I am probably hyper focused on this part because of the conversation, but I actually felt bad (not as in condemning, but more sorrowful, wishful) that he had focused on “celestial” rather than eternal or heavenly because of how I think of the “path” and all those who are journeying their way down it, especially those with earnest intent, which includes many, many, many outside the Church and many in the Church who don’t see themselves as walking to the same destination….but it is the same path and no one needs to stop if they want to keep on going when they get to their imagined end of the journey.  The price has already been paid for their journey, the gateway is open.  

I believe the end is eternal life with God and there are plenty who visualize this life with God, but not by using the label “celestial” and his talk is likely not going to resonate with them and they may even feel they are being excluded because they don’t think of eternity with God in the same way.

So to be honest and open, while I am not bothered by what I believe is his intent behind the words, I do not like the word choice of “celestial” because I think there are better ways to resonate with people than with a label.  I would prefer something like “think of being with God and all his family”.  If a label like Celestial can cause pain for someone like MustardSeed, I believe we should be looking for a better way to express our hope in Christ and the Father.  Using the label “Celestial” unfortunately causes people who are not actually excluded to believe they are being excluded and cause some Saints who believe they are Celestial bound to believe that some of their fellow travelers are not simply because these travelers don’t understand the destination in the same way.  But no living Saint has been to the end of the path yet, so we are pretty clueless about our destination as well, even if we know a few things others don’t know.  They likely know somethings we don’t know.

PS:  I don’t believe Christians who speak of eternity with God, but do not believe in eternal families or our authorized baptism and other things we link to the Celestial Kingdom and they reject or at least don’t accept are hoping for a Terrestrial Kingdom type of existence.  I think that is a ridiculous notion as the relationship with God they are seeking is not a partial one, but a full and immediate one and I highly doubt that any of them would claim they know exactly what that will entail or refuse an intimate relationship with God because it included something unexpected, but what they want is to be as close to God as it is possible to be.  And that ain’t the Terrestrial Kingdom and anyone actually assigned to this category is going to know that it isn’t.  No one in heaven is going to be suffering from delusions of grandeur.  And I really hope no Saint will turn their back on the end when they find out it isn’t what we expected either because I am betting we are clueless about quite a few things going on with exaltation.  To be blunt, when I hear a Saint say something along the lines of a Catholic or Evangelical will be perfectly happy being in the Terrestrial Kingdom because that is what they believe Heaven to be and what they want or something similar, I kind of what to slap them.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Calm

[T-Shirt]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

That's a really good question.  If reading the "whole talk" is it only those who are attacking the church or is it including good people who are thinking Terrestrial as well? I think that this part may be much less controversial if the talk had been about people who are attacking the church. But the majority of the talk is about thinking Celestial, being forever families, being sealed etc. so when he says to seek guidance it will hit people a little differently. 

I appreciate your thoughts and see how some may be struggling. Form my perspective, the whole topic of his talk is about setting your sights on the Celestial Kingdom and to not let anything deter you. I feel that his advice is to not seek spiritual counsel from any source that is going to tell you that doing the things necessary for the Celestial Kingdom are not important. It's really that simple. If you are focused on the Celestial Kingdom and trying to "Think Celestial", why would you seek spiritual help from someone telling you that sexual purity is not important or paying tithing is not smart? You may seek all kinds of other advice from them, especially if they are experts in certain things, but if you want to be Celestial and think Celestial, is it helpful to ask their help in spiritual matters if they are going to encourage you to not keep the commandments?

[Smiley McGee]

11 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Do you advocate for getting the advice of neo-Nazis in your hiring practices? Why or why not?

Of course not. Now explain to me why I should only rely on believers regarding church matters.

[T-Shirt]

Just now, Smiley McGee said:

Of course not. Now explain to me why I should only rely on believers regarding church matters.

You didn't explain why not.

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, sorry.  I am probably hyper focused on this part because of the conversation, but I actually felt bad that he had focused on “celestial” rather than eternal or heavenly because of how I think of the “path” and all those who are journeying their way down it, especially those with earnest intent, which includes many, many, many outside the Church.  I believe the end is eternal life with God and there are plenty who visualize as this life with God, but not by using the label “celestial” and his talk is likely not going to resonate with them and they may even feel they are being excluded because they don’t think of eternity with God in the same way.

