Johnson's miscellaneous thoughts on LDS culture, tradition and ideas thread


JohnsonJones
 Share

Recommended Posts

This thread is simply a place that I can express various things and thoughts I've had on various aspects of the LDS religion from doctrine to traditions.  Feel free to read or comment as you want.  These are mostly just my thoughts, so not really a place for hard doctrine or concise teachings of the LDS church. 

The first item I think I'd like to write about is what is covered in the First discussion, or in this instance, the Godhead.

We, as the LDS church believe in God.  We know that he exists and that we are his children.  His only begotten son is Jesus Christ.  This is our older brother.  In this life we all sin and because of this we would not be able to return to live with our Father if there was not a plan to save us from this sin.  We call this the plan of Salvation.  Jesus Christ, our older brother, took upon himself our sins and atoned for the sins of the world  Because of this we can return to live with our Father again.

On the surface this can seem like very simple ideas, and yet, beneath them lies a deeper idea which differentiates the LDS ideas from Others.  The ideas of the LDS church is closest to that of the Trinitarians, though there is a specific and unique difference.  Trinitarians also believe in almost everything above, except they do not view the Lord as our literal older Brother in the spirit.  They also do not believe (in general) that Christ is a spirit child of our Father the same as we are, but he is our older brother in that aspect.

The trinity is NOT Unitarian (both the original meaning ONE deity and ONLY ONE deity, and the new which is to unite all faiths and beliefs) or monotheistic, nor is it polytheistic.  It is sometimes believed by those who do not understand it completely in a more Unitarian (meaning one deity) belief, where The Father and the Son are the same individual, indivisible, and one being completely.  This is NOT Trinitarian, though it is held at times by many who attend Trinitarian religions.  Trinitarian is the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are Separate and distinct individuals or beings, but at the same time are also the same being, or the same substance.  There are many different approaches to this idea.  One is where one views a father as being a father, a husband, a co-worker and other roles as separate roles, but at the same time, the same individual. 

Another way that some believe in the trinity is as follows.  Hold up both your hands.  In front of you, you will see both a right hand and a left hand.  They are separate parts of your body.  You can have them act independently of each other, without one copying the other.  They can appear at the same time.  However, they are BOTH part of the same being, they are BOTH part of you, as is your head as well. 

The LDS church differs from this as follows.  If you are married, take your right hand.  Hold it in front of you.  Now have your spouse hold her left hand in front of you.  Once again you have a right hand and a left hand in front of you.  They are both separate and can act independently of each other without copying the other.  The can appear at the same time.  HOWEVER, they are not both part of you. They are both separate as beings as one is part of you, and the other is part of your wife.  Hence, they are of a different substance from one another.

This becomes important when one analyzes the origins of the trinity and the impact of Joseph Smith.  The Catholic Church likes to portray the emergence of the Nicene/Athanasian creed (though it upholds that the apostles creed was in existence since the apostles themselves) because of a two way struggle between Athanasius And Arius.  This is far too simple a view as there were FAR more than simply Athanasius and Arius in contention at the Council of Nicea (or the other councils that occurred).  Many try to attribute to Arius that he was teaching that the Lord, or the Son was not Divine...which may or may not be accurate.  There were MANY theologians at that time, and many of them felt that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost were completely separate beings with no connection between them, with the additional thought that while the Father was divine and held all heavenly power, the Son was merely a mortal. 

Arius's teachings didn't specify this, and today when the LDS church is looked upon, many scholars view the LDS church as trying to resurrect the teachings of Arius, but NOT the teachings of those others theologians.

Athanasius was thought by some non-Catholic scholars to actually be a minority view.  His teaching was that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were three different individuals, and yet consubstantial, being comprehendible and yet incomprehensible .  This meant that, just like your right hand and left hand are the same age, and have always coexisted with each other, the same held true for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as they were all of the same substance.

Arius was of the thought that "the Father came first, and then the Son."  In otherwords, that the Father existed before the son, and that the Father was the one who created or gave birth to the Son, whether in spirit or in the flesh.  The Son was still divine, but unlike the Father, was younger than the Father. 

For Athanasius this was heresy, as was all other creeds.  Arius had the largest number of followers however, that were contending with Athanasius at the Council.  Lucky for Athanasius that he was able to get the Empire on his side, and hence their might.  He exiled Arius, but that did not end Athanasius's problems.  In fact, Athanasius never saw his creed take precedence over the world while Arius's (and others) followers dictated against it.  Even the Empire didn't settle until at least the Council of Ephesus.

I suspect that a century later, though the Catholic histories record that Arianism basically died out, that some segment of the other Theologians that were similar to Arius, but did not believe in the divinity of the Son (or believed the Son was merely a mortal and not divine) survived, as we see a very SIMILAR doctrine appear in the Middle east.  Here we see a small religion that takes many Judeo/Christian ideas and incorporates it into it's own religious creed.  Islam is born and we see the same idea of Monotheistic deism where the Lord is seen as a prophet rather than a Savior of the World.

