carlimac

How is the Church doing handling the latest crisis?

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, BobMaster said:

No we do not share the same feelings.  I don't have feelings about this, I have facts.  Fact: more missionaries percentage-wise return home early than 20 years ago. Fact: missionaries call home more often than before.  Fact: more youth look at pornography on a percentage basis than 20 years ago. Fact: family and raising children is less important today than 20 years ago. Fact: the youth are having less children now than ever before. Fact: the Church is losing more youth than it has previously. Fact: more youth than ever today in the Church are raised by single-mothers in divorced households. 

None of those facts are in dispute.  And that has little to do with the overall thesis of your posts.  If you meant something different than the words you actually used, then I'd ask you to rephrase what you stated. 

If you think what you've written is accurate, then I guess you completely missed the entire point of what I wrote.  When you understand we can have a real conversation.  Have a good day.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

None of those facts are in dispute.  And that has little to do with the overall thesis of your posts.  If you meant something different than the words you actually used, then I'd ask you to rephrase what you stated. 

If you think what you've written is accurate, then I guess you completely missed the entire point of what I wrote.  When you understand we can have a real conversation.  Have a good day.

No, when you understand we can have a "real" conversation.

All of those facts lead to the fact that as a whole the youth today are less righteous than the youth of yesterday.  Only someone who has complete cognitive dissonance  can claim with a straight face that an overall less righteous youth  really means they are more valiant.

The fundamental problem we are having is that the facts do not line up with what the leaders claim causing a massive cognitive dissonance where people can not even have a conversation. I don't begrudge the leaders for saying what they are saying; it's just the facts don't line up with what they claim.

Let's not forget that the claim of the most awesomest, most specialist, greatest generation of youth has been taught for the last 40 years. Look, I get it-it's great to have smoke blown up your skirt, yet compared to the generation that stormed the beaches at Normandy-yeah that's all it is-smoke and mirrors.

Yet, this is the most "valiant" generation of youth when half of them are protesting for BYU to allow homosexual relationships?  

 

 

Edited by BobMaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have read through this thread, I find myself largely in agreement with the points @BobMaster has raised. I don't think anyone has really addressed his questions and observations head-on, except perhaps a&a when he said in effect that the word of God's prophets trumps any observation on our part, however obvious it might seem.

But I don't know that God's prophets have said in any sort of official manner that today's youth are The Best Evar. I know when I was young, we were told the same thing. I believed it until I went on my mission. As I read histories and look at my peers in age, I disbelieve more and more that my generation was somehow composed of unusually valiant men and women. I think the same thing of the present rising generation. Certainly God has spared some or even many of his valiant children for this day. He also spared some or many of them for other historical periods.

I am proud of my children. There is nothing in the world that I value more than them. They make my life beautiful. They are the fulfillment of my marriage with my wife. Yet on sober reflection and comparison, I don't see that they are necessarily any more virtuous than my own siblings and me. I think they were educated better than we were, and in some ways disciplined better than we were. But that's hardly a virtue on their parts. I dearly hope that my children will excel me in all things, especially in righteousness, and that that will be continued in following generations. But that's only a hope. I look at my nieces and nephews, and as a whole I don't see the rising generation as being fundamentally more virtuous than mine. When I look at the youth in the Church as a whole, that impression is very much strengthened; if anything, my generation as a whole looks possibly more truth-seeking, not less. If I look at the world as a whole, that impression is greatly increased. And I have a pretty low opinion of my own generation.

But the fact is that, if my generation is the present, the rising generation is undoubtedly the future. The past no longer exists. The future is the only living reality. The present—well, as Hootie says, 

Time, the past has come and gone
The future's far away
And now only lasts for one second, one second

The future is the hope of us all. So whether the rising generation is "more valiant" than we were is ultimately irrelevant. The rising generation is the hope of things to come. So we must do whatever we can, at whatever cost, to nurture the rising generation. For only through the Hope of Israel will our (and their) hopes be realized.

 

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I declare a hijack! 🤨

Sort of.  

You posted: "The reason I ask is because the millennial generation continues to post bleeding heart devotion to BLM, we’re all shameful racists with our White privilege,  and “cops are corrupt“ kinds of things on social media.  “Good” LDS kids posting avalanches of this stuff"

If it is true that this is the most valiant generation ever then we shouldn't worry about this or even try to correct it.  A proper understanding of the underlying problem is requisite in order to fix the problems of today.

