Security to never fall away from the church? Here it is.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Traveler said:

Again quoting from Hugh Nibley.  "Facts are just truths altered by opinion."

Are you suggesting that Hugh Nibley's tongue-in-cheek statement on the meaning of the word "fact" overrides the actual definition?

Look, we can play this game all day. I'm not going to. If you want to define "fact" as equal in meaning to the word "opinion" then go for it. Apparently that's the common consensus now. And as everyone also seems to know now, consensus dictates reality instead of reality dictating reality.

Good luck with that view.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Like Jesus?

Pres. Uctdorf said: It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith—even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen but which are true.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

Was he in conflict with the Christ?  

What Pres. Uchtdorf said is precisely what I am trying to say as well.  

[estradling75]

I think the problem here is that we have different definitions of what doubt is.

If doubt is the opposite of faith... would not that also mean that doubt like, faith is action based?

If Faith is acting on what we think or hope is true... Then

Doubt would be acting on what we think or hope is not true...   Clearly a choice and a problem.

Were as if doubt is simply a lack of understanding or knowledge... then that is not a choice and we are all in that position... it is what we do next that matters.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Pres. Uctdorf said: It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith—even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen but which are true.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

Was he in conflict with the Christ?  

What Pres. Uchtdorf said is precisely what I am trying to say as well.  

I think @estradling75 may be on to something. I think you are defining doubt differently that some of us and then debating the matter. I do not consider honest questions, lack of knowledge, wresting with issues, etc., the same as doubt. (Just as I do not consider "faith" to be equivalent to "belief").

Doubt is a loss of confidence. Not a lack of knowledge.

Edited May 12, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Traveler]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Are you suggesting that Hugh Nibley's tongue-in-cheek statement on the meaning of the word "fact" overrides the actual definition?

Look, we can play this game all day. I'm not going to. If you want to define "fact" as equal in meaning to the word "opinion" then go for it. Apparently that's the common consensus now. And as everyone also seems to know now, consensus dictates reality instead of reality dictating reality.

Good luck with that view.

 

When I was immersing myself in the experience of being in Israel (the Holy Land) I discovered that on the Sabbath day a devoted Jew will not push elevator buttons at hotels.  To accommodate this fact or opinion of so many Jews the hotels would have designated elevators stop at each floor so buttons would not have to be pushed.  In attempting to discover why – I talked to a Jew.  They referenced the six days of creation as what G-d did as defining work (work 6 days and rest on the Sabbath).  It is a fact that G-d created light and it is a fact that G-d defined such as work.  It is also a fact that pushing a button on an elevator will create light.

I am suggesting that should we wish to understand someone’s opinion – it may be useful to look beyond just the facts, in order to understand the “Whole” truth.  But to be honest – this is really my opinion based in my experiences.   BTW - what I learned about Jews and elevators could have some posibility of luck. 

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Traveler said:

It is also a fact that pushing a button on an elevator will create light.

Is this your opinion?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I think the problem here is that we have different definitions of what doubt is.

Interesting post. Yes, this could be it.

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think @estradling75 may be on to something. I think you are defining doubt differently that some of us and then debating the matter. 

The difference was not intentional. Its not my fault that communication is fraught with difficulties.  For my part, I shared Pres. Uctdorf's talk early in this thread, which I had thought would clarify my position.  

[zil]

34 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Pres. Uctdorf said: It’s natural to have questions

Questions are not the same thing as doubt.

[Traveler]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Is this your opinion?

No - it was the opinion of the Jew according to their explanation and my observation of a light that would appear.  Hmmjmmmm if we push a button and a light comes on - is the light and the button associated with opinion or fact?  What would happen if a button was pushed and one could not see a light appear?  Actually, I asked the question and the Jew responded that at some level a switch would cause a spark – which is light – even if it was not seen.  Therefore, they would not push the button.  There was a very interesting example of Jews and their “facts” in the news that to those that do not understand Jewish opinions of fact would find most bazar – perhaps even ludicrous.  

As a side note Nephi suggested that understanding the Jews (their mannerisms) is a most effective tool in understanding Isaiah.  At first I thought this may not apply to the modern Jew – but I am beginning to alter my opinion.

To answer your question – there is a difference between facts and opinions – but I am thinking there may not be as big a difference as some may express in their various opinions.  A game – perhaps; but I would suggest that it is a fact that in order to understand someone, to converse with them beyond surface stuff – you will have to understand their opinions – in depth.  If you do not want to understand their opinions – why have a conversation – about their opinions. 

