General Conference Thoughts

[ksfisher]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The D&C says (section 59 v. 21):

And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

It might be interesting to have a discussion on why the word “offend” was used in this verse (and the many other verses that connect offending God and sin) and whether or not we can correctly say that sin offends God today in our current culture. 

I think offend was used because someone who breaks God's law is an offender (as used in the legal sense).

People have been reading it more and more as meaning that God gets his feelings hurt.  I don't believe that is the correct meaning.

[bluebell]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I think offend was used because someone who breaks God's law is an offender (as used in the legal sense).

People have been reading it more and more as meaning that God gets his feelings hurt.  I don't believe that is the correct meaning.

That definition would make sense.

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think offend was used because someone who breaks God's law is an offender (as used in the legal sense).

People have been reading it more and more as meaning that God gets his feelings hurt.  I don't believe that is the correct meaning.

It makes sense, at least time, with the way it is written as it says "offend God" not "offend God's laws" plus it goes on to talk about his wrath being kindled.

[ksfisher]

Just now, Rain said:

It makes sense, at least time, with the way it is written as it says "offend God" not "offend God's laws" plus it goes on to talk about his wrath being kindled.

I'm not sure I understand what you're meaning here.

[Rain]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure I understand what you're meaning here.

People hear "offend" more as the wrath of God than as breaking a law because of how it is worded.  

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

People hear "offend" more as the wrath of God than as breaking a law because of how it is worded.  

The phrasing is a bit different than how we would today.

[Leaf474]

Is there any movement among the leadership to update the language of the scriptures?

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Is there any movement among the leadership to update the language of the scriptures?

I've never heard of one.

From a practical standpoint it would be very daunting with the number of languages the church has published material in.

[T-Shirt]

The 1828 dictionary seems to indicate that the most common meaning of the word "offend" is equivalent to the word "displease".

Edited October 3, 2023 by T-Shirt

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

The 1828 dictionary seems to indicate that the most common meaning of the word "offend" is equivalent to the word "displease".

That would be a good footnote for the digital scriptures if not the paper.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

The 1828 dictionary seems to indicate that the most common meaning of the word "offend" is equivalent to the word "displease".

That also makes sense. 

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

A hug in response to your sadness 🤗

Thanks, it was needed.  

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The D&C says (section 59 v. 21):

And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

It might be interesting to have a discussion on why the word “offend” was used in this verse (and the many other verses that connect offending God and sin) and whether or not we can correctly say that sin offends God today in our current culture. 

That verse always confused me. It sounds like God gets angry if you don’t blame Him for everything bad that happens.

[Smiley McGee]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I think offend was used because someone who breaks God's law is an offender (as used in the legal sense).

People have been reading it more and more as meaning that God gets his feelings hurt.  I don't believe that is the correct meaning.

 

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

That definition would make sense.

When the scriptures and Pres Nelson say God is offended, they mean someone committed an offense in a legal sense?

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I've never heard of one.

From a practical standpoint it would be very daunting with the number of languages the church has published material in.

I was thinking of the scriptures which are in English - D&C, Pearl, Book of Mormon... and update the KJV in some way.

 

When the church translates, say, D&C into another language, does it choose an archaic form of that language? Serious question, it's possible that it does in order for it to sound grave.

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

The D&C says (section 59 v. 21):

And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

It might be interesting to have a discussion on why the word “offend” was used in this verse (and the many other verses that connect offending God and sin) and whether or not we can correctly say that sin offends God today in our current culture. 

Are all addictions sins? I’m interested to hear everyone’s thoughts. 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Peacefully

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Would this relate to non-members speaking at a church function?

That would depend on if they had faith you desired to emulate and what the purpose of the function was.  If to teach doctrine, probably not.  If to share experiences of faith and hope in Christ, I don’t see an issue.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t believe President Nelson intended this but I have also seen a lot of anger about this. Some from part-member families where the non-member parent is unhappy that their counsel was viewed as worthless and some from other sources. It was badly worded.

I liked the talk and saw nothing offensive in it.

It's kind of scary how posters who, years ago, might have praised the talk, now find it offensive.

But I am afraid that this potentially great talk will now be seen only for the repeated and repeated phrase "Think Celestial",  itself a grammatical error.

The grammar should have been in an adverbial form; it was actually a little shocking at first when he said "Think Celestial" instead of "Think CelestiaLLY"

The Anti's will have a field day with that one.

So sad.

"For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost..."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I think offend was used because someone who breaks God's law is an offender (as used in the legal sense).

People have been reading it more and more as meaning that God gets his feelings hurt.  I don't believe that is the correct meaning.

I think it’s jarring because of quotes like this one from David Bednar:

”One of the greatest indicators of our own spiritual maturity is revealed in how we respond to the weaknesses, the inexperience, and the potentially offensive actions of others. A thing, an event, or an expression may be offensive, but you and I can choose not to be offended—and to say with Pahoran, “it mattereth not.””

