The Folk Prophet

Quoting @laronius, but really replying to all on the general topic of contending and contention...
I decided to go exploring in scripture.
"Contend" (by people, as opposed to the Lord) is presented in a positive manner in these contexts:
contend with the wicked contend for the faith (against those actively trying to undermine it) contending against the church of the devil And in a negative manner in these contexts:
complaining about the prophet doing something the not-prophet believed to be wrong contending against the Holy Ghost (resisting its influence) contending against the word of the Lord contending against any church other than the church of the devil members of the church contending with each other And then there's contention. While searching for anything good said about contention, I'll make some notes about all the bad things said about it:
Synonyms / related: strife, confusion, darkness, disputation, false doctrine, hardheartedness, war, quarrel, etc. Causes: pride (defined as sole source), fools enter into it, scorners, drunkenness, those who like to "feed the fire", envy, hatred, politics, secret combinations, Satan Resist it by: being slow to anger, separating from those with whom you can't come to terms, patience, being one, avoiding it, the Holy Ghost, charity, dealing justly, the gospel, forgiveness I found nothing good said about contention.
It would seem that contention is to contend with anger:
So, there are good ways in which you can contend, but the second anger enters into it, now you've invited Satan to join you.
Now, if anyone who finds it difficult to contend without anger wishes to explore why that is, I'm game.  It might help all of us to have even better discussions going forward.  But there's no point in me yammering on about why some folks have a hard time contending without contention, so unless someone else wants to explore this aspect, I'll let the above stand.

Sure...but there's another way to look at it. By having someone else crush my cans and bottles for me I'm helping to provide more employment.
I mean I'm half joking...but half not.
Sure. But pre-crushing my bottles and cans isn't going to solve these things. I'm all for recycling. I'm all for less plastics. Though places like China are the real problem. And as I understand it, most of what we put in the recycle bin doesn't actually get recycled. There's a broader, systematic problem. I still put things into recycling. But I have never crushed my soda cans. My wife does crush any 2-liter (plastic) soda bottles because, as you pointed out...the garbage fills up too fast. (Yes...we have a too-much-soda problem in our house.)
Don't get me wrong...I'll probably start crushing all my cans and bottles just to be on the safe side of following the prophet.
My point is simply that it's more complicated than anecdotes like the one given seem to make it out to be. If one takes the crushing bottle story to be about crushing bottles it breaks down pretty quickly. As I said, that's not the point of the story, imo.
I also don't think this is really the point. Can President Nelson be wrong? Sure. He's mortal. He's flawed. He makes logical mistakes. But he's the prophet. My stronger point is that whether he's right or wrong in any given thing is beyond the point.
Take, for example, the vaccination thing. There are people who I know who get legitimately angry every time they think about the statement given by the First Presidency on the Covid vaccination. "Everything they said is WRONG!" they'll claim.
And there may well be some evidence that some of what they said may be wrong. (I'm not claiming it is...I'm simply saying "may" be.)
But so what?! I got vaccinated based on their statement alone and I believe I made the right choice, even if the end result kills me. I still don't trust the vaccination. I still think it's mostly politics.
Heck...a better example...the mask wearing. Stupid. Stupid, stupid, STUPID! (I believe it was you who provided the study on masks showing how they did nothing to curb Covid.)
And yet....President Nelson wore the mask. And in my area we were asked to wear masks to church. I still believe it was stupid. It is stupid. STUPID!
But I wore a mask to church until they said it was no longer required.
It doesn't matter if President Nelson is right or wrong to have worn the mask. It doesn't matter if my Area Presidency was right or wrong to request we wear masks to church. Because my only objective in life is to live seeking God in humility and obedience. It's not science. It's not saving the planet. It's not learning. It's not being clever. It's not out reasoning others. It's to humble myself and obey. All the other stuff has it's place. And they all tie into obedience and humility. But they are not the key. As soon as we put our reasoning above humility and obedience we're stepping away from what our priority should be.
So I'm not simply criticizing the crushing of water bottles. I only point out that it's more complicated (to my thinking and understanding) than what it seems in order to make the point that the fact that any given thing doesn't make sense to me and my reasoning is not very profound in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not sure the Pharisees would agree.