So to be honest and open, while I am not bother by what I believe is his intent behind the words, I do not like the word choice of “celestial” because I think there are better ways to resonate with people than with a label.  I would prefer something like “think of being with God and all his family”.  If a label like Celestial can cause pain for someone like MustardSeed, I believe we should be looking for a better way to express our hope in Christ and the Father.  Using the label “Celestial” unfortunately causes people who are not actually excluded to believe they are being excluded and cause some Saints who believe they are Celestial bound to believe that some of their fellow travelers are not simply because these travelers don’t understand the destination in the same way.  But no living Saint has been to the end of the path yet, so we are pretty clueless about our destination as well, even if we know a few things others don’t know.  They likely know somethings we don’t know.

PS:  I don’t believe Christians who speak of eternity with God, but do not believe in eternal families are hoping for a Terrestrial Kingdom type of existence.  I think that is a ridiculous notion as the relationship with God they are seeking is not a partial one, but a full and immediate one and I highly doubt that any of them would claim they know exactly what that will entail or refuse an intimate relationship with God because it included something unexpected.  And I really hope no Saint will either because I am betting we are clueless about quite a few things going on with exaltation.  To be blunt, when I hear a Saint say something along the lines of a Catholic or Evangelical will be perfectly happy being in the Terrestrial Kingdom because that is what they believe Heaven to be and what they want or something similar, I kind of what to slap them.

❤️❤️❤️

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I appreciate your thoughts and see how some may be struggling. Form my perspective, the whole topic of his talk is about setting your sights on the Celestial Kingdom and to not let anything deter you. I feel that his advice is to not seek spiritual counsel from any source that is going to tell you that doing the things necessary for the Celestial Kingdom are not important. It's really that simple. If you are focused on the Celestial Kingdom and trying to "Think Celestial", why would you seek spiritual help from someone telling you that sexual purity is not important or paying tithing is not smart? You may seek all kinds of other advice from them, especially if they are experts in certain things, but if you want to be Celestial and think Celestial, is it helpful to ask their help in spiritual matters if they are going to encourage you to not keep the commandments?

The bold is probably another reason why this talk did not resonate with me.  Long story short I am no longer big on goals, but to help me summarize I found this in Atomic Habits and it made so much sense to me:

Quote

Many people begin the process changing their habits by focusing on what they want to achieve.  This leads us to outcome-based habits.  The alternative is to build identiy-based habits.  With this approach we start by focusing on who we wish to become...

Afterall, when you behavior and your identity are fully aligned, you are no longer pursuing behavior change.  You are simply acting like the typ of person you already believe yourself to be.   

I realize that for some people "think celestial" may help them be celestial, but for me it is so tied to "setting my sights on the celestial kingdom" that it just becomes another goal in a long list of goals I have had.  I now prefer to remember that I am a child of Heavenly Parents because remembering works so much better.  I'm no longer worried about attaining the celestial goal but just line upon line finding what helps me be that learning child.

[Navidad]

As an Evangelical, I can say that the word "celestial" has never bothered me. I think that is because I and most Evangelicals I know who grew up as such cut our teeth on reading "Pilgrim's Progress" and a youth version "Little Pilgrim's Progress.' In both books the concept of the Celestial City played a key role. Is "Pilgrim's Progress" in the LDS library of approved books for folks?  Many of my concepts of the Christian life come from that book. I would also suggest that any concept of eternity that doesn't involve living in the practice and presence of God the Father and Christ is not a concept of an eternity of which I want a part.

Yesterday I had a wonderful conversation with a Catholic priest. I wouldn't hesitate to go to him for spiritual advice. Ditto for my first LDS bishop. Ditto for my best friend in the world who is Jewish. I love to read Richard Rohr. Technically, he is not of "my" faith, but he has taught me so very much. I know many many Evangelicals to whom I would not go. Take care all.

[ksfisher]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

...I kind of what to slap them.

Perhaps in those moments you should think celestial

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Of course not. Now explain to me why I should only rely on believers regarding church matters.

If you are inclined to rely on someone else to advise you in attaining your faith-related objective, then it is only common sense to make sure they are aligned with your purpose.

This is difficult when you are unsure or unsettled within yourself about your faith objective, especially in an environment of competing options. In such a case, people usually move in the direction of their prevailing biases, in which case they are ultimately advising themselves.

President Nelson's comments apply in both instances. He is appealing to both the desire to hold onto faith and a faith-dominant bias, however weak these may be, or however unwise the individual, to seek counsel on matters affecting faith from those who can contribute in a positive way.