This brings us to the First Vision.  What was so revolutionary about the First Vision.  It was not specifically that Joseph Smith saw two personages.  This in no way contradicts some views of how the trinity would work.  In fact, the trinity operates as it does because of confusion in regards to the Bible where it indicates that the Son and the Father are one in some parts, but in other portions it is quite obvious that they are separate entities.  There is the time that they are seen both at once by Stephen, the time of the Baptism where the Son talks and then is baptized, we see the Holy Ghost descend in the Form of the Dove, and the spirit of the Father rests upon the Son and also speaks, showing that both the Father and the Son can be seen separately and heard separately. 

It may have been startling to young Joseph and others, because as I said, for many they believed more in a Unitarian or Monotheistic idea rather than a trinity, or for those who believe in a more united trinity it may be a surprise, but for those who truly believe in the three separate but the same or united, it holds no challenge to the Trinitarian doctrine.  The trinity can appear as separate beings at the same time as exhibited in the Bible.

However, Trinitarians of the Catholic religion and descent (Protestantism) held that when Christ came, he fulfilled the law.  He fulfilled everything for the Bible and thus the Lord no longer appeared to men.  There were no such things as visions, or angels appearing to men any longer.  Prophets were no longer needed because the gospel was fulfilled and completed by the coming of the Lord and his teachings were complete. 

The thing that went counter to this specifically was that Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Resurrected Son.  Even if he claimed he simply saw an angel, much less God, it would have a large impact, because such a thing was believed to not be doctrinally sound.  For those of the Catholic descent, this was impossible to have occurred.  Joseph's Claim that he was visited by God was not only unbelievable by those of the Trinitarian descent, but absolute heresy.

The belief was either that an individual was selected by men who did not receive revelation or talk to God in person, but that was restricted by the Power of heaven to not be able to declare falsehoods (this being the Pope) and hence the leader of the church on Earth.  Others felt that it was simply the Priesthood Authority that gave them the ability to lead the church and it would not go astray (Orthodox).  Others felt that it was the Bible that was the complete word of the Lord and hence it contained the fullness of the gospel.  Hence their belief was that it was from the Bible that they derived their authority (much of Protestantism).  Others felt it was by Grace and calling that it was delivered, and that through that they could guide the church, but not through personal revelation or talking personally to the Lord or servants of the Heavens.

Hence, the First Vision shows that the Lord still talks to men in person.  That he will reveal his will to his servants, and those servants are those who lead his people.  The idea that we have a man that can talk to the heavens, that can receive revelation from them in our day and time is what sets us truly apart from others in regards to Joseph's First Vision.

Later we come upon the ideas that the Father and the Son are separate individuals and not the same substance.  That they are independent of each other rather than consubstantial, which is a point of doctrine many point out today in regards to differences between the LDS church and others of the Trinitarian belief.  However, originally, Joseph didn't make this point, his was that God still speaks to men and thus God speaks to prophets, even in our day. 

How can we know if Joseph Smith was a prophet though?  Joseph Smith left us with a way which we each can find out.  Several years later Joseph Smith was visited by an Angel.  That angel showed him gold plates that were the remnants of an ancient civilization.  After four years of visiting the Angel annually, he received those plates and by the Power of the Lord translated them.

This book is called the Book of Mormon.  We can read this book.  At the end of this book is the scripture found in Moroni 10:3-5.  It gives us the litmus test so that we can KNOW rather than just feel or believe, that the Book of Mormon is true, that it is what it claims it is.  If we pray and ask, with full desire and ponder what we have read, we can receive an answer.

If we get that answer and then know that the Book of Mormon is the truth, then by logic, we also know that he who brought it forth by the Power of the Lord was a Prophet and that what he taught is also true.

This then is another difference between us and other religions.  We believe in this idea.  This idea is that each one of us can receive personal revelation from the Lord.  What a simple, and yet astonishing truth!  That every man can talk to the Lord and receive an answer...not just some holy leader chosen to speak for us, but every one of us has that possibility!

So this is my first post on various thoughts.  I have no idea how much I'll post or not, most likely when the forum is moving slower I'll be more likely to post.  It's more for me to talk to myself and put things down in writing so that I can figure out how I think of them logically or at least set them out in order so I can make order of them than it is to expound to anyone here.  This is NOT me teaching, but more my thoughts and ideas put down in order rather than the chaotic form they fly around in my mind.  This one was obviously my thoughts on the discussions given to investigators and members and pondering it myself.  If you choose to read or comment, great.  If not, great as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacob have I loved

Slightly different tone than the last one I wrote.  So, tonight my wife flipped on the light switch so she could read.  She couldn't get to sleep, and unfortunately I can't sleep with the light on.  So, since she was awake, I was awake.