And, if you are wondering, I find your opinion fascinating and interesting and would so much enjoy getting to know you better.  But I am not sure the feeling is mutual. 

 

The Traveler

 

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Interesting post. Yes, this could be it.

The difference was not intentional. Its not my fault that communication is fraught with difficulties.  For my part, I shared Pres. Uctdorf's talk early in this thread, which I had thought would clarify my position.  

When God Himself says "doubt not" and "Wherefore didst though doubt?" and "whosoever shall believe in my name, doubting nothing," etc., etc., and then some of us say the same thing, then when someone else implies that our saying so is going to cause others to leave the church, it strikes me as logically problematic. Either that means that God also causes people to leave the church (potentially true), in which case our doing the same by the same means isn't so problematic as suggested (sometimes the truth will drive some away), or...what you're saying is mistaken and these ideas don't actually drive people away.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

6 minutes ago, zil said:

Questions are not the same thing as doubt.

That depends on whom you ask apparently. To me they are the same. Pres. Uctdorf talked about questions and doubt as if they were the same. 

Merriam Webster says doubt is ""to call into question the truth of....to be uncertain".

I accept that some see it differently but I stand by my definition.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

No - it was the opinion of the Jew according to their explanation and my observation of a light that would appear.  Hmmjmmmm if we push a button and a light comes on - is the light and the button associated with opinion or fact?  What would happen if a button was pushed and one could not see a light appear?  Actually, I asked the question and the Jew responded that at some level a switch would cause a spark – which is light – even if it was not seen.  Therefore, they would not push the button.  There was a very interesting example of Jews and their “facts” in the news that to those that do not understand Jewish opinions of fact would find most bazar – perhaps even ludicrous.  

As a side note Nephi suggested that understanding the Jews (their mannerisms) is a most effective tool in understanding Isaiah.  At first I thought this may not apply to the modern Jew – but I am beginning to alter my opinion.

To answer your question – there is a difference between facts and opinions – but I am thinking there may not be as big a difference as some may express in their various opinions.  A game – perhaps; but I would suggest that it is a fact that in order to understand someone, to converse with them beyond surface stuff – you will have to understand their opinions – in depth.  If you do not want to understand their opinions – why have a conversation – about their opinions. 

And, if you are wondering, I find your opinion fascinating and interesting and would so much enjoy getting to know you better.  But I am not sure the feeling is mutual. 

 

The Traveler

 

It always fascinates me how much some people seem to go to extraordinary effort to conflate opinion with fact.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

When God Himself says "doubt not" and "Wherefore didst though doubt?" and "whosoever shall believe in my name, doubting nothing," etc., etc., and then some of us say the same thing, then when someone else implies that our saying so is going to cause others to leave the church, it strikes me as logically problematic. 

We've already discussed that there has been a misunderstanding. I agree wholeheartedly with Pres. Uctdorf. 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

That depends on whom you ask apparently. To me they are the same. Pres. Uctdorf talked about questions and doubt as if they were the same. 

Merriam Webster says doubt is ""to call into question the truth of....to be uncertain".

I accept that some see it differently but I stand by my definition.

But it plainly isn't the same.

If I am learning how to computer program and I ask "In JavaScript what happens if you declare a variable after you refer to it?" I haven't doubted anything.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But it plainly isn't the same.

If I am learning how to computer program and I ask "In JavaScript what happens if you declare a variable after you refer to it?" I haven't doubted anything.

Read Pres Uctdorf's talk. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, LiterateParakeet said:

Read Pres Uctdorf's talk. 

I have. Thanks for the condescension instead of communication. Very useful.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I have. Thanks for the condescension instead of communication. Very useful.

Condescension is your opinion, not my intention.

I believe from thattalk that Pres. Uctdorf defines doubt as I do. He talked about questions and he talked about doubt in the same talk as if they were closely related. This is what I believe as well. This is very redundant...thus comment.

[Vort]

37 minutes ago, Traveler said:

When I was immersing myself in the experience of being in Israel (the Holy Land) I discovered that on the Sabbath day a devoted Jew will not push elevator buttons at hotels.  To accommodate this fact or opinion of so many Jews the hotels would have designated elevators stop at each floor so buttons would not have to be pushed.  In attempting to discover why – I talked to a Jew.  They referenced the six days of creation as what G-d did as defining work (work 6 days and rest on the Sabbath).  It is a fact that G-d created light and it is a fact that G-d defined such as work.  It is also a fact that pushing a button on an elevator will create light.

