General Conference Thoughts

[california boy]

5 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

If you were considering hiring a minority, would you seek counsel from your Skin Head neighbor? If you needed a blood transfusion, would you seek counsel from a Jehovah's Witness? If you were trying to decide whether to have ribeye or filet minion, would you seek help from an animal rights activist vegan? If you were trying to decide if you want to vote for Joe Biden or RFK, Jr, would you seek guidance from Donald Trump? If you wanted to buy a new diesel pick-up, would ask direction from a Greta Thunberg?

Would you consider me toxic to advise against seeking help from these folks in these specific decisions? 

I would talk to every person you mentioned because I would want to know an opinion that is different from mine.  This is how I grow in empathy and love for others.  This idea of limiting different points of view, in my opinion is not the path that God wants His children to take.  What you describe is just one big echo chamber.  

I guess I should stop posting on this board.  The whole reason I post is to give a different perspective.  I thought that was the purpose of discussing different issues.  Elder Nelson apparently thinks that being exposed to different life experiences is to difficult for his snowflake members.  

[Leaf474]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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."

Very interesting idea 👍

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Very interesting idea 👍

I agree.  I don’t think it would be a bad idea if only so church leaders understood how what they said and do looks like from different points of view to ensure they are doing and saying things not out of habit or conviction even (because sometimes conviction is just habit), but out of awareness or knowledge.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

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.

Actually his wife WAS a member and a child or two were raised in the church.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

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.

Check it out.  But of course you are joking.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/divine-darwinism-comprehensible-christianity-and-the-atheists-wager-richard-rorty-on-mormonism-an-interview-with-mary-v-rorty-and-patricia-rorty/

[CV75]

42 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 see nothing in Paul's, President Nelson's or my comments suggesting what "the objective of a member should be," but I understand some folks can take them that way.

As a former investigator, I had no expectations, and rather than feeling like I needed counsel, I acted on my need to know based on an indescribable hunch that I was on to something amazing, and so I sought information, accepted invitations (and in the case of Moroni's Promise, exhortation), and considered testimony. I was not biased toward religion, quite the opposite. And I got some temptations and cajoling to depart from this endeavor and joining the Church when others (family being the most significant) found out the direction I was taking. Mine was not a journey involving doubts about the Church, and not everyone who has doubts seeks counsel about it or even resolution (they just run with it). But if they do have doubts about their faith along with that indescribable hunch to not depart from it, why deny one or both by getting counsel from someone who would just as soon they act on their doubts and not their hunch?

[JAHS]

5 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.

I think most talks that are given at GC should be considered and applied at the proper time for each members. They are speaking to the whole world after all and people need to consider whether it applies to them right now or not.
He did put limitations on what should be avoided. He said to get the information from the prophets and the holy spirit on matters of religion and spirituality. He was not talking about world views and other secular subjects. I think that was pretty obvious.

[manol]

11 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I personally feel no comfort in the prophets words because I know I am not celestial material. It’s very very painful. Sometimes fighting back is all we have.

Maybe instead of fighting against an old paradigm, your life experiences are inviting you to find a new one. There are paradigms of inclusion, of unconditional love, and even of oneness. 

[MustardSeed]

18 minutes ago, manol said:

Maybe instead of fighting against an old paradigm, your life experiences are inviting you to find a new one. There are paradigms of inclusion, of unconditional love, and even of oneness. 

Yes thank you-   I feel most of the time secure because I’ve done a lot of work to undo the fearful messaging.  Sometimes, those message pop up again and it’s hard. 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours 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!

You're right that this may be an effective strategy.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

I think most talks that are given at GC should be considered and applied at the proper time for each members. They are speaking to the whole world after all and people need to consider whether it applies to them right now or not.
He did put limitations on what should be avoided. He said to get the information from the prophets and the holy spirit on matters of religion and spirituality. He was not talking about world views and other secular subjects. I think that was pretty obvious.

But that's not really what he said.

What is obvious to you may not be obvious to others. There are many things that are obvious to me that don't seem to be understood by others. So when speaking to a worldwide audience I would think that clarity and precision would be useful. Otherwise the words can be interpreted differently by people, some of whom tend to be very literal. 

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

I see nothing in Paul's, President Nelson's or my comments suggesting what "the objective of a member should be," but I understand some folks can take them that way.

