President Uchtdorf's Saturday morning conference address

[askandanswer]

This beautiful gospel is so simple a child can grasp it, yet so profound and complex that it will take a lifetime—even an eternity—of study and discovery to fully understand it.

But sometimes we take the beautiful lily of God’s truth and gild it with layer upon layer of man-made good ideas, programs, and expectations. Each one, by itself, might be helpful and appropriate for a certain time and circumstance, but when they are laid on top of each other, they can create a mountain of sediment that becomes so thick and heavy that we risk losing sight of that precious flower we once loved so dearly.

Therefore, as leaders we must strictly protect the Church and the gospel in its purity and plainness and avoid putting unnecessary burdens on our members.

 

In preparation for this week’s Priesthood lesson I have been re-reading President Uchtdorf’s talk a few times this week and the following questions occurred to me:

 

1. What are some of the profound and complex aspects of the gospel that will take an eternity to study? I note that Christ took just one verse, in 3^rd Nephi 27:20, repeated in Doctrine and Covenants 39:6 to, define His gospel.

 

2. For you, what are some of those aspects of the church that form “a mountain of sediment that becomes so thick and heavy” and may become an “unnecessary burden?”

[Guest]

1. The Atonement

 

2. Polygamy

[zil]

1. The sermon on the mount.  Each individual requirement is simple, but to master them is a project that will take most, if not all, of us longer than mortality to master.

 

Think of all the hypotheticals and requests for advice that come up on these forums.  And we can't all agree on what ought to be done in these scenarios.  Mortality can be confusing, and figuring out how to apply those Gospel truths we know can be a challenge.

 

2. Basically, anything that's not doctrinal, but which leadership or peers press for (or which we pressure ourselves to do for the wrong reasons).  Remember President Uchtdorf's own examples about knitting something for each RS sister before a lesson - potholders, or something (Forget Me Not)?  Or the one about the "simplify" quilt (from the talk you're referencing, I think)?

 

I remember a young woman posting about how a priesthood meeting in the middle of the week would go long past the time it took to cover business, and consist of an hour or more of socialization before the person in charge would end the meeting and have a closing prayer.

 

I've heard of wards (esp. YSA wards) having activities every day - that would sure feel overwhelming to me.

 

I could probably make these up all night long.  Hopefully you'll get real examples that are better, but, FWIW:

 

How about if some RS Pres obsessed with appearances insisted the teachers bring fancy decorations on Sunday, in addition to whatever lesson they prepared.

 

Someone pressuring you to buy software / an app / online service in order to work with them "their way" in relation to a calling.

 

How about uncoordinated leadership: A SP says "read the BofM for 1/2 hour per day", the Bishop says "read the NT for 1/2 hour per day", the SS and RS teachers say "read the lesson each week", your HTers and VTers challenge you to read the entire Ensign each month, and two talks from the most recent GC each week...  Pretty soon, you can't do anything except read things all these people have challenged you to read.  The principle of reading the scriptures, lessons, Ensign, and GC are all good, but each person should be able to figure out how to accomplish this best for themselves rather than having a bunch of people doing something like this.  (No, I've never seen this happen, it's just an extreme example of something that could happen if people didn't coordinate / think first about what they were doing.)

 

From my perspective, the Church is moving continually farther from giving members lists of things to accomplish.  I think that's the point - each person figures out how best to apply Gospel principles in their life - we no longer need busywork.

[Sunday21]

1. The Book of Mormon, prayer, attend meetings,

2. Activities

[askandanswer]

1. The Book of Mormon, prayer, attend meetings,

2. Activities

Activities? Any particular type of activities?

[Guest]

Being Obedient. :)

[spamlds]

1. I'll second the Sermon on the Mount.  It's simple, profound, and thirty years in the Church, I still have to struggle with almost each item in it.

 

2.  Boy Scouts.  

[Capitalist_Oinker]

1. The Atonement

 

2. Polygamy

 

I'll go with the Atonement also---not so much about the "why" of it, but rather the "how" of it.

 

Regarding polygamy, though, I've never understood why so many Latter-day Saints find it troubling or mysterious?

