Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Great thoughts, thanks nibbler. I got my hopes up during Pres. Nelson’s talk when he talked about doing something and was hoping that the Church was going to commit resources or ask us all to sew masks or do something. I think the fast was a bit of a disappointment for me, but hopefully it can bring people together. I like the excitement that comes with the temple announcements. The most touching part of conference for me was the choirs around the world singing together (I wish we would have chosen a song like I’m Trying to Be Like Jesus instead of praising the prophet, but it was still cool). However, I feel like building temples has become a bit of a status symbol, like a flagship store in Times Square or on the Champs Elysee. We are planting our flag and showing that we’re big time. That seems so foreign to the original idea of a temple, a symbol of our shared sacrifice and offering to the Lord. Also seems to fly in the face of the teachings of Jesus and in the Book of Mormon, of the humble people of God giving what they could, modestly, and not building something ornate for the glory of man. I had really mixed feelings about this (and conference in general). On the positive side, I liked commemorating our history, it was cool for Pres. Nelson to read this in the sacred grove and to do something to mark the occasion. Even though I think the First Vision was a mystical experience that was probably a combination of something like the 1832 account and something that was later described as the visit of Moroni all rolled into one (I actually think it happened later than 1820 and was probably more what described as later with Moroni’s visit), I think it’s become our foundational myth and ties us with the whole idea of the restoration and is worth celebrating, no matter what you believe about what literally happened. On the negative side, I think proclamations have a lot of baggage after the Family Proclamation and really fear that this will be used as a club to try to pound into submission historians and people who take issue with some of the ideas, like that Joseph saw two beings or that Christ set up a church, it seems to leave less room for nuanced belief. It seems like if there ever was a moment for prophetic guidance, comfort and inspired perspective, this would be it. We have revelation about exclusion policies, adjusting church times and reorganizing priesthood and auxiliary organizations, but nothing on how to curb this pandemic or even comfort and guidance in uncertain and scary times. This was so poorly rolled out and walked back. I am wondering if the Church did not think that LGBTQ students at BYU would take it this far and would be more discreet or that they would keep the status quo and the Church would get some PR points and take less heat from recruiters and other universities. It seemed like everyone was totally unprepared to answer basic questions about affection and dating and everyone scrambled to come up with a roll back “clarification” several weeks after the toothpaste was out of the tube. I fear this will do much more PR harm than good in the long run and is going to further alienate many BYU students and progressive Church members.
I know that a lot of people are energized by saying this is revelation and part of the ongoing restoration. In my mind, that cheapens those terms and this looks like it’s purely administrative procedure, in large measure a response to people leaking updates to the handbook and how accessible Handbook 1 is online now. That is a good point. There are people in the Church and in the world who crave order. Norms, boundaries and legalistic definitions are very comforting and essential to those people. President Oaks speaks to those saints and they find his messages inspiring and motivating. I think you are right, we need both. I would say that a Biblical Christian is someone who is more of a fundamentalist, believes in the literal truth of the Bible and an atonement theory that more closely aligns with the Mormon one. Ironically, we would fit in that category as we teach a literal Bible and a substitutionary atonement theory, but Biblical Christians would not accept us as Christians. I don’t think we realize that there was a huge split in the Christian Church a long-while back where the mainline and liberal churches adopted a much less literal view of the Bible, became less concerned about personal morality and more concerned with social justice. Evangelical churches kept the literal stance and were still very concerned with personal morality and aligned with the Christian right politically. This is the wagon train we’ve tried to join and they keep pushing us out of the group and don’t accept us as Christians, no matter how many conference talks we give arguing that we are Christians.
My parents (in their 70s) see this with their friends, there seems to be a huge status/bragging right status placed on: 1. Number of children/grandchildren; 2. The career/church career status of children (my son is a bishop, stake president, etc., partner, vice president at company X); 3. How often they are able to get everyone together and how many of them come for family dinners or on family vacations. There seems to be some status in being able to get everyone together frequently. I think there used to be more emphasis on all the kids having gone on missions, married in the temple, etc. It seems like more and more now, there are adult children who either didn’t do these things, or did them and are no longer active in the Church. Most families are being forced to deal with this fact and still get everyone together and relate to each other, which I think is a good thing.
What clinched it for me was this quote from Heber J. Grant (while he was Church President) in a letter responding directly to a woman who asked if the Church leaders spoke with the Lord the same way Joseph Smith did: “I know of no instance where the Lord has appeared to an individual since His appearance to the Prophet Joseph Smith.” I have been really bothered that our leaders seem to want to hitch our wagons to the political winds of the religious right and conservative Republican politics. Prophets in the Old Testament and Book of Mormon called out wicked kings, I feel like our prophets should be calling out Trump and warning the nation and the President that he needs to repent, not just asking us to pray for him.
Nibbler, I didn’t know what to make of it at the time, but now I’ve heard of similar responses and think it’s a definite no and way to avoid answering the question.