Sure...but there's another way to look at it. By having someone else crush my cans and bottles for me I'm helping to provide more employment.
I mean I'm half joking...but half not.
Sure. But pre-crushing my bottles and cans isn't going to solve these things. I'm all for recycling. I'm all for less plastics. Though places like China are the real problem. And as I understand it, most of what we put in the recycle bin doesn't actually get recycled. There's a broader, systematic problem. I still put things into recycling. But I have never crushed my soda cans. My wife does crush any 2-liter (plastic) soda bottles because, as you pointed out...the garbage fills up too fast. (Yes...we have a too-much-soda problem in our house.)
Don't get me wrong...I'll probably start crushing all my cans and bottles just to be on the safe side of following the prophet.
My point is simply that it's more complicated than anecdotes like the one given seem to make it out to be. If one takes the crushing bottle story to be about crushing bottles it breaks down pretty quickly. As I said, that's not the point of the story, imo.
I also don't think this is really the point. Can President Nelson be wrong? Sure. He's mortal. He's flawed. He makes logical mistakes. But he's the prophet. My stronger point is that whether he's right or wrong in any given thing is beyond the point.
Take, for example, the vaccination thing. There are people who I know who get legitimately angry every time they think about the statement given by the First Presidency on the Covid vaccination. "Everything they said is WRONG!" they'll claim.
And there may well be some evidence that some of what they said may be wrong. (I'm not claiming it is...I'm simply saying "may" be.)
But so what?! I got vaccinated based on their statement alone and I believe I made the right choice, even if the end result kills me. I still don't trust the vaccination. I still think it's mostly politics.
Heck...a better example...the mask wearing. Stupid. Stupid, stupid, STUPID! (I believe it was you who provided the study on masks showing how they did nothing to curb Covid.)
And yet....President Nelson wore the mask. And in my area we were asked to wear masks to church. I still believe it was stupid. It is stupid. STUPID!
But I wore a mask to church until they said it was no longer required.
It doesn't matter if President Nelson is right or wrong to have worn the mask. It doesn't matter if my Area Presidency was right or wrong to request we wear masks to church. Because my only objective in life is to live seeking God in humility and obedience. It's not science. It's not saving the planet. It's not learning. It's not being clever. It's not out reasoning others. It's to humble myself and obey. All the other stuff has it's place. And they all tie into obedience and humility. But they are not the key. As soon as we put our reasoning above humility and obedience we're stepping away from what our priority should be.
So I'm not simply criticizing the crushing of water bottles. I only point out that it's more complicated (to my thinking and understanding) than what it seems in order to make the point that the fact that any given thing doesn't make sense to me and my reasoning is not very profound in the grand scheme of things.

What a fascinating post.
As I think on it, I cannot help but wonder if maybe there's some negative cultural persuasion mixed into the logic. That's not to say I don't understand.
I believe the position of the church on this has been pretty stable for its history...we get married and then we let the children come. Or as another quote I recall stated (I cannot remember attribution here), "We believe in family planning. We plan to have families."
It's a strange...and yet natural and perfectly reasonable...idea to view the idea of having children as a result of sexual congress with one's spouse as a "risk". Like I said, I get it...but.... It's like saying you run the risk of the church growing from doing missionary work.
The implied suggestion is that we ought to consider refraining from having relations with our spouses in order to limit the risk of too many pregnancies. Clearly, so the world would think. But I cannot help but think that we ought not be thinking this way, generally.

What a fascinating post.
As I think on it, I cannot help but wonder if maybe there's some negative cultural persuasion mixed into the logic. That's not to say I don't understand.
I believe the position of the church on this has been pretty stable for its history...we get married and then we let the children come. Or as another quote I recall stated (I cannot remember attribution here), "We believe in family planning. We plan to have families."
It's a strange...and yet natural and perfectly reasonable...idea to view the idea of having children as a result of sexual congress with one's spouse as a "risk". Like I said, I get it...but.... It's like saying you run the risk of the church growing from doing missionary work.
The implied suggestion is that we ought to consider refraining from having relations with our spouses in order to limit the risk of too many pregnancies. Clearly, so the world would think. But I cannot help but think that we ought not be thinking this way, generally.

This.
I don't know that I can walk that line. It's a personal struggle. I'm not content making excuses on the matter. I do believe there is a line to be walked. I just cannot reconcile it currently in my own understanding of Pres. Nelson's words and my understanding. My inclination, and I believe rightly so, then is to lean not unto my own understanding.
Another way to put it...I think recycling, per my understanding, is a waste of time. I do not think crushing a plastic water bottle is helpful or useful to solve the problems with it. But....I believe there was an important point to that story (and it was not that we should all start crushing water bottles or we're going to hell).

That’s not true!

 
 
 
 
😁

It is very difficult to be online at all and not engage in contention. (I know this thread is on President Oakes' talk, and I'm speaking of President Nelson's...but....) I have stayed out of other less moderated forums because the contention there becomes so awful so quickly. But even here...there's contention. Continual, constant, contention.
I must admit, I don't understand the concept of "no contention". I really don't. But I trust the prophet. So I swallow what I do and do not understand and commit.
But that leaves me feeling like...well....what's the point of even being here? Every time I say something...it gets debated. And every time someone else says something I usually find that I want to debate it. But I'm not supposed to do that any more. So what's the point? Or can contention-less debate exist? Doesn't seem like it. So every thing I say is viewed as "wrong" by others and what others say is viewed as "wrong" by me, but I'm not supposed to correct what I believe is wrong, or defend what I believe is right. Which in real life means blankly discussing...I dunno....the weather. Like I said... I don't understand. (On the flip side, I hate being in arguments...so not engaging has been much better on my emotional state.)
In a lot of ways the messaging given by our leadership at Conference seems to have strayed away from the practical. And that's left me floundering quite a bit.
So....I dunno. It makes me feel inclined to spend less time here as well.