As a former investigator, I had no expectations, and rather than feeling like I needed counsel, I acted on my need to know based on an indescribable hunch that I was on to something amazing, and so I sought information, accepted invitations (and in the case of Moroni's Promise, exhortation), and considered testimony. I was not biased toward religion, quite the opposite. And I got some temptations and cajoling to depart from this endeavor and joining the Church when others (family being the most significant) found out the direction I was taking. Mine was not a journey involving doubts about the Church, and not everyone who has doubts seeks counsel about it or even resolution (they just run with it). But if they do have doubts about their faith along with that indescribable hunch to not depart from it, why deny one or both by getting counsel from someone who would just as soon they act on their doubts and not their hunch?

Omigosh, yes this is IT!

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

Edited October 6, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Blessed Bovine!* 👍 You are on a roll here!

*Postmodern version of "holy cow".

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 hours 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.

 

20 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

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

So if I understand this correctly, comparing faithful people to cars salesmen is offensive, but comparing seeking advice from non-believers to neoNazis is ok. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not seeing such limits in President Nelson’s talk.  Only not seeking counsel about faith from those who attack testimony.

 

21 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?

 

21 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'm not putting forward the idea that Nelson intends his advice to be broadly interpreted. I am fine with the contention that he is limiting his advice to "Never take counsel from those who do not believe" to matters of faith. What I object to is your insertion of the words "attack testimony." In matters of faith, Nelson clearly instructs members to "never" take counsel from those who do not believe. Whether they are "attacking faith" (which is a highly subjective and charged phrase is immaterial). The key parts of the phrase are "never" and "do not believe".

I think this is toxic, a red flag, and indicates that such faith cannot withstand scrutiny. This advice will also drive wedges deeper into relationships in mixed faith families.

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I would talk to every person you mentioned because I would want to know an opinion that is different from mine.  This is how I grow in empathy and love for others.  This idea of limiting different points of view, in my opinion is not the path that God wants His children to take.  What you describe is just one big echo chamber.  

I guess I should stop posting on this board.  The whole reason I post is to give a different perspective.  I thought that was the purpose of discussing different issues.  Elder Nelson apparently thinks that being exposed to different life experiences is to difficult for his snowflake members.  

Never not post, I'm selfish that way. 😊

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Let’s say I found out my adult child was struggling with the idea that death is the end. That there is nothing out there in the universe that cares. Like really seriously struggling. Should my advise to her be that whatever you do, don’t talk to any religious people about that? Is that healthy? 

 

21 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

If you were considering hiring a minority, would you seek counsel from your Skin Head neighbor? If you needed a blood transfusion, would you seek counsel from a Jehovah's Witness? If you were trying to decide whether to have ribeye or filet minion, would you seek help from an animal rights activist vegan? If you were trying to decide if you want to vote for Joe Biden or RFK, Jr, would you seek guidance from Donald Trump? If you wanted to buy a new diesel pick-up, would ask direction from a Greta Thunberg?

Would you consider me toxic to advise against seeking help from these folks in these specific decisions? 

I noticed that you didn't answer my question. Interesting.

 

But I do believe that every person that consumes energy, potentially in excess should understand climate change. And telling someone considering making decisions like that to "never" seek counsel from those with a different viewpoint to be toxic and a redflag. I think that every voter, and in particular every extremely partisan political entity should be able to steel man the other sides argument. This definitely involves taking counsel from the other side. And telling someone considering making decisions like that to "never" seek counsel from those with a different viewpoint to be toxic and a redflag. I think that everybody that consumes meat should understand the enviromental impacts of that choice as well as the way that factory farms treat their animals.  And telling someone considering making decisions like that to "never" seek counsel from those with a different viewpoint to be toxic and a redflag. I think that everyone should be mindful and have an understanding of the religions of their neighbors and why they believe the way they do. And telling someone considering making decisions like that to "never" seek counsel from those with a different viewpoint to be toxic and a redflag. And I even think that we should understand the viewpoints of those that promote nothing more than their own bias and hate - telling someone considering making decisions like that to "never" seek counsel from those with a different viewpoint to be toxic and a redflag.

Now if someone has already done these things there is nothing wrong in not continually doing so. But to tell someone to "never" take counsel from someone with a different point of view? That is antithetical to everything that I believe in. It does nothing but prevent growth, understanding, and progress. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're right that this may be an effective strategy.

Advocating the engagement of counsel from sources that do not share your purpose is an example of burying your head in the sand concerning your own purpose and is self-sabotaging in nature.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Advocating the engagement of counsel from sources that do not share your purpose is an example of burying your head in the sand concerning your own purpose and is self-sabotaging in nature.