I read the DesNews article this morning and was struck by this line: “As an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, I have a solemn duty to face the Lord and deliver his message,” said President Ballard. “His words often include words of encouragement and expressions of love. They also include words of warning.” This was a huge question of mine for many years that is kind of a taboo topic. Do the prophets and apostles have interviews with Jesus? I think statements like this are highly suggestive they do without coming out and saying it. One could read the statement above either way. The inference is that there is some kind of special interview or access that he has that others don’t. One could also determine that the “words” he is speaking of come from studying the scriptures and gaining insights.
On my mission Elder Holland came to visit and one Elder asked him if he’d seen God. I’ve never heard such a stern rebuke in my life and it left the poor kid really shaken after. He told the Elder that it was a totally inappropriate question and he’d lost the spirit.
My conclusion after investigating the data is that the apostles and prophets do not have interviews with Jesus. However, I think they occasionally give statements like this that suggest they do. These kinds of things are exciting for people to hear. I go back and forth as to whether this is misleading or if it gives people something to be excited about and is part of the lifeblood of the Church.
Cadence, I had similar thoughts to yours after listening to Radio Free Mormon’s podcast called The Exaltation Complication. I also just listened to the Salt Lake Tribune’s Mormon Land interview of the author of a biography of Jane Manning James. She basically fought her whole life to be sealed to some kind of Church family in the eternities and was insulted with being sealed to JS as a servant. It was so sad, she believed so much and really got a raw deal. I agree with Roy that in the 1800s all the talk was of heaven and hell, fire and brimstone and our theology seemed incredibly progressive and hopeful. People worried a lot about their eternal salvation and these things provided great comfort. Now, they seem very rigid and arbitrary and I don’t think make sense for a lot of people, especially the polygamous second marriage sealings.
I wish we’d take President Oaks’ talk a few steps further, we don’t know a lot about the afterlife, we hope that our theology provides we will be with our loved ones there. I wish we’d focus on the here and now; to me, spending all the time and energy approving, cancelling and working through sealings is the kind of minutia that J. Golden Kimball referred to as “sweeping up mouse turds.”
I think our society has made a drastic shift in the last 10-15 years from a slim majority of people opposing gay marriage and being less accepting of gay relationships to a sizeable majority favoring both gay marriage and accepting gay relationships. This was the shift the Church tried to fight every step of the way. Things that were generally acceptable 15-20 years ago now seem barbaric, like conversion therapy (which I oppose BTW, it doesn’t seem to work and yields harmful results). I feel like our leaders are still fighting this fight and see the battle lines drawn between LGBT rights and religious freedom, with religious freedom being the right to hold fast to not accepting gay marriage or gay relationships. The problem (for our leaders) is that more and more Church members, and a majority of younger Church members have made the societal shift and see these kinds of stands as backward and mean-spirited. The Church leaders are trying to rally the troops and stand firm and keep getting less support. I think the Church has gotten hyper-paranoid that conceding any ground on gay rights will eventually lead to court-ordered gay temple sealings. These seem like real threats because gay marriage was the bogeyman in the 80s and 90s and it is here to stay.
I think the Church membership is going to keep being more and more accepting of gay relationships and the leaders may dig in more. I think that change is inevitable and will come with new generations in Church leadership. I think the change will be pretty late and we will be embarassed and try to downplay how much we fought this.
I heard an interview with Lynn Packer (BKP’s nephew) who said that he’d had dinner with BKP before the priesthood session where he gave the little factories talk and he believed that BKP did not want to give that talk but had been asked to. He thought that BKP was filling a role he’d been asked to fill. I’m not sure I totally believe that. I think in the Q15 there are a lot of strong personalities, egos and pet projects that are all jockeying for position. Responding to other comments, I think it’s very difficult, if not impossible to love unconditionally if you believe in a God who loves conditionally and for whom obedience to law is paramount. I think Oaks is very sincere, but believes that obedience to God’s law is the most important thing, more important than hurt feelings or ostracizing people. I think he feels called to continually preach that obedience to God’s law is the most important thing, no matter the repercussions. Since I have realized that, I can take what he says with a bit more of a grain of salt and can understand where he is coming from. With this mindset, I think you will never be able to love and accept LGBT people, the best you can do is be civil. This is what he is advocating, don’t be mean, be civil and respectful, but do not ever accept gay relationships unconditionally.
For me personally, I think that the whole point of Jesus’ ministry was to rebut this kind of thinking and that he taught and did demonstrated the fallacies and problems with this kind of religious thinking and observance and taught a higher law of unconditional love and transformation through radical acceptance.
I have conflicting thoughts about this. I think it’s great to switch it up and give people (especially youth) something new and interesting to look forward to. Even though my views on the FV have changed drastically, I think the idea of shared myth is powerful. With that in mind, I am curious how many people will go down the FV rabbit hole that otherwise would not have in preparation for the conference. I predict a broadcast from the historic sites with something like each of the Q15 speaking from a different site and bearing their testimony.
