General Conference Thoughts

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

Of course not. But what kind of helpful counsel are you going to get from such a person who has left for some serious reason if you are trying to think Celestial? 

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Of course not. But what kind of helpful counsel are you going to get from such a person who has left for some serious reason if you are trying to think Celestial? 

Any manner of helpful counsel. It depends on each person and other person. And the quality of their relationship makes a difference too. 

 

 

[Meadowchik]

Several years ago--after I left the church--my dad and I happened onto the subject of funerals. I mentioned the typical LDS funeral and he adamantly declared he wanted something different, specifically not any talks about the plan of salvation. He didn't want his funeral to primarily be a proselytizing tool.

Then, two years ago he and my mother were planning her funeral together. They intentionally made us the children the centerpiece, no long impersonal talks from leaders. I had the privilege of tributing my dear mother and hearing my siblings-half in/half out-do the same. That will always and forever be a sacred beautiful gift. I'm glad my dad didn't shun my thoughts.

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What I object to is your insertion of the words "attack testimony."

Even though this is what he says just a few sentences before?

To me that is context that needs to be taken into consideration with what else he says and the two sentences seem to me to be part of the same thought, with the second paragraph explaining how to react “someone you love attacks truth” because they have “depart[ed] from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils”.  The paragraph before it is a very different topic on being personally chaste while the paragraph after the second one is another significant shift to faith increasing, but those two seem to me to be one as the first speaks of those with “deceptions” and the second responds with the “voices you can trust”.

I hope that explains why I see it as appropriate to insert “attack testimony”.

Would you feel differently if there wasn’t a paragraph break between the paragraph with “attack testimony” and the paragraph with “never take counsel”?  I am trying to see why I see it as a continuation, but you obviously do not.  I was thinking they might have broken up his talk into short sections more to easily read than to separate his ideas, and so there was a somewhat unnecessary separation because to me they read more as one idea, a problem presented and a solution offered, but the third paragraph of the talk is almost the same size as the two paragraphs would be combined, so perhaps I am misreading it and it is actually a new idea and not a continuation.  I still think my reading is a possibility given I see an unnecessary separation with the three paragraphs on immorality, which again present a problem and a solution of “think celestial” with the addition of an explanation of why it is a problem (“God has set clear guidelines”).

Edited October 6, 2023 by Calm

[Nofear]

Examples of counsel that could be given from a non-believer:

• [coffee, tea, wine] in moderate amounts is good for your health (see study A) -- try it for awhile
• cohabitation before marriage is wise -- you need to know what you are getting into
• instead of giving 10% to the church, give it to a charity you like instead
• occasional pornography helps our marriage spice the bedroom up a bit
• it's bad to brainwash your children with religious stuff -- let them discover their own path
• everybody gets "spiritual feelings" ... since different people's "spiritual feelings" conflict, you have no reason to trust yours
• sharing your religious beliefs with others is just rude, keep your religion to yourself
• you wouldn't sweat so much if you weren't wearing that extra layer of underwear

Such counsel isn't in harmony with teachings of the Church. Other examples of potential counsel from a non-believer:

• make sure you maximum the employer matching contributions for your 401k
• that make of vehicle has been reported to have problems, you might reconsider purchasing it
• get your covid booster shot
• when you go on your vacation to [X] be sure to check out [Y]
• etc. etc. etc.

For me, Pres. Nelson's comment wasn't taken to be universal but more about the former category than the latter. Heck, the Brethren frequently get counsel in briefings on topics of import (legal, scientific, social, political, etc.) -- including from unbelievers.

[JAHS]

31 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Any manner of helpful counsel. It depends on each person and other person. And the quality of their relationship makes a difference too. 

 

 

We are not talking about "any matter of helpful counsel"; we are talking about religious spiritual matters that will help someone remain a believing member of the church who is reaching for exaltation.
President Nelson said "Never take counsel from those who do not believe." We can be polite and listen to such counsel, but we should not take the counsel if it conflicts with the Gospel and what God has told us.

Edited October 6, 2023 by JAHS

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Examples of counsel that could be given from a non-believer:

• [coffee, tea, wine] in moderate amounts is good for your health (see study A) -- try it for awhile
• cohabitation before marriage is wise -- you need to know what you are getting into
• instead of giving 10% to the church, give it to a charity you like instead
• occasional pornography helps our marriage spice the bedroom up a bit
• it's bad to brainwash your children with religious stuff -- let them discover their own path
• everybody gets "spiritual feelings" ... since different people's "spiritual feelings" conflict, you have no reason to trust yours
• sharing your religious beliefs with others is just rude, keep your religion to yourself
• you wouldn't sweat so much if you weren't wearing that extra layer of underwear

Such counsel isn't in harmony with teachings of the Church. Other examples of potential counsel from a non-believer:

• make sure you maximum the employer matching contributions for your 401k
• that make of vehicle has been reported to have problems, you might reconsider purchasing it
• get your covid booster shot
• when you go on your vacation to [X] be sure to check out [Y]
• etc. etc. etc.