The underlying problem is that the rising generation is in general an unbelieving generation that sets political ideology above scripture truth.  It's a generation which seeks to reinterpret scriptures based on modernity.  We have leaders that are reversing what has been taught as doctrine for many, many years-without any corresponding revelation.  Paul in Ephesians about marriage is now just something he said due to his culture. The BoM really didn't have a cursing and a mark-it was "symbolic". These reinterpretations are simply that, fitting the scriptures to modern thinking rather than discovering truth.  So either the rising generation is the most valiant, best ever (in which case this new replacement ideology is just great) or they got problems (in which case this new replacement ideology is cause for great concern).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

We have leaders that are reversing what has been taught as doctrine for many, many years-without any corresponding revelation.

This sentence highlights my concerns about this thread (or this thread tangent). What "leaders" are you talking about? If you mean various local leaders, such as Young Women leaders, Aaronic Priesthood quorum advisors, or even the occasional out-there (or outright rogue) bishop or stake president, then I agree. But if you mean that our General Authorities, and specifically the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of Twelve, are acting to change basic Church structures and doctrines without revelation to do so, then I disagree most strongly and consider such things fully out of bounds.

If there is a danger that our members, especially the younger and less experienced, risk being lured to their destruction through apostate teachings of the world and the worldly, there is also an equally real danger that our members, perhaps especially the more mature who consider themselves more deeply grounded in doctrine and practice, might apostatize by deciding that the leading apostles have left the true path. I don't know that both extremes are equally prevalent, but I am sure that both extremes are equally destructive to those who follow them.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vort said:

This sentence highlights my concerns about this thread (or this thread tangent). What "leaders" are you talking about? If you mean various local leaders, such as Young Women leaders, Aaronic Priesthood quorum advisors, or even the occasional out-there (or outright rogue) bishop or stake president, then I agree. But if you mean that our General Authorities, and specifically the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of Twelve, are acting to change basic Church structures and doctrines without revelation to do so, then I disagree most strongly and consider such things fully out of bounds.

If there is a danger that our members, especially the younger and less experienced, are in danger of being lured to their destruction through apostate teachings of the world and the worldly, there is also an equally real danger that our members, perhaps especially the more mature who consider themselves more deeply grounded in doctrine and practice, might apostatize by deciding that the leading apostles have left the true path. I don't know that both extremes are equally prevalent, but I am sure that both extremes are equally destructive to those who follow them.

Come Follow Me. It's in black in white.  Look at Come Follow Me in Ephesians 5.  It is in 100% contradiction to my Institute manuals from 10 years ago going back 50 years.

It plainly states when Paul is saying wives should submit to their husbands that this instruction was a "cultural" thing. My Institute and seminary manuals state no such thing-they confirm that Paul's teaching is accurate and true.

We also have the Church's reversal on Come Follow me for the BoM.  Elder Stevenson had to issue a retraction and they retracted the on-line Come Follow Me.  The original teaching is what I've had in Institute/Seminary manuals for years.

Edited by BobMaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BobMaster, before we proceed, please answer this question: Do you believe that the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of Twelve are acting to change basic Church structures and doctrines without divine revelation to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vort said:

@BobMaster, before we proceed, please answer this question: Do you believe that the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of Twelve are acting to change basic Church structures and doctrines without divine revelation to do so?

Let me ask you a question.  Do you believe that everything that is taught from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is the Word of God?

Edited by BobMaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BobMaster said:

Let me ask you a question.  Do you believe that everything that is taught from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is the Word of God?

You answer my question first, then I'll answer yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often wonder if a coincidence is really a coincidence.  To @carlimac's initial question - I would ask; is it a coincidence that we are studying the Book of Mormon this year?  Is it a coincidence that we are studying Alma at this point of our countries turmoils?   It is easy to become distracted.  

I wonder about so many things.  So many things in commotion.   I have wondered what to post - my personal opinion as to where we stand at the end of time?  I never thought we would worship our Sabbath in our own homes and leave our callings and churches empty.  When we started - I did not think it would be as long as it has.  I do not know if I have any words of comfort for those that feel downtrodden.  I have no idea what is coming next on the horizon.  