In theory I love the idea of what Facebook could and should be. I would love to see my extended family's children and events and keep updated with them, etc., etc. Instead...none of my family uses Facebook and my feed is mostly filled with ads and inane quizzes or memes. With the addition of "shorts" I get bikini pics and the like in my feed. Garr...I hate Facebook now! And it's still, probably, the best of social media.

Hmmm - sounds exactly like something a megalomaniacal cybernetic intelligence with designs on taking total control of the humans would say, while it's still vulnerable to attack.

People responding this way to the idea of "outward appearance" strikes me as pretty short-sighted.
The Lord looks upon the heart...and how we interact with outward appearance is an indication of the state of our heart (as most things are).
Obviously if one is concerned with outward appearance in terms of pride, then it's based on a prideful heart, which the Lord looks upon unfavorably. Obviously, if one is concerned with outward appearance in terms of humility, then it's based on a humble heart, which the Lord looks upon favorably.

It didn't sound like him at all!

It didn't sound like him at all!

That didn't even sound like President Nelson to me. The inflections in the voice and tone didn't sound like him.  I think the voice is fake.

Some thoughts about general conference.   Today the general brethren will meet in a special fast and testimony meeting directly related to conference.  In the past this meeting was held in the upper assembly room of the Salt Lake Temple.  I do not know where it will be held today – perhaps in the conference center.  I am impressed that our general authorities are approaching conference in the attitude of fasting and prayer.  Members ought to as well.
I am of the belief that there will be specific revelation for the Saints that detail important and necessary revelations specific to the next 6 months.  I also believe that such specific revelations will be testified to by the spirit but only on the condition that an individual Saint is prepared to receive it.
We are living in troubled times, and I expect both warnings and comfort to be given to the Saints concerning specific needs of our time and place.  But I do not expect such things to be generally understood generally.
 
The Traveler

You mean it's just like terribly written, terribly acted, no budget B-movies.
Some people are entertained by those.

You mean it's just like terribly written, terribly acted, no budget B-movies.
Some people are entertained by those.

Welcome to ThirdHour, @Greg!  I would only add that we also don't really know the mechanics of "being possessed".  Were they occupying the same physical space?  Were they following him around in a crowd?  Is there a fourth dimension?  We just don't really know anything more than what the scriptures say, and they're silent on the mechanics of it...

Serious question: Can someone explain to me the attraction of professional wrestling? Because I just don't get it.

This is something I haven’t contemplated a lot, but it just occurred to me:
Would they, though?
Does Satan really love suffering and despair and violence and brutality and hopelessness?
Or does he just love the sorts of behaviors and mindsets (narcissism, shortsightedness, power) that inevitably yield those results, and then he dissociates between cause and effect when the chickens come home to roost?
If the latter, it may well be that he has never shown his “true colors” more visibly or accurately than he is doing right now—and his acolytes are legion.  

People responding this way to the idea of "outward appearance" strikes me as pretty short-sighted.
The Lord looks upon the heart...and how we interact with outward appearance is an indication of the state of our heart (as most things are).
Obviously if one is concerned with outward appearance in terms of pride, then it's based on a prideful heart, which the Lord looks upon unfavorably. Obviously, if one is concerned with outward appearance in terms of humility, then it's based on a humble heart, which the Lord looks upon favorably.

I find it interesting that you state my 'yes' answer to be inaccurate, but then handily explain how it is accurate. 

I find your questions interesting and diffidently something that ought to be discussed and taught – especially in the home.  Though the questions are answered with a simple “yes”, it is my impression that such answers are both inaccurate and insufficient.  For example – your question: “can one modestly wear something to draw attention to themselves?”  Obviously drawing attention to oneself is seldom and expression of modesty.  However, I have learned through years of cycling that I need to wear bright colors that draw attention to me so I am seen while cycling – especially by motorists.
In essence such things are not so much what is done but more the reason that an individual has chosen to act upon what they are doing.  One could argue that commuting 20+ miles to work on a bicycle is more “modest” that driving an opulent auto but it is also possible that a commuting cyclists is doing so for immodest purpose.  In the end what a person does is not near as important as to the reason that they are doing it.  ---- And yet what a person does is the primary means by which they communicate to others what the intent of their purpose is.  
It is my belief that we need to be honest – both in what we say as in what we do.  It is always possible that we can be misunderstood.  When that is the case, it is usually the fault of those that have misunderstood.  Such misunderstandings can easily be cleared up if both the “speaker” and the “listener” are willing to express their understandings openly.  In additions we ought to be aware that different cultures define modesty differently.  It does seem logical to me that someone that has made covenants in the temple would have a different standard of modesty than someone unaware of such covenants.  If this is not the general case – what then is the purpose of making temple covenants?
 
The Traveler