She's reading Jacob have I loved, which is one of her favorite books.  My wife always said she related to Louise growing up.  Her sister was talented and played the violin, drew artwork that everyone seemed to love, and made straight A's in school.  My wife didn't do so well in art, couldn't play the violin, and was an A and B student.  My wife always felt like her sister was the favored one growing up and thus felt like she related to the Character of Louise in the book.

In the book you have two sisters, Louise and Caroline.  Caroline is beautiful and talented and everyone seems to love her while Louise is left in the shadows of her sister, or so she feels.  It isn't till near the end where she is told she (Louise) who is the one to decide what to be that she changes, goes to school and then medical school, becomes a doctor, and eventually married.

However, I noticed something when we were first married, and I told my wife, I think she was mistaken about which sister she was.  My wife was absolutely gorgeous.  She was modeling type gorgeous, with the classic blonde hair and blue eyes.  She had a ton of friends and was popular, while her sister was not and tagged along with my wife's crowd of friends.  My wife sang beautifully and did choir growing up.  I noted that while my wife was getting married at a young age, her sister still was not married nor dating someone seriously.  I realized at that point, though I do not know how much, that even though my wife was jealous of her sister, the opposite was true as well.  Her sister was also jealous of my wife.  In looking at it, it seemed more that her sister would fit Louise and my wife would fit the role of Caroline.  Her sister has done wonderfully in life, deciding to go to graduate school and while there finding the love of her life and finally getting married.  However, when I look at the roles of the book, and the roles of these two sisters, I think my wife, though wanting to see herself through Louise's eyes, truly fit the role of Caroline far more aptly.

I wonder how much others feel that way in our families at times.  How often do we feel our brothers or sisters are favored over us, or are looked upon more favorably and we are the outcast.  I wonder if at times, we feel that way because that's who we want to relate to, even if we are the ones who are not.

I noted to my wife about the scripture reference.  Supposedly the scripture is in reference to Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:13

Quote

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated

Which is interesting when one knows the story of Jacob and Esau.  Though the Lord favored Jacob, if I remember the story right, Issac actually favored Esau as the firstborn.  Jacob eventually leaves and has the conflict of his own story with two sisters (which in some ways also reflects the story in Jacob I have loved).  It's an interesting dynamic.

Now, I was told that I was incredibly popular when I was younger.  I know my wife seemed pretty popular.  What I find interesting is if you asked us each about what we thought we were, we probably would have said we were not the popular people, but just normal, everyday individuals.  That there were points that we wondered if people actually liked us or cared for us.  In my wife's case, I know she always had friends there that are friends with her to this day.  In that instance, I wonder if it doesn't matter how popular you may seem, or how well you are liked, that everyone at some point in life may feel like they are alone, or no one is there for them.  That everyone at some point may feel like a Louise, (or Jacob as Esau threatens him, or Esau as he feels Jacob is favored over him, or Rachel as Leah has all the sons, or Leah as it seems Jacob always favors Rachel over her no matter what) in their lives.

I think one of the great comforts we can have as Mormons, though not all of us realize it is that we can all have at least one constant companion.  We, when we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, as long as we remain worthy can always have the comfort of the Holy Ghost with us, and know that our Lord is with us as well and cares for each and everyone of us.

Louise may have been Methodist in the book (I believe that was her religion) and married a Catholic, but I think her story also can pertain to us Mormons as well.  Maybe that is why the book "Jacob have I Loved" appeals to so many through the years, because many of us, no matter who we are, sometimes feel that way.  However, the great thing is that we can all hopefully know that we are all loved by our Father, and also by the Lord, and that we can have constant companionship.

I have several children and some of them do not seem as talented as others on the surface.  There are little girls, but the one I want to talk about briefly is my second oldest son.  His older brother is very coordinated in hand and eye, athletic, and very outgoing.  He, in contrast, is extremely shy, and not very coordinated.  While his brother was winning trophys and events, which made me very proud, I was equally proud of this little boy for something entirely different.  He got up and gave a talk on his own in primary.  To put this into perspective, he wouldn't even talk to other kids he was so shy, and though could say prayers at home, up until this point always had to be helped to say them in primary due to his shyness.  That Sunday we had practiced his talk over and over and over again.  He knew it from memory, and when he got up and after a pause, gave the talk, I was just as proud as I was of his brother at any event that his brother had won.  This was a major victory for this little boy. 

When this little boy went to second grade I challenged him to make 30 friends, with the hope that he at least would make at least one.  It wasn't until the third quarter when he finally came home to say he finally made his first friend ever.  I was so proud of him.