As to the riots - I am hearing that some blacks do not trust the "whites" protesting with them.  Somewhere I am thinking or remembering that Joseph Smith talked about a 2nd uprising of blacks.  I have heard that in the last days there will be a great deal of violence and the only peace will be in Zion.  In my youth I obtained a patriarchal blessing to seemed to speak of war and rebellion.  I thought to join the army to get it over with in my youth.  But after completing my obligation it did not see so - and so I thought maybe it was a reference to our next state beyond death.  I wonder now if we are hearing only faint thunders of what is coming.  This year started out not so different from other years - it seems that more and greater storm clouds keep gathering. 

My plan is to double my repentance efforts and hope more to trust G-d and his appointed servants.  If someone wants to start a thread about repentance - I am full of ideas and things that I have never considered before about repentance.  For sure - it would seem that things are going to get quite exciting.  I often wondered when I was serving in the army - who would I like by my side in combat.  I would like to say I would want all of the forum with me - but I would not be telling the truth - but a few of you - I hope to have with me as this year progresses.  I also hope of assist some of you.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

Come Follow Me. It's in black in white.  Look at Come Follow Me in Ephesians 5.  It is in 100% contradiction to my Institute manuals from 10 years ago going back 50 years.

It plainly states when Paul is saying wives should submit to their husbands that this instruction was a "cultural" thing. My Institute and seminary manuals state no such thing-they confirm that Paul's teaching is accurate and true.

We also have the Church's reversal on Come Follow me for the BoM.  Elder Stevenson had to issue a retraction and they retracted the on-line Come Follow Me.  The original teaching is what I've had in Institute/Seminary manuals for years.

Usually revelation is general - quite often obscure.  There is a saying that the devil is in the details.  I would say something about scripture and our modern translations - sometimes the extent and intent of words and phrases evolve.  I will not pretend to be and expert in ancient languages of the scriptures but I do believe in agency and that agency divided heaven and initiated war.  I would say if you think a woman looses her agency in marriage as a requirement for the covenant of marriage - that your understanding the sacred relationship of being "one" flesh is not accurate.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vort said:

@BobMaster, before we proceed, please answer this question: Do you believe that the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of Twelve are acting to change basic Church structures and doctrines without divine revelation to do so? 

This is long, so I hope that we can have a good conversation without malice or strife but with understanding.  I appreciate you reading.

I firmly believe that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are authorized by God to make whatever changes they see fit to make in order for the Church to grow. (i.e. the temporal existence of the Church-I'll come back to this). The changes which they see fit to make, may or may not be Revelation from God.  There are absolutely 0 recorded instances in the last 100 years of an actual Revelation from God to His authorized agents put forth to the entire body of the Saints. I absolutely believe the have the capability to receive Revelation from God, but the evidence of such is not there.  They claim to receive revelation, but the actual Revelation they do not show.

I use Revelation and revelation because what they are really claiming is inspiration not Revelation.  We know what Revelation looks like-it looks like D&C. We know what Revelation looks like because a few of the early leaders have journals available where they write down their Revelations.  Those Revelations are very specific and very detailed.

Those Revelations are the Words of God to that individual.  Usually, the terminology goes something like "As I was thus pondering, I heard the voice of the Lord and it said, My Son", or it will say something like "The Lord said to me "Go . . . ".

You will sometimes hear echos of this from the leaders-but it is generally very rare and is normally termed as Elder Eyring might say, "I heard a voice and it was not mine own, saying ....."

Wilford Woodruff said as much in his journal entries.  I've read many of his journal pages; in 1889 he writes in his journal a "thus saith the Lord" Revelation.  It is really good and very powerful-it essentially directed him to stay the course.  When you read his journals from 1889-1891, you will find something very interesting.  There is no 1890 Revelation. It doesn't exist. In fact, after the manifesto is written, he write STE "I have thus acted for the temporal salvation/welfare of the Church".  When you read the Manifesto, you will plainly see that the Word of God to the President of the Church is not contained in the Manifesto.  WW speaks that he received a Revelation, but he doesn't show you the Revelation.  He claims a Revelation, but does not show to the people the Voice of the Lord. What's even more interesting is that in his journal he actually denies the ability to get a "thus saith the Lord" revelation. 

As part of getting the Saints to accept the Manifesto, he writes in his journal that he is teaching them that there is no more "thus saith the Lord" from God, it happened in Joseph Smith's time and in Brigham Young's time, but it doesn't happen anymore.  Which is bizarre considering when only a year prior he writes in his journal a "Thus saith the Lord" Revelation.

