General Conference Thoughts

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

What if we called it the 14 Fundamentals of following the prophet?

[bluebell]

33 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.

Jesus was a cult leader for sure. 😂

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What if we called it the 14 Fundamentals of following the prophet?

Yes, anything seems to remind you of the list. Any title will do, and semantics are still crucial.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.

There is no question that for literalist fundamentalist members changes would "make one wonder" but for others it was an invitation to consult with the spirit to decide if temple covenants were magic cantenations or deeply spiritual promises far beyond what words and gestures can possibly convey.

Each gesture can be seen as a multi-faceted language in itself, not unlike semaphore code, or American Sign Language in which a changed position of a finger can change the meaning of what is being "said". 

Not surprisingly this is also true of some ancient gestures found in Catholicism, like the sign of the cross itself, ( can we see elements of the sign of the cross in our temples?) and other gestures indicating the dual nature of Christ and the unity of the Trinity at the same time.

Changing words while diminishing what they supposedly "represent" linguistically, using gestures, takes the spiritual meaning beyond the vagaries of language and allows the student to find the fuller meaning by the spirit, on their own.

The words become only pointers to the ideas which can now transcend language and invite spiritual meditation.

THAT to me was the inspired reason between modifying the linguistic content while other modes of human communication are emphasized.

I love it!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour 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.

Refute?

That's like asking to someone to refute that their political party does not support "red flags".

Just defining what a " red flag" IS makes the task impossible; it's all based on opinion.

Think of just 1- abortion and 2- homophobia.

[Leaf474]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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

I see things that way as well. This passage came to my mind, I was wondering if an opportunity would come up to use it -

Colossians 3:17

Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father, through him.

 

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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?

 

[Leaf474]

3 hours 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.

I definitely agree with the part about secret financial records.

 

Fungus grows in the dark. It's true even when people have the best of intentions.

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

I definitely agree with the part about secret financial records.

 

Fungus grows in the dark. It's true even when people have the best of intentions.

But I like mushrooms!

[Leaf474]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Jesus was a cult leader for sure. 😂

I hear what you're saying! And on a serious note, Jesus didn't ask people to believe him without providing hard visible evidence.

 

From John 10,

"If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me. 38 But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works."

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no question that for literalist fundamentalist members changes would "make one wonder" but for others it was an invitation to consult with the spirit to decide if temple covenants were magic cantenations or deeply spiritual promises far beyond what words and gestures can possibly convey.

Each gesture can be seen as a multi-faceted language in itself, not unlike semaphore code, or American Sign Language in which a changed position of a finger can change the meaning of what is being "said". 

Not surprisingly this is also true of some ancient gestures found in Catholicism, like the sign of the cross itself, ( can we see elements of the sign of the cross in our temples?) and other gestures indicating the dual nature of Christ and the unity of the Trinity at the same time.

Changing words while diminishing what they supposedly "represent" linguistically, using gestures, takes the spiritual meaning beyond the vagaries of language and allows the student to find the fuller meaning by the spirit, on their own.

The words become only pointers to the ideas which can now transcend language and invite spiritual meditation.

THAT to me was the inspired reason between modifying the linguistic content while other modes of human communication are emphasized.

I love it!

This is where imo it's unfortunate that we can't discuss the particulars of what happens at Temple - that is, if I understand the rules right.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

I hear what you're saying! And on a serious note, Jesus didn't ask people to believe him without providing hard visible evidence.

 

From John 10,

"If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me. 38 But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works."

True, but 99% of Christians weren't alive to see and experience those works and instead are asked to accept they happened on faith.  I mean, I haven't had any hard visible evidence that Jesus is the Christ and was resurrected after He died?  But He's still asking me to believe Him anyway.   

 

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Jesus was a cult leader for sure. 😂

And a heretic!

[Leaf474]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

True, but 99% of Christians weren't alive to see and experience those works and instead are asked to accept they happened on faith.  I mean, I haven't had any hard visible evidence that Jesus is the Christ and was resurrected after He died?  But He's still asking me to believe Him anyway.   

That's a good point, and I'd thought about that after I'd made the post.