For me, Pres. Nelson's comment wasn't taken to be universal but more about the former category than the latter. Heck, the Brethren frequently get counsel in briefings on topics of import (legal, scientific, social, political, etc.) -- including from unbelievers.

There's infinite possible potential counsel from unbelievers, some examples I relate to:

You are a person and should be treated as such. Avoid situations and relationships which require you to be less than an equal person.

Let yourself progress at your pace. Don't marry until you're ready. Be with someone who gives you joy--who challenges you to be be good and better by example, who comforts you, who loves you as you are, someone you want to be around.

Let yourself decide when you have children. Let it be borne of desire and pure joy of creating life from love never ever out of obligation.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

We are not talking about "any matter of helpful counsel"; we are talking about religious spiritual matters that will help someone remain a believing member of the church who is reaching for exaltation.
President Nelson said "Never take counsel from those who do not believe." We can be polite and listen to such counsel, but we should not take the counsel if it conflicts with the Gospel and what God has told us.

And yet everything is ultimately spiritual. That's why having bodies is so important.

Even with the way you've narrowed the meaning it still doesn't work. Good is good, regardless of religious affiliation. Exaltation should be about goodness. Yes?

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

What do you mean? Removing oneself from the Church isn't the same as not believing in the Church or departing from the faith, either. President Nelson is speaking in the present tense, "those who do not believe." not the regretful or the repentant.

The decision of someone who does not believe to separate from the Church is a reflection their bias and becomes the crux/reference point for their counsel to stay or return (if and when it is sought), regardless of their wants for everyone else. It would be stupid to make such a person your go-too for counsel on how to not separate from the Church. And if they now intend to return, it is probably better to get counsel from whomever they are getting it from!

Someone who still believes in the Church but left membership or participation and/or still has faith in the Restoration (and other tenets), or holds to one or two of these propositions but not to the other two, is probably not a good source of counsel on integrating these topics anyway.

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

And yet everything is ultimately spiritual. That's why having bodies is so important.

Even with the way you've narrowed the meaning it still doesn't work. Good is good, regardless of religious affiliation. Exaltation should be about goodness. Yes?

I did not narrow the meaning of what Pres. Nelson was talking about; he did, if you read it within the context of the whole talk.  Exaltation does not happen according to the "goodness" of a person.
There will be a lot of good people who will inherit the Terrestrial kingdom. The Celestial kingdom requires a lot more than that and a non-believer is not going to agree with everything it takes to do that.
We should not "take" counsel from a non-believer if it conflicts with the Gospel of exaltation.

[mfbukowski]

"Well when I was a kid we believed...."

Yes, thank God that President Nelson's positions are not shredded by the winds of political correctness.

But think of what HE was taught when "he was a kid" (99 years of age now) !!

He has got to be, arguably the most "liberal" or "progressive" prophet possibly since Joseph himself!

What did Joseph Smith believe when "he was a kid"?

In a church that thrives on continuing revelation, we have not seen much of it before President Nelson became president.

It was SUPPOSED to the life-blood of Joseph's church!

We do not see the advantages of a church which can now be based on revelation AND rationality and actually have appeal for secular folks if we just see it that way!

Postmodernism is the keystone for unification of the spirit and science, if we only understood how that can happen hermeneutically.

Internet dictionary:

"The hermeneutic circle describes the process of understanding a text hermeneutically. It refers to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole"

Edited October 6, 2023 by mfbukowski
Errors

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What do you mean? Removing oneself from the Church isn't the same as not believing in the Church or departing from the faith, either. President Nelson is speaking in the present tense, "those who do not believe." not the regretful or the repentant.

The decision of someone who does not believe to separate from the Church is a reflection their bias and becomes the crux/reference point for their counsel to stay or return (if and when it is sought), regardless of their wants for everyone else. It would be stupid to make such a person your go-too for counsel on how to not separate from the Church. And if they now intend to return, it is probably better to get counsel from whomever they are getting it from!

Someone who still believes in the Church but left membership or participation and/or still has faith in the Restoration (and other tenets), or holds to one or two of these propositions but not to the other two, is probably not a good source of counsel on integrating these topics anyway.

In what sense can a person truly choose to stay if they don’t understand an alternative point of view? Opposition in all things?

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Well when I was a kid we believed...."

Yes, thank God that President Nelson's positions are not shredded by the winds of political correctness.

But think of what HE was taught when "he was a kid" (99 years of age now) !!

He has got to be, arguably the most "liberal" or "progressive" prophet possibly since Joseph himself!

What did Joseph Smith believe when "he was a kid"?

90 years ago?

In a church that thrives on continuing revelation, we have not seen much of it before President Nelson became president.

It was SUPPOSED to the life-blood of Joseph's church!

We do not see the advantages of a church which can now be based on revelation AND rationality and actually have appeal for secular folks if we just see it that way!

Postmodernism is the keystone for unification of the spirit and science, if we only understood how that can happen hermeneutically.

I will try to explain that better.