[Leaf474]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That’s not what he said though? I mean he could have said that. But he didn’t. Are you sure you aren’t imputing what you want to be there rather than the deliberate words he chose to use?

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am pretty sure not because I believe he has said as much in other talks and elsewhere in his current talk imo (telling people to seek professional help) and why would he be saying something contrary to that?

I've been following this conversation, including posts by other users as well.

It seems to me that a gray area in Nelson's advice would be mental health.

For example, if you're seeing a psychotherapist about anxiety, that would overlap with faith since the scriptures - at least the parts that I'm familiar with - also talk about anxiety.

 

Or did Nelson speak about that?

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps in those moments you should think celestial

That is my instinctual response.  I do not nurture it. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Ya we’ve been through this multiple times before. I agree with you here. No need to rehash this. 

I agree. I didn't bring it up.

Did you notice any belief statements (as opposed to "truth claims") that a Pragmatic or Postmodern lens would help even atheists understand?

I think one was in President Nelson's talk when he compared the "best moral paradigm for mankind" (my words) with the gospel.

Pragmatism in action!  The Covenant Path is living the ideal paradigm for all.

Others may not agree, of course, but is is an example of how Pragmatic thought can be compatible with the gospel IF one sees the importance of the "nuclear family".

[ksfisher]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is my instinctual response.  I do not nurture it. 

I think it's a very natural one.

I hope you could tell I was just teasing you.  Your comment did seem amusingly ironic and made me chuckle.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think it's a very natural one.

I hope you could tell I was just teasing you.  Your comment did seem amusingly ironic and made me chuckle.

I did.  And it was meant that way even if perfectly true.  I like to amuse.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes absolutely. I see Nelson telling people to avoid counsel from people who don’t share their faith paradigm. I think that’s toxic, antithetical to growth. I don’t have a paradigm of faith. I don’t think it’s the best explanation for how the world works. It would never cross my mind to discourage someone (like my children) from seeking counsel from people of faith. If I was struggling with a loved one’s death, it would never cross my mind not to listen to the words of counsel from anyone based on their paradigm. If one’s faith can’t withstand someone’s competing paradigm, then that probably means it wasn’t worth having. 
 

Add to this there a many children and spouses in mixed faith families, these words are a wedge that doesn’t need to be there. 

Nailed it!

Major red flag promoting a toxic behavior seemingly based on a fear that a person's faith can't withstand any differing worldview. The fear is so strong that the prophet is counseling people not to seek advice from anyone who doesn't believe (as they believe). I don't think there were any limitations about what topics should be avoided. It sounded to me like EVERY topic should be avoided because the non-believer cannot be trusted.

This whole talk struck me as a cheesy/corny/trite way to send a very dark message and place a deeper wedge into relationships that may already be struggling.

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree. I didn't bring it up.

Did you notice any belief statements (as opposed to "truth claims") that a Pragmatic or Postmodern lens would help even atheists understand?

I think one was in President Nelson's talk when he compared the "best moral paradigm for mankind" (my words) with the gospel.

Pragmatism in action!  The Covenant Path is living the ideal paradigm for all.

Others may not agree, of course, but is is an example of how Pragmatic thought can be compatible with the gospel IF one sees the importance of the "nuclear family".

Meh…Rorty wasn’t a believer (though having every opportunity to be one) so I don’t take counsel from him and his philosophy on spiritual matters.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Smiley McGee]

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

You didn't explain why not.

Okay. Be evasive, ignore my previous posts, continue to play dumb. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Nailed it!

Major red flag promoting a toxic behavior seemingly based on a fear that a person's faith can't withstand any differing worldview. The fear is so strong that the prophet is counseling people not to seek advice from anyone who doesn't believe (as they believe). I don't think there were any limitations about what topics should be avoided. It sounded to me like EVERY topic should be avoided because the non-believer cannot be trusted.

This whole talk struck me as a cheesy/corny/trite way to send a very dark message and place a deeper wedge into relationships that may already be struggling.

Nailed a "seemingly" disgruntled opinion?

"The Apostle Paul prophesied that “in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.”

"There is no end to the adversary’s deceptions. Please be prepared. Never take counsel from those who do not believe. Seek guidance from voices you can trust—from prophets, seers, and revelators and from the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, who “will show unto you all things what ye should do.” Please do the spiritual work to increase your capacity to receive personal revelation."