Who says they don’t share your purpose!? Did I miss that part of the talk? What if my purpose is a happy fulfilled life? And my non-believing partner or parent shares this purpose? Can I seek counsel from them about matters of faith, then? Not if I listen to Nelson. 

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

I noticed that you didn't answer my question. Interesting.

 

But I do believe that every person that consumes energy, potentially in excess should understand climate change. And telling someone considering making decisions like that to "never" seek counsel from those with a different viewpoint to be toxic and a redflag. I think that every voter, and in particular every extremely partisan political entity should be able to steel man the other sides argument. This definitely involves taking counsel from the other side. And telling someone considering making decisions like that to "never" seek counsel from those with a different viewpoint to be toxic and a redflag. I think that everybody that consumes meat should understand the enviromental impacts of that choice as well as the way that factory farms treat their animals.  And telling someone considering making decisions like that to "never" seek counsel from those with a different viewpoint to be toxic and a redflag. I think that everyone should be mindful and have an understanding of the religions of their neighbors and why they believe the way they do. And telling someone considering making decisions like that to "never" seek counsel from those with a different viewpoint to be toxic and a redflag. And I even think that we should understand the viewpoints of those that promote nothing more than their own bias and hate - telling someone considering making decisions like that to "never" seek counsel from those with a different viewpoint to be toxic and a redflag.

Now if someone has already done these things there is nothing wrong in not continually doing so. But to tell someone to "never" take counsel from someone with a different point of view? That is antithetical to everything that I believe in. It does nothing but prevent growth, understanding, and progress. 

If someone told you to never seek counsel from President Nelson, what kind of counsel from President Nelson would you seek, or have you accepted, to promote growth, understanding and progress?

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Who says they don’t share your purpose!? Did I miss that part of the talk? What if my purpose is a happy fulfilled life? And my non-believing partner or parent shares this purpose? Can I seek counsel from them about matters of faith, then? Not if I listen to Nelson. 

That's fairly general, but the context here is about those who have the goal of not departing from the faith, according to the talk. Someone who departed from the faith knows how to depart from the faith better than living with it, so seeking or accepting their counsel would not be a wise or goal-congruent course of action.

[Meadowchik]

37 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

 

I'm not putting forward the idea that Nelson intends his advice to be broadly interpreted. I am fine with the contention that he is limiting his advice to "Never take counsel from those who do not believe" to matters of faith. What I object to is your insertion of the words "attack testimony." In matters of faith, Nelson clearly instructs members to "never" take counsel from those who do not believe. Whether they are "attacking faith" (which is a highly subjective and charged phrase is immaterial). The key parts of the phrase are "never" and "do not believe".

I think this is toxic, a red flag, and indicates that such faith cannot withstand scrutiny. This advice will also drive wedges deeper into relationships in mixed faith families.

Even aside from that harm to relationships, consider the harm to those who follow that instruction. Non-believers can have counsel that can help believers, in any life aspect. 

Realistically it is difficult to make decisions as a human. Restricting help to such a narrow number of other human beings is not a good advice.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That's fairly general, but the context here is about those who have the goal of not departing from the faith, according to the talk. Someone who departed from the faith knows how to depart from the faith better than living with it, so seeking or accepting their counsel would not be a wise or goal-congruent course of action.

They could be believers, just in something else. And therefore know lots about keeping the faith in what they are led in good conscience to believe. Furthermore since they've been able to set belief-boundaries, they may be more equipped to know how to believe with healthy boundaries intact.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

They could be believers, just in something else. And therefore know lots about keeping the faith in what they are led in good conscience to believe. Furthermore since they've been able to set belief-boundaries, they may be more equipped to know how to believe with healthy boundaries intact.

Still, they left the faith, and that is the bias and crux of their counsel, however even-handed it may appear. Knowing about, believing in or departing from the faith, and healthy mental states, are hardly mutually inclusive. Conflating them is a reflection of poor boundaries, and such a person is ill-equipped to offer counsel to stay with the faith. President Nelson is not enumerating all the attributes of a capable counselor, just advising against heeding someone who has not accepted/adopted reasons or the mindset to believe.

ETA: I have seen in many posts of the last few pages an additional conflation of counsel and conversation. Researching and discussing various viewpoints is very different from giving and receiving counsel from an opposing viewpoint. But this conflation can lead to some people assuming they are being told what to do, and others that their instruction is necessary (neither of which is legitimate counsel).

Edited October 6, 2023 by CV75

[Meadowchik]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Still, they left the faith, and that is the bias and crux of their counsel, however even-handed it may appear.

That's not true, because deciding to remove oneself from the church is not the same as wanting everyone else to leave.