In regards to the book, I would have always felt my second son would be the one that would be most like Louise, especially considering how much and how talented his brother was.  However, imagine my surprise when one day, my kids all voted to show who they thought I loved the most (hint, I love them all, they are all my favorites), and they listed my second son as my favorite.  In some way, the others, though very talented in their own ways, felt that my attention to the second son made them all feel a little like Louise.  I've tried since then to take time for each of them and tell them each how important and special they are to me.

I don't know where exactly I was going to conclude on this, just that the different perspectives I've thought of as I watched my wife read the book again for the umpteenth time.  However, she's finally clicking off the light, but as I've thought about my family, I know that I want them all to know how much I love each of them and how special I think every single one of them are.

I think in relation to the book we are all Louise's sometimes, and all Caroline's sometimes, but no matter how alone we may feel, I think our Father also feels in some ways how I feel towards my children, but far more.  That he loves each and every one of us far more than we can realize, that we are all extremely special to him and that if he could, he would want us all to know just how special and loved we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several items or thoughts today. 

First was in regards to the differences between wards and church buildings in the Idaho/Utah/Arizona areas and those in other parts of the world (for example, some rural areas of the UK and Ireland).  Whenever I go to an LDS service, whether in an area where there are multiple wards and a heavy concentration of Mormons, or one that is a small branch in a nation that has a very small number of Mormons, I find the actual services to basically run the same.  They have different speakers, and different individuals, but the feel and flow of the meetings are the same.  In essence, it really is the same church.

The difference comes into play when you have multiple wards in the same building.  Out in the hinterparts of the UK, you many times have one ward (or branch) in a building.  in that instance, you can use the building for whatever the ward needs.  You only need to plan within your own ward, and normally that is easily done during ward council.  It is pretty easy simply to use the building when you need it.

I've found that in areas where you may have three wards in one building it becomes a lot more complex.  The other wards normally are not in your ward council, so having a common point of contact (normally a building coordinator) becomes essential, as well as flexibility and other areas.  I bring this up since we have a ward activity this Friday.  It only occurred to me today to wonder if we had actually deconflicted with the other wards to be able to use the building this Friday evening.  This is something I never had to worry about in other areas, so this is a new thing.

It reminds me that no matter how long we've been in the church, no matter how much we or others may think we know, we are always learning something new.  For me, it's now a little stressful in wondering if we actually have the chapel tomorrow evening, or whether the 1st or 7th wards or whoever else may also plan on using the building, or have another loud activity that could interfere with ours.  I'm feeling a little stress over this, but if I have a little stress, the ones who are in charge of it may have a ton of stress.  I am still learning more about the church and the gospel, and probably will continue to learn more until the day I die (and then probably will still learn more even after that).

The second item I wanted to think about today is General Conference.

There's not as many threads discussing this right now as I would think with it just around the corner, but that may be because it's still not here yet and discussions will abound when it's being broadcast this weekend.

When I was young we'd all get dressed in our Sunday best to go to watch or listen (there was one location at least where we didn't actually get to watch it, but we could listen to it.  I'm unsure if it was due to tapes being sent and we listened to it a week later or if we listened to it live via some other connection) to General conference.  We would be dressed in our best for all of the sessions, and other people would join us.  On Saturday it was a little sparse, but it was normally packed on the Sunday Morning Session.

Now days it seems far different than that.  Even if I go to the Stake Center it is locked up and no one is there.  There is no need to run the recorders or hook anything up at the ward building.  It seems in the areas of major LDS influence and population that it is expected that everyone either has an internet connection they can devote to this for a few hours, or a cable or satellite hookup that they can use.  Unfortunately, there are a few members in our ward that do not have this luxury, so pondering what could be the right course of action.  It appears the stake presidency itself is more encouraging people to watch it, but not to necessarily have us prepare the ward buildings except for the Priesthood session which will have the Stake Center open.  If I open up the ward building, am I still supporting the Stake leadership or not?  I'm not certain what we are supposed to do with those without access to watch it unless we invite people over to our home.  It appears that I will have at least one set of missionaries with us this weekend.  Maybe I should invite the others out there that do not have a way to watch General Conference on their own.  I'm not sure I feel comfortable having a ton of people in my home for General Conference though. Maybe I'm just too prideful in that and shouldn't be so selfish?

In conjunction with that, though I'll be dressed better this weekend most likely, also due to my pride of not wanting to be in PJs with others around, it seems when we watch it in our homes (at least that's the feeling I have with my extended family as well as mine) is that we don't get dressed up anymore to watch conference.  It doesn't seem as special as it used to be with us being able to just flip on the TV and watch it in the comfort of our house (or, as we have a TV in the room, the comfort of PJ's under the blanket from our bed in the bedroom).  I wonder how many others never get dressed to watch sessions of conference.