 

I had in mind Jesus' relationship with his contemporaries, as far as being a cult leader. He didn't ask those around him to believe him without providing hard visible evidence.

 

Does he ask us to believe him today without hard visible evidence? I think so, but at that point the issue of how accurate the Bible we have today is comes into play.

 

I'm happy to discuss the issue more, but I'm not sure where you're coming from and which would be the most productive avenue of discussion 🙂

__________________

Jesus did actually have issues with financial impropriety in his organization -

"Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and having the money box, used to steal what was put into it."

John 12

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

This is where imo it's unfortunate that we can't discuss the particulars of what happens at Temple - that is, if I understand the rules right.

We could actually talk about much more than we do given the restrictions we agree to in the temple are pretty limited.  However, I believe a number of members are uncomfortable about temple content online because it is too often not treated as sacred, dismissed as nonsense or delusions or at least waved away as purely man made with no inspired by God content.  Many of us have great love for the temple and even those who don’t have such a positive relationship with the rituals care for many who do and so out of respect will be uncomfortable discussing it out of concern for crossing lines.

However, since each member is to find their own spiritual meaning in the experience (temple workers are instructed not to provide answers to questions of “but what does this mean”, I believe), I am not sure discussing particulars would be that helpful for you.  It is basically like watching a play of the Genesis story (though with variations), the Creation and the Garden and the Fall and then making several ritual promises and receiving the blessings associated with them.  It is done with both speech and movement.

Are you informed about the rituals at all and just interested in discussing them with those who view them as sacred (since most of all the specific info out there about what goes on inside is from nonbelievers, some are even those who mock and denigrate the ceremonies) or are you pretty much clueless and having a hard time connecting what is being shared here with anything meaningful?

Edited October 7, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

but at that point the issue of how accurate the Bible we have today is comes into play.

And how would the accuracy be determined?

[Calm]

PS to @Leaf474, you asked a question about mental health being mentioned in Pres. Nelson’s talk.  I was going to respond, but couldn’t then and then forgot as I do.  In case you haven’t had a chance to view the talk yourself, here is the transcript as that will be easier for you to find the answer yourself…because I am not sure exactly what you were looking for.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/10/51nelson?lang=eng

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

And on a serious note, Jesus didn't ask people to believe him without providing hard visible evidence.

Of what? His alleged "magic tricks"?

Any Las Vegas magician today could probably do better.

No one "believed" until they knew in their hearts.  THAT is the "evidence" that changed lives.

Think of Paul.

He never even knew the man or saw him in life.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

However, since each member is to find their own spiritual meaning in the experience (temple workers are instructed not to provide answers to questions of “but what does this mean”, I believe), I am not sure discussing particulars would be that helpful for you.

In fact, we don't know anything more than any patron does, except we have most of the ceremonies memorized.

That helps, but any patron could do that.

[Meadowchik]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

I fervently disagree. We're all travellers in a similar journey. The LDS journey is not that unique and definitely does not have a monopoly on truth seeking or truth finding. And it certainly should not be about limiting truth-finding to narrow sources.

It's almost like people forget how Mormonism started:

"Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft… Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.” (Letter from Joseph Smith to Isaac Galland, Mar. 22, 1839, Liberty Jail, Liberty, Missouri, published in Times and Seasons, Feb. 1840, pp. 53–54; spelling and grammar modernized.)

Edited October 7, 2023 by Meadowchik

[Leaf474]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

We could actually talk about much more than we do given the restrictions we agree to in the temple are pretty limited.

I had in mind the forum rules here, which say not to discuss "sacred LDS temple content"

 

12 hours ago, Calm said:

 However, I believe a number of members are uncomfortable about temple content online because it is too often not treated as sacred, dismissed as nonsense or delusions or at least waved away as purely man made with no inspired by God content.  Many of us have great love for the temple and even those who don’t have such a positive relationship with the rituals care for many who do and so out of respect will be uncomfortable discussing it out of concern for crossing lines.