Look at it this way. It's clear (at least to me) from the scriptures, prophetic discourses, and empirical evidence, that women generally are much more inclined to be righteous than men are. The practical result of this fact is that many more women than men will qualify for Exaltation. The scriptures tell us that following the Second Coming "seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach".

Or in other words, "we’ll pay our own way if you’ll marry us so that we can legally have children".

And why would they be willing to do that? Because the number of men who survive the Second Coming will be a fraction of the number of women who will survive it, and if those women wish to have a family they'll have no other choice!

If Exaltation requires being sealed to a spouse (and it does), how will all those surplus women (for lack of a better term) claim that blessing absent polygamy??

I believe the principle of plural marriage is an example of God's tender mercies. He is simply looking out for many of his righteous daughters who, because of circumstances beyond their control, will find themselves single and with no prospect of marriage, and hence would not be able to enjoy the blessings of Exaltation otherwise.

[Guest]

 

 

the number of men who survive the Second Coming will be a fraction of the number of women who will survive it,

 Nope, I don't believe that for a second. 

 

Also, I daresay that it's a principle much easier for men to accept than women.

[zil]

... The scriptures tell us that following the Second Coming "seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach".

Or in other words, "we’ll pay our own way if you’ll marry us so that we can legally have children".

And why would they be willing to do that? Because the number of men who survive the Second Coming will be a fraction of the number of women who will survive it, and if those women wish to have a family they'll have no other choice!

 

That verse is Isaiah 4:1.  It is not talking about after the Second Coming, it is talking about before.  It is not talking about polygamy as commanded by the Lord, but about desperation brought about by the various forms of wickedness described in chapter 3.  For details, see Chapter 13 of the OT institute manual.

 

We have no factual or revealed information regarding the comparative number of males and females who will be in the (highest degree of the) Celestial Kingdom (that I've ever heard, and I think this would be everywhere of late if there were such).  I recommend leaving it for the Lord to sort out.

[The Folk Prophet]

But sometimes we take the beautiful lily of God’s truth and gild it with layer upon layer of man-made good ideas, programs, and expectations. Each one, by itself, might be helpful and appropriate for a certain time and circumstance, but when they are laid on top of each other, they can create a mountain of sediment that becomes so thick and heavy that we risk losing sight of that precious flower we once loved so dearly.

...

 

2. For you, what are some of those aspects of the church that form “a mountain of sediment that becomes so thick and heavy” and may become an “unnecessary burden?”

 

2. Polygamy

 

Considering the quote, I'm not sure it's valid to fit polygamy into what he's calling "man-made good ideas, programs, and expectations".

[Guest]

We do have a mortal understanding and concept of it, and it is the one thing I can think of that, if I let it, becomes a heavy mountain of sediment. 

[The Folk Prophet]

We do have a mortal understanding and concept of it,

But it's not a man made program.

and it is the one thing I can think of that, if I let it, becomes a heavy mountain of sediment.

As a personal thing, fine. As related to the point of the OP, doesn't seem useful or quite to the point.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'll go with the Atonement also---not so much about the "why" of it, but rather the "how" of it.

Regarding polygamy, though, I've never understood why so many Latter-day Saints find it troubling or mysterious?

Look at it this way. It's clear (at least to me) from the scriptures, prophetic discourses, and empirical evidence, that women generally are much more inclined to be righteous than men are. The practical result of this fact is that many more women than men will qualify for Exaltation. The scriptures tell us that following the Second Coming "seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach".

Or in other words, "we’ll pay our own way if you’ll marry us so that we can legally have children".

And why would they be willing to do that? Because the number of men who survive the Second Coming will be a fraction of the number of women who will survive it, and if those women wish to have a family they'll have no other choice!

If Exaltation requires being sealed to a spouse (and it does), how will all those surplus women (for lack of a better term) claim that blessing absent polygamy??

I believe the principle of plural marriage is an example of God's tender mercies. He is simply looking out for many of his righteous daughters who, because of circumstances beyond their control, will find themselves single and with no prospect of marriage, and hence would not be able to enjoy the blessings of Exaltation otherwise.