Even crazier is when people don't even watch conference and consider this weekend as a time to vacation from church.  That some consider it a time to not watch any conference and simply enjoy time off.  We try to watch all of conference, but it gets hectic with all the sessions.  I've encouraged people in my ward that we should try to watch at least one session this weekend if not more. 

For me, it should be an exciting time to hear from our Church leaders, and I am excited.  I think perhaps to try to restore and make it more important would be to make a point of dressing up in Sunday Clothes when listening this year.  This can be some of the most important instruction we receive, and I should treat it far more importantly than I have over the past few years.  I'm excited about this weekend, and wonder who we will hear talk to us at Conference this year.  Normally the Apostles get at least one talk, and the Counselors get two or three talks.  I wonder if President Monson will be well enough to talk to us this year.  If so it might only be one short talk, or it may be more.  It could be interesting to see how it pans out.  I wish I could actually go to see it at the conference hall in Salt Lake, but I didn't specifically ask for tickets to go this year, and have others who will be here this weekend. 

I hope anyone who reads this enjoys watching General Conference this weekend and is looking forward to it like I am.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ward meets in the stake center with two other wards, a family ward and a singles ward. Our ward "owns" the building on Tuesdays for YM/YW and such, and the other family ward "owns" it on Wednesdays. The rest of the time, Church entities that wish to use the building just schedule it. This can be done online or through a building coordinator. Like many other things, it's confusing if you're not used to it, but if you are, it's just a fact of life and no big deal.

In pre-internet days, we, too, used to get dressed up and go to Church, though usually only for one session (typically Sunday afternoon, since the Sunday morning session started at 9:00 am and we lived about 45 minutes from the stake center). Occasionally, some local TV station would carry a session, which would allow us to stay home and watch General Conference -- how cool is that! And sometimes a local radio station would carry all the sessions, so we could attend through radio.

When I was growing up, I don't remember my family making any effort to watch all the sessions. Maybe we would have if all the sessions had been available on TV. Don't know. In any case, from the time my wife and I were first dating, we made it an effort to attend all sessions of General Conference. What a blessing that decision has been!

When I was growing up, we often did not attend stake conference; even today, several of my nominally "active" relatives say that they consider stake conference to be a day off of Church. It makes me sad that people think they need a "day off" from Church fellowship, or that those I love would look forward to skipping stake conference as superfluous. I suppose it's just a reflection of the truism that God offers us all his blessings, but if we won't accept them and take advantage, they won't come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
5 minutes ago, Vort said:

When I was growing up, I don't remember my family making any effort to watch all the sessions.

 

That's because the TV wasn't invented yet, but anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I used to classify stake conference as a day off until my bishop decided to speak, very loudly, to me about his practice! ?

I show up to every stake conference, but I still consider it like a day off because it is 2 hours instead of 3, and I don't have to preside over a meeting or teach a lesson! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several things wrong with the first post's view of the Early Church, the creeds, and the Trinity.  Yes, there are also several things wrong with Talmage's The Great Apostasy.

This is what I always say to people.  We do not have to denigrate the Early Church and the period of Apostasy to believe in the Restoration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
10 hours ago, SilentOne said:

I've never really understood those who consider conferences to be days off. I figure that if something is important enough that the Lord would have us cancel partaking of the sacrament, it is definitely important enough for us to attend/watch/listen.

The benefit of living in 2017 (one of them) is I can listen to conference and go on a road trip at the same time. So I can take a day off while not taking a day off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, anatess2 said:

There are several things wrong with the first post's view of the Early Church, the creeds, and the Trinity.  Yes, there are also several things wrong with Talmage's The Great Apostasy.

This is what I always say to people.  We do not have to denigrate the Early Church and the period of Apostasy to believe in the Restoration.

Actual trinitarianism (as opposed to modalism) is so close to the LDS position you can barely tell the two apart.  The biggest differences appear to be the trinitarian insistence to use the word "consubstantial", which was apparently highly controversial at the time it was adopted into the Nicene Creed (and its inclusion may have been mandated by the Roman government).  There is also an implied difference in the origin of Christ when you get away from trinitarianism, of which the LDS position is more Biblical.  That said, LDS beliefs are a lot closer to classic trinitarianism than many beliefs I have heard expressed by people professing to be Protestants.  The whole thing is a side show that has been hijacked to try to exclude LDS from being defined as Christian.  I think "social trinitarianism" is an accurate description of LDS belief regarding the Godhead - that purpose, rather than substance, is enough to unite three distinct entities into one God. 

I am glad the early fathers went with the Nicene Creed over Arius.  I heard different things about Arius than the original poster - that Arius' position on Christ is much more similar to Islamic belief than LDS belief.  Perhaps I heard wrong.  However, if this is the case, at least Trinitarian belief preserved the belief that Jesus was divine.