However, since each member is to find their own spiritual meaning in the experience (temple workers are instructed not to provide answers to questions of “but what does this mean”, I believe), I am not sure discussing particulars would be that helpful for you.  It is basically like watching a play of the Genesis story (though with variations), the Creation and the Garden and the Fall and then making several ritual promises and receiving the blessings associated with them.  It is done with both speech and movement.

 

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you informed about the rituals at all and just interested in discussing them with those who view them as sacred (since most of all the specific info out there about what goes on inside is from nonbelievers, some are even those who mock and denigrate the ceremonies) or are you pretty much clueless and having a hard time connecting what is being shared here with anything meaningful?

I watched one hidden cam video on YouTube. It appeared to be excerpts of the endowment ceremony. And I read small parts of a transcript from a ceremony from the 1990s.

 

My browser won't let me quote just part of a post, but I think a previous poster was saying that changes to the ceremonies called into question the reliability of the living prophet

(thus affecting how one evaluates the prophet's message at general conference), and another poster indicated it was no big deal.

 

But it seems to me it would be difficult to have an in-depth discussion about the changes if we can't say in detail what they were.

 

Does that answer your question about my interest in the subject?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

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

It’s the previous paragraph. But I do think It provides context. Nelson feels people are leaving the church, not because they are exercising agency in a fallen world, but because they are “attacked” by those who “[gave]  heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils”. 
 

He then proceeds to proclaim there is no end to Satan’s deceptions. We must be prepared. How? By “never” taking counsel from “those who do not believe”. This is an expansion. Instead of “those who do not believe” he could have said “those who attack faith” or “those who aren’t aligned with your best interest” or any number of other things, but he just didn’t  

 

19 hours ago, Calm said:

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”.

Then why exactly did he broaden his language with absolutes and no qualifications? (“Never” and “those who do not believe”). 

19 hours ago, Calm said:

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”?

No. I’m just reading what he wrote. He didn’t write, never take counsel from those that attack your faith. 

19 hours ago, Calm said:

 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”).

 

[Leaf474]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

And how would the accuracy be determined?

Well, there's two different aspects of accuracy that people usually talk about. (I was thinking of both of them )

 

The first is, do we have accurate copies of what was originally written? That would be determined by standard textual criticism methods applied to copies of any ancient document.

 

The second is, were the original manuscripts accurate descriptions of what was said and done? That would be determined by a combination of standard historical methods and faith imo.

[Leaf474]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

PS to @Leaf474, you asked a question about mental health being mentioned in Pres. Nelson’s talk.  I was going to respond, but couldn’t then and then forgot as I do.  In case you haven’t had a chance to view the talk yourself, here is the transcript as that will be easier for you to find the answer yourself…because I am not sure exactly what you were looking for.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/10/51nelson?lang=eng

 

Thanks! When I looked earlier, the text wasn't up yet.

 

I wanted to read it because as you mentioned (I think), he talks pretty slow. Not really a criticism; I'm not expecting to even be alive at 99 😃

[Tacenda]

This popped up on my FB feed and at first I thought it was from a person making fun, nope, she's a friend from school who is very believing and faithful. I wonder how many on here have seen the same thing. I wasn't believing that this would become a meme or something put on a shirt, or cup or something. 😒

[Leaf474]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of what? His alleged "magic tricks"?

Any Las Vegas magician today could probably do better.

I was thinking of these kinds of things

Matthew 15:31

so that the multitude wondered when they saw the mute speaking, the injured healed, the lame walking, and the blind seeing—and they glorified the God of Israel.

 

Also raising the dead.

When Jesus came, he found that he had been in the tomb four days already.

Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!”

He who was dead came out.

John 11

 

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No one "believed" until they knew in their hearts.  THAT is the "evidence" that changed lives.

Definitely, but the belief didn't take place in the absence of visible evidence.

 

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Think of Paul.

He never even knew the man or saw him in life.

I clarified this earlier, but I think it was after you wrote this post. In regards to Jesus being a cult leader, he doesn't ask his *contemporaries* to believe him without hard visible evidence. Apologies for not making that clear in my original post.

 

I do see that Paul does have a "knocked off his horse" experience. He also has the eyewitness accounts of apparently 500 people.

...that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once.

1 Corinthians 15