This philosophy (dare I call it one of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture) strikes me as woefully insufficient and fairly poorly considered.

[Guest]

But it's not a man made program.

As a personal thing, fine. As related to the point of the OP, doesn't seem useful or quite to the point.

 

I understand what you're saying.

[MrShorty]

This beautiful gospel is so simple a child can grasp it, yet so profound and complex that it will take a lifetime—even an eternity—of study and discovery to fully understand it.

 

Thinking about this, a couple of scientific examples:

 

1) Among the first "laws" I recall learning in physics and chemistry were the two basic "conservation of matter" and "conservation of energy". As simple as these two basic laws are, a good portion of understanding the physical world around us gets caught up in following how matter and energy move through the system we are looking at. Some of this is going from the generic "qualitative" statement ("energy is conserved") to more "quantitative" statements about how much energy is present and how much is in what forms (potential, kinetic, electrical, chemical, heat, and so on). As simple as the basic laws are, one can also spend a lifetime trying to quantify and explain the different phenomena that follow from these basic laws.

 

2) Euclidean geometry (which we all know and love) is based on five simple postulates. (For those that want to remind themselves what they are: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Geometry/Five_Postulates_of_Euclidean_Geometry ). As simple and almost self-evident as these postulates are, one can spend a lifetime and more exploring the theoroms and other consequences and properties of a geometric system based on those five postulates. If desired, one can explore other geometries by simply changing one or more of these simple postulates.

 

I suspect that the Gospel is similar. There are simple principles that form the basis of the Gospel. These principles are simple enough for a child to understand. However, one can spend eternity exploring how to measure these principles, and what follows from the foundational principles, and how these principles apply to oneself, and so on.

[The Folk Prophet]

The problem with the concept in question 2, is that we have no way of reasoning out what is and is not "man-made". It would be fairly easy to put onto the list any particular thing with which we are personally and particularly annoyed. But that does not mean that what we do not care for was uninspired.

 

The only real answer to making the decision of what we dig in and sacrifice for vs. what we cast aside as an necessary burden is to turn to the Holy Spirit and to follow it.

 

Which realistically makes the discussion, while perhaps interesting, not really useful, imo.

[LeSellers]

I daresay that [Plural Marriage] a principle much easier for men to accept than women.

It may be "much easier for men", but in the end, it's women who benefit more from polygyny than men. In fact, men (as a class) are irrefutably harmed by polygyny and women (as a class) get more.

Polygyny is not just about sex. It's about children and security.

Yes, we understand that a woman in a polygynous relationship will have only a fraction of a man, that is, she'd have to "share" him, and for women, being "the one and only" is important. But it is not the ultimate thing.

More important is knowing she'll be safe, secure, and that her children will have the things they need to grow up well, physically, spiritually (if that's important to the woman), and have a fair shot at an inheritance so they can start their own families.

Both men and women fall into standard bell shaped curves as to "desirability". (Now, what "desirability" is varies for each person doing the desiring, but each man has his own bell shaped curve for all the women in the world, and each woman had hers for all the men: physical attractiveness, wealth, education, strength, position, hunting skills, etc.)

From a "standard" woman's point of view, those characteristics that will most likely make her feel safe make a man desirable, and she may very well be more willing to be the second or twenty-second wife of a "good" man than the only wife of a "not-so-good" man. But under strict monogyny, she (because she's not as desirable as others) would have to settle for a man far down on her order of merit list.

The facts show this to be true: we have, and always have had, women who were willing to be mistresses, without any legal standing or protection, to "share" a man with his wife. Why, because they prefer a fraction of a "good" man to the whole of a lesser one.

It is obvious that the not-so-good men will be without any wives at all. So they suffer in all the obvious ways (although they may be incented to improve their standing by getting a better education or by saving money, etc. to attract at least one wife.

I can't put my hand on it right now, but this is the substance of an article by a woman sociologist (PhD, not that that makes a great deal of difference). It's out there on the 'net, if you're interested in looking for it.