While I honor anyone's sincere effort to serve and obey God, it is exactly this sort of pedantic and nit-picky overconcentration on the wording of a commandment that produced the Pharisees of Jesus' day. This sort of hyperfocus on the mechanical leads inexorably to hypocrisy, and is as dangerous as the opposite pendulum swing -- those who insist that the commandments themselves are mere forms or suggestions, and that all we really have to do is be nice and everything else is okay.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It always fascinates me how much some people seem to go to extraordinary effort to conflate opinion with fact.

 

Agreed, especially their opinion.

The Traveler

 

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

While I honor anyone's sincere effort to serve and obey God, it is exactly this sort of pedantic and nit-picky overconcentration on the wording of a commandment that produced the Pharisees of Jesus' day. This sort of hyperfocus on the mechanical leads inexorably to hypocrisy, and is as dangerous as the opposite pendulum swing -- those who insist that the commandments themselves are mere forms or suggestions, and that all we really have to do is be nice and everything else is okay.

 

I believe this or things like this is the only possibility when one relies exclusively on scripture (or what they think or want to think their living prophets say) as their religious authority.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

32 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe this or things like this is the only possibility when one relies exclusively on scripture (or what they think or want to think their living prophets say) as their religious authority.

Agreed. When the Spirit is absent (or discounted), even honest people tend toward legalism, the very heart of the Pharisaic attitude.

[Fether]

On 5/12/2017 at 8:58 AM, Vort said:

While I honor anyone's sincere effort to serve and obey God, it is exactly this sort of pedantic and nit-picky overconcentration on the wording of a commandment that produced the Pharisees of Jesus' day. This sort of hyperfocus on the mechanical leads inexorably to hypocrisy, and is as dangerous as the opposite pendulum swing -- those who insist that the commandments themselves are mere forms or suggestions, and that all we really have to do is be nice and everything else is okay.

I agree with you completely, I only bring this up as honest inquiry. 

A a missionary we were taught in the Mission Prep, the MTC and the mission that "Obedience brings success; exact obedience brings miracles,”  (https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-nelson-delivers-spiritual-thanksgiving-feast-to-mtcs?lang=eng). How to we reconcile this quote and "nit-picky overconcentration on the wording of a commandment"?

However, This quote was specifically given to missionaries and I didn't immediately see any sources suggesting it was given to the general church populace. So maybe the answer is that missionaries are just held to a higher standard and they should refrain from using elevators (not literally, but should take on a similar strictness).

 

[Vort]

53 minutes ago, Fether said:

I agree with you completely, I only bring this up as honest inquiry. 

A a missionary we were taught in the Mission Prep, the MTC and the mission that "Obedience brings success; exact obedience brings miracles,”  (https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-nelson-delivers-spiritual-thanksgiving-feast-to-mtcs?lang=eng). How to we reconcile this quote and "nit-picky overconcentration on the wording of a commandment"?

To my way of thinking, the difference is stark. Exact obedience to commandments is not merely a good idea; it is ultimately necessary if we hope to approach God. However, that's not what the given example suggested to me at all. Rather, it was the idea that pushing the button was forbidden because the light came on when you pushed it. So if we rigged up a button that didn't light up when you pressed it, is it okay to press on the Sabbath? Or is it the act of pressing a button that violates the Sabbath? How about the pressing of a door to open it? Is that okay? Can we light a lamp? Flip a switch? Is a flip-type switch okay, but not a button-type switch? And stupid as these questions sound, they are exactly the sorts of questions that observant Jews take very seriously in deciding what they can and cannot do.

Again, I mean no criticism toward any person who sincerely seeks to follow God. But this whole line of questioning reduces God and his commandments to an intricate series of legalistic regulations. Thus we end up with the common idea that Judaism specifies 613 commandments -- not 612, which is simply too few, but not 614, which after all is too many.

Nibley mentioned those religious "liberals" who chuckle and roll their eyes at those unenlightened souls who refuse to take their understanding of the figurative nature of religious symbols far enough, but cluck their tongues and look sternly and solemnly at those unwise radicals who take such things too far. In other words: "The way *I* think of things is perfect, and those who don't see things my way, in whatever direction, are wrong." I don't want to be that person. But in stating the above, I don't think that is the route I have gone. I see a pretty clear demarcation between the law's letter and its spirit, and especially between the law itself and volumes of commentary that add to, embellish, hedge, and otherwise interpret the law, turning from a living thing guided by the Spirit to a static, rigid, completely dead set of rules.