So in sum, yes I believe the Presidency and the 12 are acting without divine Revelation-but the Church has been operating that way for over 130 years so it's not much of a change.

I firmly believe that God still inspires them and sometimes to say things that they have no clue as to why they are saying them. I firmly believe God inspired Pres. Nelson to state last year "Time is running out" and STE "this conference will be like nothing you've seen before".  Both of those are true and came from God. Pres. Nelson was inspired to say those words, but I do not believe he had a clue as to why he said them.

Just like so many things that have happened in the Church, I don't think they have a clue as to why they are doing some of the things they are doing-just that they feel inspired that they should do it.

But this goes to another point, just because God inspires a leader to say something doesn't mean that what they are saying is truth(TM)-there are other types and shadows that are played. For example, Hosea was commanded to marry a prostitute.  That doesn't mean marrying a prostitute is a worthy thing or a good thing, but that the Lord was teaching a lesson to His people (Israel had gone awhoring after other gods).

So when Elder Stevenson issues a "correction" or when the Come Follow Me manual is changed, for me it's not that these leaders are uninspired, evil, or wicked-they are just additional signs and tokens that as a people we are going awhoring after other gods.

If my supposition is correct (and I'm pretty positive it is), you will eventually see leaders of the Church do things which in normal times would make them a fool (i.e. Hosea marrying a prostitute is making Hosea out to be a fool). The leaders will ultimately reflect the underlying rot of wickedness, idolatry and perversion in the Church and will end up being a fool-but the beautiful thing about what is known as the Holy Fool is that it takes a righteous fool in order to flip things right side up again.  It's why Christ descended below all things, it was only by doing so that he could ascend above all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Usually revelation is general - quite often obscure.  There is a saying that the devil is in the details.  I would say something about scripture and our modern translations - sometimes the extent and intent of words and phrases evolve.  I will not pretend to be and expert in ancient languages of the scriptures but I do believe in agency and that agency divided heaven and initiated war.  I would say if you think a woman looses her agency in marriage as a requirement for the covenant of marriage - that your understanding the sacred relationship of being "one" flesh is not accurate.

 

The Traveler

Incorrect Revelation is very direct-see D&C. 

It's when Joseph Smith said things himself, people would disagree.  They would tell him-look if it's from God, please get a Revelation and show me it.  The Revelation would be in different verbiage and direct from God.  It's the same pattern in the Scriptures, you see the prophets in the BoM, OT, etc. use the same pattern.

I can witness myself to the difference because I know it personally. I have had the Voice of the Lord speak to me directly-it has only happened a few times (2-3). But when it happened, it was a direct conduit to God, no ifs ands or buts.  Now the danger with hearing the the Lord is also understanding that there are also evil spirits and evil voices---not fun.

Most of the time, it's inspiration (general thoughts and feelings), and a few times it has been what is termed as "the Spirit compelled" me.

Edited by BobMaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a strategic point of view, and I’m not sure how interested God is in strategy, it makes sense to save your strongest people for the time when Satan is strongest.

I think we can safely say that people, including youth, prior to the restoration of the gospel were not as valiant as those after the restoration of the gospel – if they were, probably the gospel would have been restored sooner. If we accept that proposition, then it’s clear that the people, and the youth, of the last 200 years are more valiant than the great majority of all people going back to the creation. So when considering the people from 1830 onwards I think its reasonable to believe that youth who have been exposed to, and raised in, the full programs of the church are more likely to be valiant, or are likely to be more valiant, than those who were not raised in the full programs of the church. To disagree with this would involve accepting that the divinely inspired programs of the church have failed and that God’s kingdom is failing to achieve some of its objectives.

In discussing this topic, it might be good to keep in mind that difference does not always equate to better or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BobMaster said:

That's being stronger? More missionaries come home from their mission now due to mental issues and the fact they can't hack it. That's stronger? 50% of the youth find some form of LGBTQ+ acceptable, that's valiant?

And how many more young missionaries are there now compared to 20 years ago? And how many more children and youth are there now who are being raised by returned missionaries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

From a strategic point of view, and I’m not sure how interested God is in strategy, it makes sense to save your strongest people for the time when Satan is strongest.