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Peacefully said:

If that is the case, then maybe he should choose a better word. Maybe “offended” has a different connotation these days. 

I think it does.  I think nowadays it is more about the emotions associated with the offense rather than judgment (is something good or bad, beneficial or not).  In 1828, offended meant displeased.  Today there is a sense of injury of the self, feeling insulted or angry and it’s more resentful, imo, than displeased.

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Offended  edit:  I see Tshirt hit my favorite reference for seeing how language has changed in just 200 years.  And the KJV, which is the style that is used in much of our scripture, is 200 years older.

I will try and get out my massive Oxford dictionary with accompanying magnifying glass to see what it has to say about change of definition and connotations, if any.

There are many biblical words that have altered meaning over time, that probably need to be explained when using them in the sense of the scripture usage, such as fear/awe.  We need to be careful when incorporating them into modern speech, we just don’t copy the word and expect people to understand the context.

Quote

The Hebrew word translated into 'awe' in the Bible is yirah (יראה, pronounced yir-ah). It often directly translates into fear, like “fear of the Lord,” and it can also mean respect, reverence, and worship.

https://firmisrael.org/learn/hebrew-meaning-of-yirah-what-connects-fear-and-awe/#:~:text=The Hebrew word translated into,respect%2C reverence%2C and worship.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I liked the talk and saw nothing offensive in it.

It's kind of scary how posters who, years ago, might have praised the talk, now find it offensive.

But I am afraid that this potentially great talk will now be seen only for the repeated and repeated phrase "Think Celestial",  itself a grammatical error.

The grammar should have been in an adverbial form; it was actually a little shocking at first when he said "Think Celestial" instead of "Think CelestiaLLY"

The Anti's will have a field day with that one.

So sad.

"For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost..."

For a minute there I thought of the general conference with the word "ponderize". Because I'd never heard the expression, "think Celestial" before. I guess we can now say, I'm Celestial-lizing right now. I'm not even being funny or trying to be. I didn't like it, and I feel like the talk wasn't for all, non member or member. If Pres Nelson has a special conduit to God, I would sure hope this isn't what He'd say. There shouldn't be separation of family, friend, co worker or neighbor, that's not love. I thought Jesus was love. There was no love in that talk to me. 

ETA: What happened to this talk? The current one feels the opposite:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/general-conference/2023/4/2/23666994/what-did-president-nelson-teach-april-2023-general-conference-peacemakers.

“I am greatly concerned that so many people seem to believe that it is completely acceptable to condemn, malign and vilify anyone who does not agree with them.”

Anger, hostility and contention never lead to inspired solutions, he said. Regrettably, contentious behavior is sometimes found among Latter-day Saints.

Some belittle spouses and children, use angry outbursts to control others, punish others with “the silent treatment” or bully others.

“My dear brothers and sisters, this should not be,” President Nelson declared. “As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are to be examples of how to interact with others — especially when we have differences of opinion. One of the easiest ways to identify a true follower of Jesus Christ is how compassionately that person treats other people.”

True disciples are peacemakers

The Savior made clear to followers in both hemispheres: “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9; see also 3 Nephi 12:9). He also said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44; see also 3 Nephi 12:44).

Before His death, the Savior commanded His apostles, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35).

President Nelson said: “The Savior’s message is clear: His true disciples build, lift, encourage, persuade and inspire — no matter how difficult the situation. True disciples of Jesus Christ are peacemakers.”

Edited October 3, 2023 by Tacenda

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

they mean someone committed an offense in a legal sense?

I would say in a biblical sense.

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

For a minute there I thought of the general conference with the word "ponderize". Because I'd never heard the expression, "think Celestial" before. I guess we can now say, I'm Celestial-lizing right now. I'm not even being funny or trying to be. I didn't like it, and I feel like the talk wasn't for all, non member or member. If Pres Nelson has a special conduit to God, I would sure hope this isn't what He'd say. There shouldn't be separation of family, friend, co worker or neighbor, that's not love. I thought Jesus was love. There was no love in that talk to me. 

Per the Bible, Christ isn't all love - Matthew 10:34-39

Quote

34 Think not that I am come to send ^apeace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s ^afoes shall be they of his own ^bhousehold.

37 He that ^aloveth father or mother ^bmore than me is not worthy of me: and he that ^cloveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his ^across, and followeth after me, is not ^bworthy of me.

39 ^aHe that findeth his life shall ^blose it: and he that ^closeth his ^dlife for my sake shall find it.

 

[Smiley McGee]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would say in a biblical sense.

Really? “God is offended” = “someone committed an offense” ? Text that describe God’s reaction should be interpreted as a description of someone’s wrong actions?

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But I am afraid that this potentially great talk will now be seen only for the repeated and repeated phrase "Think Celestial",  itself a grammatical error.

The grammar should have been in an adverbial form; it was actually a little shocking at first when he said "Think Celestial" instead of "Think CelestiaLLY"

"Think Celestially" rolls of the tongue kind of awkwardly.  While "Think Celestial" may not be grammatically perfect, i think it sounds better.