That said, I am glad the Church has made corrections to the belief in the nature of God.  We cannot become like a classic trinitarian God - we are not consubstantial with other beings, so LDS doctrines of eternal progression would not work within classic trinitarianism.  However, the early Church fathers did an admirable job given what they had to work with.

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In preparation for General Conference I was browsing various materials on the LDS website.  It is probably that I'm just slow in this regards and everyone here has already known about what I'm about to mention for a long time.  As I was looking at different conference talks through the years I found this

All Conferences

And then I found even more!

Ensign

Which floors me.  It has all the conferences and Ensigns back to 1971!  This is awesome!  This prompted me to open my tablet which I recently got and put the Gospel Library on, and lo and behold it had the same thing on it as well!  You can have all that with endless reading material!  I think it is very cool.  It does raise an interesting question though.  Now that I've discovered this, do I need to continue a subscription to the church magazines?

If I stop subscribing, is this a trend that others are also doing.  If so, would that indicate that eventually they might stop publishing the actual hardcopy of the magazine?  As a historian, this makes me somewhat sad.  For a historian, we are all about books and documents, most of the time hardcopies of items.  It seems so easy for electronic items to be lost if some event happens, or even something slight like a media change or an update to the program that opens a specific type of media. 

However, it is personally cheaper and easier to rely on the electronic than the hardcopy in this instance.  It is wonderful that these are available to the world via electronic means, especially with such a back history of issues and conferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Now that I've discovered this, do I need to continue a subscription to the church magazines?

You don't need to.

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It seems so easy for electronic items to be lost if some event happens, or even something slight like a media change or an update to the program that opens a specific type of media.

This is one of the reasons I prefer hardcopy just about anything. I also just like to turn pages. And in the rare cases I highlight/annotate, I find physical highlighters/pens/pencils easier to use.

9 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

However, it is personally cheaper and easier to rely on the electronic than the hardcopy in this instance.

My income is currently pretty low so I do not subscribe. But I will subscribe again when I get a new job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts on General Conference from Saturday, not a ton to share, but things that stood out to me. 

I was impressed by Elder Nelson's talk at the end of the conference.  It seemed as if he were telling us to remain strong in this world against the forces that would destroy our faith, and how we need to have that faith and practice in the Lord.

I remember Elder Hales as a strong and vibrant man, with that background of being an Air Force officer.  He looked so much different today, age has changed him.  I was especially touched with his talk on being charitable.

It was a theme that sort of was reflected in Holland's talk as he discussed songs, and then went into how sometimes when we see the evil in the world and how uncharitable it is, it can be hard to sing about things or doing those things in song. 

Moving onto Priesthood session, there were some thoughts that came to mind, but not necessarily based on what was said at times.

I was delighted to hear from President Monson, and hope that we hear him tomorrow morning as well...but we shall see.  President Monson ALSO talked a LOT about charity.

While Elder Uchtdorf also was a speaker in the Priesthood session, some of his items were ones that I started to think about in the middle of his talk.  One item that led to a tangent in my mind was when he started about seeing a man for just a moment as the Lord saw him and realizing the Lord loves us no matter what groups we are in or affiliated with or other things that we might divide ourselves with in this life.  That got me to think about my children.  I love ALL of them.  I then pondered on another off topic item.  Though the Lord loves all of us, we know not all of us will return to live with him.  What then makes it so that some of us return to him and some of us do not if he loves all of us just as much as each other.  Who then inherits what he has.  I then thought of my kids again.  I love all of my kids greatly, however, not all of them are like me.  One daughter of mine loves everything I do.  She loves books and history.  She loves games and Disney films.  I have a policy that if the children really like something I have, they can have it.  I'm not going to need it after this life, so if it is something they really liked in childhood, or really enjoy overall, they can have it.  It is free game.  The One that I feel may take me up on this some day is my daughter I just talked about.  The other children love me, but she is the one that shares the interests I have.  They all have their free agency to get whatever I have, but I think it is that daughter that may take the inheritance I offered because she is the one that would enjoy it most.

In some ways, when thinking of this, I think it may be similar with our Father.  He loves all his children, and has offered all he has to us.  Not all of us are like him or want what he wants.  It is only the ones that are more like him that might take him up on his offer.

So, yes, a huge side tangent of thought in the middle of the second half of the priesthood session (though I did listen, Elder Uchtdorf then went on to discuss how important each of our callings are, that it is what is inside, not the outward appearance or calling that is what is truly important in this life).