The hypocrisy of the Pharisees of Jesus' time did not lie primarily in their overly legalistic interpretations of divine law. Rather, it was their belief that simply following that self-imposed set of rules absolved them of all responsibility to actually do the will of the Lord -- which after all was the very purpose for which the divine law was given. The complicated set of rules was the will of the Lord, they believed. And so the widow starved and the parents went without, but the "good" Jew who allowed these things to happen was justified because he didn't take too many steps on the Sabbath.

So if the overly legalistic interpretations were not themselves the hypocrisy Jesus decried, they certainly helped lead to that hypocritical mindset.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Vort

[Sunday21]

My reactivation story: I had been inactive for decades. I did not consider myself to be a Mormon. I had friends who were lds and I felt sooo sorry for them. All of the lds women that I knew were married to jerks. My attitude was that if my friends had not been lds, they would have kicked those guys to the curb a long time ago.

i went to a conference in a sparsely populated place on the other side of the country. Canada has a ton of sparsely  populated places. I got a call from a lds male married friend, Rick, who lived near the conference. 'Near'in Canadian terms eg about 2 hours away.

Apparently he was ill. Could I visit before he got any worse?

i was not keen. He was married. I knew him as a teenager. He had been pretty weird then..Hmm.

My married female lds friend, Sue, begged me to visit Rick. He was in poor health. Gonna die any day.

oh all right. I would visit.

So I went and stayed in Rick's sisters house for a few days. I drove around with Rick while he did his delivery job. Rick seemed in the pink of health but not getting on with in his wife. I told Rick bluntly that the problem with Rick's marriage was Rick. 

When Rick was driving me the 2 hours to the conference, we talked about the church. There was a lot of yelling. He said, You used to know this was true. I told him my opinion of my friends husbands and how badly, they behaved. How badly Rick behaved. He told me that his behaviour was beside the point and that if the church was true, it did not matter how badly the saints behave. I thought about this. When I got to the conference, I had a lot of time to myself (by the way, the conference was held in a high bear area, Banff. When I entered Banff they gave me a bear pamphlet which of course I did not read. I decided, not to take the provided shuttle and to cut through the woods and walk to the conference building morning and night. On the last day of the conference, I was tired and took the shuttle. The bus driver explained that the shuttle was provided not because of the distance to the conference centre but to avoid having guests cut through the woods and encounter bears especially am and pm when bears are most active.)

At the conference, I had a lot of time to think and to pray. I had a bible in my nightstand and I read it. I thought how nice it would be to have a God who cared about me. I thought that if such a being existed that I did not want to let him down. I thought , 'Well, why not give it a shot? What commandments would I have a problem with? Well not working Sunday, obviously. But I figured that no one really obeyed that commandment anyway. So I decided to give it a shot.

So I am back in the church. I serve faithfully. Has being lds solved my problems in life. NO it has not! But I do have someone to talk to when things go wrong. Are most of my female friends married to jerks? Not all of them are but some of them are. How about Rick. Colossal Jerk! He kissed me goodbye at the airport. We are not on speaking terms because he kept calling me to complain about his wife. I have told him frankly and at high volume that he is going no where near the celestial kingdom but his wife is shoe-in. Among other things, his wife works 6 days a week as a teacher/tutor to support the family. RIck can't hold down a job because no boss sees his special qualities. Does Rick do a little housework to help out at home? No way, that's womem's work. Rick called me to tell that the children in a family counsel told Rick that he needed to do some housework. 

No one involved in this story gets high marks. My friends lied to me. I think of it as a kidnapping. But it worked. God is not so squeamish about getting his children back. I would definitely be led by the spirit in visiting teaching etc. I teach an inactive lady myself and we never talk religion. But don't be so squeamish. God's standards are not our standards. 

Edited May 14, 2017 by Sunday21

[priesthoodpower]

On 5/11/2017 at 3:51 AM, estradling75 said:

The only thing not leaving the church means is if the day comes that they do repent they have one less hoop to jump through on the road to repentance. 

Now lets discuss what Satan knows...  He knows that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  He knows Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.  He knows the church is true... all the things your other family members know.  Yet for all of them the knowledge, profits them not.  The only real difference is the hope that they might one day repent is still offered for your family members

 

I have recently learned to not be so pessimistic about the eternities or the salvation of others because NO ONE knows the intricate details.

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by priesthoodpower