It may appear that men would enjoy polygyny more than women, but that's only those men who attract mates, while those women who do not attract good mates are far better off, and should, at least, want to "live the Principle".

The fact that the Lord has, from time to time, commanded men to live in Plural Marriage should show that polygyny is not inherently evil, nor that it favors men over women.

Lehi

Edited January 24, 2016 by LeSellers

[Capitalist_Oinker]

 Nope, I don't believe that for a second. 

 

I'm curious as to why you don't believe it?

Have you observed anything inside or outside the Church that leads you to believe otherwise?

I certainly haven't.

In my ward there is a much higher percentage of active and faithful women than men. I can think of at least five women who hold temple recommends whose husbands are not active, while on the other hand there isn't a single temple recommend holding man whose wife does not also hold one.

Not long ago I attended a meeting with our Area Authority Seventy, which dealt with the problems of member retention. The statistics were sobering, but two that stood out to me were the gender activity ratio (59% to 41% women to men) and the "singles over age 30 who attend Church weekly" (21 men for every 100 women). Leaving aside the fact that women generally live longer than men (affecting the latter ratio), I believe these statistics still prove my point; women in general are much more faithful than men.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that there will be a greater number of women than men in the Celestial Kingdom. 

In light of that fact, what would you have God do to rectify the problem? If marriage is necessary for Exaltation (and it is), and absent plural marriage, how would you propose solving the dilemma without violating the principle of agency?

 

Also, I daresay that it's a principle much easier for men to accept than women.

 

Oh, I don't know. Reading the accounts of the early brethren I don't see very many of them who were enthused with the idea. 

I certainly wouldn't be. I love my wife dearly and I'm not the least bit interested in sharing my affections with another woman. But after shrugging off this mortal coil with all of its carnal, sensual, and devilish baggage I expect to see things a whole lot differently than I do now. And I suspect righteous woman who oppose plural marriage now will see things differently then too.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

That verse is Isaiah 4:1.  It is not talking about after the Second Coming, it is talking about before.  It is not talking about polygamy as commanded by the Lord, but about desperation brought about by the various forms of wickedness described in chapter 3.  For details, see Chapter 13 of the OT institute manual.

 

The chapter heading and the subsequent verses appear to me to be CLEARLY talking about the millennium. I honestly don't see how it can be interpreted any other way? But if I'm wrong it hardly invalidates my assertion that there are more righteous women than men, and hence more women than men will qualify for Exaltation.

 

We have no factual or revealed information regarding the comparative number of males and females who will be in the (highest degree of the) Celestial Kingdom (that I've ever heard, and I think this would be everywhere of late if there were such).

 

I'm certainly not going to hold my breath until the Lord reveals the future numbers (why would He?), but I don't see why it's difficult to extrapolate when the current numbers are known.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

This philosophy (dare I call it one of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture) strikes me as woefully insufficient and fairly poorly considered.

 

We don't disagree often, but here we definitely do. 

[The Folk Prophet]

We don't disagree often, but here we definitely do.

How can you disagree? You don't even know what I mean.

[LeSellers]

One wonders, occasionally, if those who oppose (or merely don't like) Plural Marriage are being shown their weakness, be it selfishness, insecurity, or whatever.

The same can be said of any other principle of the Gospel. Tithing, for some, is an almost insurrmountable obstacle. Fasting, prayer, baptism, service, the list goes on and on, and each comes with a challenge. And each, it seems can find where we should work on our devotion to the Gospel and christ by what he finds ahrd to hear.

Lehi

[Guest]

One wonders, occasionally, if those who oppose (or merely don't like) Plural Marriage are being shown their weakness, be it selfishness, insecurity, or whatever.

The same can be said of any other principle of the Gospel. Tithing, for some, is an almost insurrmountable obstacle. Fasting, prayer, baptism, service, the list goes on and on, and each comes with a challenge. And each, it seems can find where we should work on our devotion to the Gospel and christ by what he finds ahrd to hear.

Lehi

 

Obviously.

 

Though in my case, "oppose" is too strong a word.

[LeSellers]

in my case, "oppose" is too strong a word.

Not all stop at "reservations".

Lehi