Internet dictionary:

"The hermeneutic circle describes the process of understanding a text hermeneutically. It refers to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole"

I see that he's been progressive in certain areas and IMO, I don't think he made the right decisions with changes to the temple and two hour meetings because first, dramatic temple changes make one wonder, second, two hours isn't enough for all that the LDS pack in on a Sunday compared to other faiths IMO.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Tacenda

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I did not narrow the meaning of what Pres. Nelson was talking about; he did, if you read it within the context of the whole talk.  Exaltation does not happen according to the "goodness" of a person.
There will be a lot of good people who will inherit the Terrestrial kingdom. The Celestial kingdom requires a lot more than that and a non-believer is not going to agree with everything it takes to do that.
We should not "take" counsel from a non-believer if it conflicts with the Gospel of exaltation.

I think you underestimate non believers.

In my opinion, exaltation is fairly described as an eternal progression of more goodness. 

Iow if someone tries to convince you that exaltation is irrelevant from goodness, please don't believe them.

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What do you mean? Removing oneself from the Church isn't the same as not believing in the Church or departing from the faith, either. President Nelson is speaking in the present tense, "those who do not believe." not the regretful or the repentant.

 

Someone who believes the church does not work for them is not the same as someone who believes the church cannot work for anybody.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Iow if someone tries to convince you that exaltation is irrelevant from goodness, please don't believe them.

Counsel from a non-believer? No!

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In what sense can a person truly choose to stay if they don’t understand an alternative point of view? Opposition in all things?

As an eternal principle, we get alternate and even opposing points of view, along the progressive mental states of wondering, deciding, choosing and acting on matters of faith. Sometimes we intentionally invite these views to be shared, sometimes boorish people force them into our view, and sometimes they simply cross out path. Discussion and information gathering on alternative views are not the same as obtaining counsel, whether to meet or discourage your objective. Counsel is productive when the work has been done to decide what you want counsel about, and why, and can recognize sources that respect your objectives. Even shrinks know that!

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Someone who believes the church does not work for them is not the same as someone who believes the church cannot work for anybody.

Yes, see the rest of my post. Who in their right mind, having a desire to believe that the Church works for them (though it may not feel quite that way at the moment), seeks counsel from someone who doesn't believe it works for them? This has nothing to do with having a conversation where the topic might come up.

[HappyJackWagon]

This conversation has reminded me of the Red Flags or Signs that one may be a part of a dangerous or toxic organization.

1. Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
2. Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
3. Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget
4. Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
5. A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
6. Abuse of members
7. Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
8. Followers feeling they are never able to be “good enough”
9. A belief that the leader is right at all times
10. A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation

I think church leaders and members actually glorify many of these positions.

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, see the rest of my post. Who in their right mind, having a desire to believe that the Church works for them (though it may not feel quite that way at the moment), seeks counsel from someone who doesn't believe it works for them? This has nothing to do with having a conversation where the topic might come up.

Someone who respects that person they're asking, who believes they have spiritual integrity. Believe it or not, those people do exist and such nonbelievers can offer spiritual insight that many believers don't have.

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This conversation has reminded me of the Red Flags or Signs that one may be a part of a dangerous or toxic organization.

1. Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
2. Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
3. Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget
4. Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
5. A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
6. Abuse of members
7. Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
8. Followers feeling they are never able to be “good enough”
9. A belief that the leader is right at all times
10. A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation

I think church leaders and members actually glorify many of these positions.

It seems to me that anything will remind you of this list. Otherwise, you would have said, "some church leaders and members..." and not displayed such bias.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems to me that anything will remind you of this list. Otherwise, you would have said, "some church leaders and members..." and not displayed such bias.

Do refute the idea that in general church leaders and members support and justify some of these Red Flags.

In fact, I would not be surprised if I rephrased this from "red flags" to "evidence of the true church" that it would be widely accepted by members and leadership.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Someone who respects that person they're asking, who believes they have spiritual integrity. Believe it or not, those people do exist and such nonbelievers can offer spiritual insight that many believers don't have.

Respecting a person and believing in their spiritual integrity and insight do not translate into a wise choice of counselors when they do not share your "celestial" objective on matters of faith. That is the context for the talk.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do refute the idea that in general church leaders and members support and justify some of these Red Flags.

In fact, I would not be surprised if I rephrased this from "red flags" to "evidence of the true church" that it would be widely accepted by members and leadership.

Yep, anything reminds you of this list. Do you keep it in your wallet for reference at parties? Just joking. Yes, I refute the idea on semantic terms on either title.

Edited October 6, 2023 by CV75

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, see the rest of my post. Who in their right mind, having a desire to believe that the Church works for them (though it may not feel quite that way at the moment), seeks counsel from someone who doesn't believe it works for them? This has nothing to do with having a conversation where the topic might come up.

Or even wanting to hear about the other’s experiences in order to better understand their own.  I am always asking people of other beliefs, including atheists, about what they believe and why and what their experiences have been where it is appropriate and while I do that as much to help me understand myself better as well as understanding them, I do not view that as “taking counsel” even when I ask them their opinion about what I am doing or should be doing.  Taking counsel is what I do when I go to doctors about my health, I intend to change my behaviour based on what they say while asking for opinions is about trying to look at things, including myself in a variety of ways as that leads to greater understanding and while that might affect my behaviour in the long run, that is not my intent.