One last item that hit me pretty hard this conference that has nothing to do with any individual talk.  I felt the spirit in each session of conference.  I realized that if one is in tune with the spirit, they can feel the spirit when the apostles and General Authorities speak.  It is a testimony of each individual apostle (since I think all the apostles typically speak during the conference eventually, though it isn't always the case, they always try to have as many as can do so) and general authority that speaks in which the spirit is testifying.  I think we can renew our testimonies from feeling the spirit testify of them at conference, and know that each of them is called of the Lord as we hear them speak.  I know that this is what really impressed me on Saturday as I listened to the various speakers.  In many ways, Conference itself should be a testimony fortifying experience, or for those who are truly seeking and trying to find the truth but have not yet, be a meeting where they can feel the spirit and start on that path to gaining a testimony of the Prophets and the Book of Mormon and then of the Gospel.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

While Elder Uchtdorf also was a speaker in the Priesthood session, some of his items were ones that I started to think about in the middle of his talk.  One item that led to a tangent in my mind was when he started about seeing a man for just a moment as the Lord saw him and realizing the Lord loves us no matter what groups we are in or affiliated with or other things that we might divide ourselves with in this life.  That got me to think about my children.  I love ALL of them.  I then pondered on another off topic item.  Though the Lord loves all of us, we know not all of us will return to live with him.  What then makes it so that some of us return to him and some of us do not if he loves all of us just as much as each other.  Who then inherits what he has.  I then thought of my kids again.  I love all of my kids greatly, however, not all of them are like me.  One daughter of mine loves everything I do.  She loves books and history.  She loves games and Disney films.  I have a policy that if the children really like something I have, they can have it.  I'm not going to need it after this life, so if it is something they really liked in childhood, or really enjoy overall, they can have it.  It is free game.  The One that I feel may take me up on this some day is my daughter I just talked about.  The other children love me, but she is the one that shares the interests I have.  They all have their free agency to get whatever I have, but I think it is that daughter that may take the inheritance I offered because she is the one that would enjoy it most.

In some ways, when thinking of this, I think it may be similar with our Father.  He loves all his children, and has offered all he has to us.  Not all of us are like him or want what he wants.  It is only the ones that are more like him that might take him up on his offer.

So, yes, a huge side tangent of thought in the middle of the second half of the priesthood session (though I did listen, Elder Uchtdorf then went on to discuss how important each of our callings are, that it is what is inside, not the outward appearance or calling that is what is truly important in this life).

Solid tangent. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Solid tangent. :thumbsup:

On a different subject, but related to this morning, it sounds (if your location is right) you are going to be getting a New Temple there!  I imagine that is exciting news.  I heard a few...what sounded like exclaims of excitement in the audience when it was announced for Saratoga Springs.

On conference in general

I was delighted that once again we got to hear from the Prophet once again this morning, and feel that it was a vitally important message.  With all that's happening in the world, obtaining and keeping our testimonies seems to be a vital thing for keeping us strong in the gospel today.  I think that maybe some members do rely on the testimonies of others and without a strong testimony of their own it can become a very hard thing to retain a belief in the church.

Right afterwards, there was a son of mine that I had to almost drag to watch conference.  I turned to him and asked him if he believed and he said yes.  I asked him if he had ever prayed to know if the Book of Mormon was true, and he said no.  I asked him to pray about it (once again, I have before) and he said maybe, but maybe not.  He is one that I fear is in that situation the Prophet was talking about, relying on the testimony of his parents and others rather than attaining one for himself.

Elder Rasband's talk on the Holy Ghost was also interesting as yesterday morning I had a very strong impression to visit one of the elderly members.  I tried to ignore it, as it was still early and conference didn't start until 10.  It became more pressing and finally I got up, quickly got dressed and went over to visit the member.  They had internet but no TV and had been trying to pull up where they would watch conference to no avail.  They were worried, but as I got there and found out, I was able to get them up and running with the LDS.org conference video going with a few minutes to spare.  I wonder if that's why I was impressed to get there.  They were thrilled that I got it available for them, and I was also able to race back and make it to watch conference myself.  I wonder what may have happened if I hadn't gone for the visit.  Elder Rasband's talk reinforced the thoughts in sometimes things may occur for reasons we do not know, but we should always try to listen.

Finally, the concluding talk of the Afternoon session was interesting.  It seems that the more I've tried to follow the right way of doing things, the harder it gets at times.  At the beginning of the year I participated in that crazy thing we sometimes do of setting New Years Resolutions.  I decided I'd try to read 10 pages out of the book of Mormon each day, which means I think it could lead to reading through it 5 or 6 times in a year.  Things have gotten a LOT harder this year, and I wonder if the more I try to be good, the worse the adversary tries to destroy or harm me.  I've tried to reinforce doing good things and being in good places (one reason why I signed up for these forums), as things have gotten progressively more difficult.  His talk reminded me that what I am going through is trivial compared to what others like Parley P. Pratt or Joseph Smith were called to endure during the early days of the church.