I think we can safely say that people, including youth, prior to the restoration of the gospel were not as valiant as those after the restoration of the gospel – if they were, probably the gospel would have been restored sooner. If we accept that proposition, then it’s clear that the people, and the youth, of the last 200 years are more valiant than the great majority of all people going back to the creation. So when considering the people from 1830 onwards I think its reasonable to believe that youth who have been exposed to, and raised in, the full programs of the church are more likely to be valiant, or are likely to be more valiant, than those who were not raised in the full programs of the church. To disagree with this would involve accepting that the divinely inspired programs of the church have failed and that God’s kingdom is failing to achieve some of its objectives.

In discussing this topic, it might be good to keep in mind that difference does not always equate to better or worse.

I don't accept that proposition at all.  It buys into a false idea, which is that God's works would be frustrated unless he manipulated things to ensure that He "wins".  It makes it into God playing chess with Satan.  I don't think that is the case at all.

I know of no scripture (and it might be there and if there is one I would love to see it), I know of no scripture from the Word of God which states what you propose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, askandanswer said:

And how many more young missionaries are there now compared to 20 years ago? And how many more children and youth are there now who are being raised by returned missionaries?

Quantity != Quality.

So what if there are 70,000 missionaries today and only 50,000 20 years ago. There are 1 billion more people on the Earth today vs. 20 years ago. Gross numbers are irrelevant.

Proportion is better.  What percentage of missionaries come home early today vs. 20 years ago? What percentage of youth go on missions today vs. 20 years ago?

What is the percentage growth of the Church? It's the lowest it's been in almost a century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BobMaster said:

yet compared to the generation that stormed the beaches at Normandy-yeah that's all it is-smoke and mirrors.

Yet, this is the most "valiant" generation of youth when half of them are protesting for BYU to allow homosexual relationships?  

Comparisons can be tricky. Here’s an example of why:  

 

Comparing those who stormed the beaches with those who protest at BYU for same sex relationships, one thing that both groups have in common is that both groups put at risk something that was very important to them in order to extend and defend the freedoms of others who they hardly knew. One important difference is that one of these groups was paid, the other wasn’t. One group had the entire political, industrial and military support not just of the US, but of several countries, while the other group have somewhat less support.

And to be clear, I am not supporting the cause of those at BYU who advocate for BYU to allow homosexual relationships. Like many others on this forum, I agree that students who sign the BYU Honour Code should keep the commitments they agreed to when they signed onto that code. I’m just pointing out that comparisons can be tricky and making comparisons is not always a great way to support an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

It buys into a false idea, which is that God's works would be frustrated unless he manipulated things to ensure that He "wins".

I believe, and i'm sure you believe, that God does all He can, within a certain set of rules,  to save as many of His children as He can.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I believe, and i'm sure you believe, that God does all He can, within a certain set of rules,  to save as many of His children as He can.  

Sure, He does operate within a set of rules, but if you make the claim the God has reserved His most valiant, then you also have to conclude that God has reserved His most unvaliant for this time period too.

This teaching of most valiant generation is just an iteration on the teachings of the past which taught that black people were black because they were not as valiant as others.

Is that a road you want to travel?

Edited by BobMaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Comparisons can be tricky. Here’s an example of why:  

 

Comparing those who stormed the beaches with those who protest at BYU for same sex relationships, one thing that both groups have in common is that both groups put at risk something that was very important to them in order to extend and defend the freedoms of others who they hardly knew. One important difference is that one of these groups was paid, the other wasn’t. One group had the entire political, industrial and military support not just of the US, but of several countries, while the other group have somewhat less support.

And to be clear, I am not supporting the cause of those at BYU who advocate for BYU to allow homosexual relationships. Like many others on this forum, I agree that students who sign the BYU Honour Code should keep the commitments they agreed to when they signed onto that code. I’m just pointing out that comparisons can be tricky and making comparisons is not always a great way to support an argument.

Comparing fighting for someone to have sex in an anatomically incorrect way to fighting a regime which committed genocide? You really want to say that standing and protesting for having sex in an anatomically incorrect fashion requires a sacrifice so great that God sent His most valiant for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

This thread needs a mercy killing. Any thread that quotes a Hootie and The Blowfish song deserves to be euthanized. 

Hootie and the Blowfish were a great band. No one can convincingly argue otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now