Think Celestial! (churchofjesuschrist.org)

It seems to me that departing from the faith is one natural result of not standing up against a contrary worldview. Sometimes these can qualify as "seducing" notions and nefarious "doctrines." Sometimes they are invited and sometimes they are imposed, and typically just part of the milieu. If your objective or even inclination is to stay in the faith, and you are using a counsel approach to do so, it would be stupid to engage sources that do not share your purpose, no matter how nice they are. Good advice from President Nelson!

Edited October 5, 2023 by CV75

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

Okay. Be evasive, ignore my previous posts, continue to play dumb. 

To better align with President Nelson's words, your question about why you "should only rely on believers regarding church matters," could be rephrased. His counsel was, "Never take counsel from those who do not believe..." The reason for this is, if you are inclined to rely on someone else to advise you in keeping the faith, then it is only common sense to make sure they are aligned with your purpose and can contribute in a positive way.

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Nailed a "seemingly" disgruntled opinion?

"The Apostle Paul prophesied that “in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.”

"There is no end to the adversary’s deceptions. Please be prepared. Never take counsel from those who do not believe. Seek guidance from voices you can trust—from prophets, seers, and revelators and from the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, who “will show unto you all things what ye should do.” Please do the spiritual work to increase your capacity to receive personal revelation."

Think Celestial! (churchofjesuschrist.org)

It seems to me that departing from the faith is one natural result of not standing up against a contrary worldview. Sometimes these can qualify as "seducing" notions and nefarious "doctrines." Sometimes they are invited and sometimes they are imposed, and typically just part of the milieu. If your objective or even inclination is to stay in the faith, and you are using a counsel approach to do so, it would be stupid to engage sources that do not share your purpose, no matter how nice they are. Good advice from President Nelson!

I keep thinking about what the objective of a member should be. It could be "stay in the church", "find out if this is God’s church",  "find out if God has a church" or even "find out if God exists".  We often act like "stay in the church" is the only faithful objective of a member. We often don't allow members to have the growing experiences that those investigating the church get. Sometimes I think we defensively want people to have the "stay in the church" objective without being aware that they, personally, have and need a different objective.

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Nailed it!

Major red flag promoting a toxic behavior seemingly based on a fear that a person's faith can't withstand any differing worldview. The fear is so strong that the prophet is counseling people not to seek advice from anyone who doesn't believe (as they believe). I don't think there were any limitations about what topics should be avoided. It sounded to me like EVERY topic should be avoided because the non-believer cannot be trusted.

This whole talk struck me as a cheesy/corny/trite way to send a very dark message and place a deeper wedge into relationships that may already be struggling.

The Church leaders have already convinced me that the Celestial Kingdom is not a place I am wanted or should be unless I have a complete personality change. This just reinforces those teachings.  I am passing on wanting to be included with those "special" saints that fit the mold and qualify.  I just go about my life trusting God outside of the Church paradigm and living my life in the best way I can.  That is plenty of challenge for me.  Sorry, I just don't fit.  

I am not alone.  Many are finding that they don't fit the mold.  Or perhaps Church leaders like Elder Nelson will find out they have no say who gets in and who is excluded.  

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, Rain said:

I keep thinking about what the objective of a member should be. It could be "stay in the church", "find out if this is God’s church",  "find out if God has a church" or even "find out if God exists".  We often act like "stay in the church" is the only faithful objective of a member. We often don't allow members to have the growing experiences that those investigating the church get. Sometimes I think we defensively want people to have the "stay in the church" objective without being aware that they, personally, have and need a different objective.

 

I like what this blogger says:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unenlightenment/2020/12/jesus-was-a-heretic/

"

Although many Protestants would deny this, we oftentimes elevate tradition over truth. We take ideas that have been passed down to us and we rarely question them, because to do so is to risk heresy. In fact, some traditions are handed down to us that never had any foundation in the Early Church. Somewhere along the way some of these ideas morphed and became something new (ex. women not being allowed to lead in ministry).

Although the culture of questioning is slowly beginning to change (thanks to other heretics), we still need to create atmospheres within our church communities that allow for people to question. We should have a heretic(s) in every church who is willing to hold their church accountable. Perhaps if we had more people like this, then leaders within the Church might be more respected. Maybe we would be able to see clearer those issues that are actually important. Maybe, as Jesus demonstrated, heresy would bring about more grace in our communities, and more love for our neighbors."

Edited October 5, 2023 by Tacenda