It's over for this year, though I imagine I'll read the talks again when they are printed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I was pondering on the atonement, and several ideas came about.  One of them looks at a possible situation on how it may work, or one of many ways it may have worked (not doctrine, my own ponderings and thoughts on the subject).

If a man commits a crime he is guilty of that offense.  It is justice that he is punished, with a punishment equal to the crime.  If an innocent man commits a crime, it is unjust to punish him.

This could be due to nature and natural law (not as we understand it, but as it is understood in heaven).  All the universe follows the Father because he is a God of order.  This gives him all power, but only as long as he remains in order, or that he commits no sin.  In other words, the natural order is for the universe to follow his commands because he acts in accordance with it's laws.  Thus, he is required to bring about justice when something or someone does NOT obey the law.  It is not necessarily of his own desires that one is punished for sin, but the laws of justice as demanded by the intelligences and powers of the universe that he commands.  If they must do everything he requires, it is only justice that all his creations do so.

Hence, the demands of justice are the demands made by the intelligences and powers of the universe/nature itself.  If they must do as they are told, so must everything and everyone else.  It is not necessarily even the Father who brings about these punishments, but the designs of natural law and order which bring it about.

Which brings us to the Lord, or the Son.  He was innocent.  He broke no law of the Father.  Yet, he was punished as if he had been (and I imagine it was done by the adversary to us all, rather than any action done by his Father at all, his Father only finally allowed it to occur in the Garden of Gethsemane).  I imagine, part of it was also nature's own punishments and their requirement of it towards all men due to Adam (postulation, totally and completely, on my part).

Hence, nature itself had committed an injustice.  How, then, does one requisite such injustice?  If one punishes an innocent man to the death, how does it then justify itself?

Those forces, or laws it tries to enforce are no longer just.  Who then IS just, who can actually call for justice when nature itself cannot.

The one upon whom is the only just one left in nature, or him who was unjustly punished.  That would be the Son.  In this way, the Son was able to break the laws of nature (though he did not break them in the sense that he did wrong, but broke them in that they had no claim upon him and thus invalidated the punishments they inflicted upon him, making themselves the invalidated power in this instance.  They themselves could be seen as having rebelled against their own laws in this one, singular case, and hence were also guilty and subject to the edicts of the ONLY just one left in this instance (beyond the Father, of course).

Hence, he is the one left to make the judgements, and in this way can extend mercy because nature/universal laws have no claim upon him anymore, but at the same time, have justice paid for as he is the only one that is truly just.

Confusing, I know, and probably I didn't relate it enough to be understood.  Sort of something that I was thinking of in relation to what the book Jesus the Christ discusses in regards to Gethsemane and the Lord with the atonement.  Basically, pondering upon the subject of why and how it may have worked.  He paid for our sins, but how is it that he can overcome the rules in place in order for mercy to be served.  I've heard the parables about the man in debt who had a another come forth to pay that debt, and hence would be his creditor, but that leaves so much in question in regards to justice and the laws thereof.  When thinking about the justice systems through the ages, the only way to really avoid someone being punished (for example, we do not jail someone for another's crime typically, we feel, as it has been through most of the ages in most nations, that the one who committed the crime is the one who must pay), is that somehow that law must be overcome or invalidated in order for someone to be let free, as the law is no longer in effect in regards to that person's crime, there is no punishment hence attached, if it can occur (for example, a supreme court ruling that Gun Clips can have over 10 bullets in them, in regards to someone who was convicted of having such a clip, normally after YEARS of it moving up the courts).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So, just recently we had a ward youth temple trip.  While I was in the temple, I reflected on what a blessing trying to be righteous and endure to the end is.  Because I was doing all I could to be righteous and be worthy of my temple recommend I was able to be there in the temple with the youth that day.  What was an even greater blessing was being able to help out with the Baptisms and confirmations.  What some of us take for granted when we are able to go to the temple is a GREAT blessing, and even more so in that we can bless others.

The Youth Baptisms were a great thing in two ways, first that we can be a blessing to those who have passed on, and also we can aid the youth in the work of the Lord.  I felt very blessed myself that day because I was able to be there, and had the opportunity to participate.

While there, a topic particularly specific to LDS culture came about.  We had a member there who had grown up in Europe and they mentioned that the Youth there did 10-15 baptisms each, while those in Utah and Idaho only were doing around 3 to 4 each.  We pondered together on this idea.  Perhaps others know better.

My thoughts may be flawed in the matter.  I was of the idea that with all the youth that visit the temple in the Utah and Idaho areas, with the names allocated to temple baptisms, the youth end up doing 3-4 names.  However, with the same number of names, but less numbers of youth in some areas of Europe, that amount of names done per youth would increase.  Not positive that is logical or reasonable thinking however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share