"Hold my root beer" - the Russell M. Nelson thread

[Pelado]

Funk, you are welcome to believe what you want, but this is the hyperbole that the Dude was referencing earlier. He is anything but an apologist, and you know it. I think he's being clear, but just in case someone is reading this thread and hasn't intentionally misconstrued JL's posts, I'll offer an example:

My wife and I have tried to go on a date every Friday for the last 25 years. For the last 10 or so years, the oldest child in the house was left in charge. She didn't always do everything the way we wanted, but she had our number for emergencies and we had confidence that the rest of the kids would be alive when we got home. Even though we knew she'd make mistakes, we expected the younger kids to obey her when she spoke. The obvious exception was if she asked them to do something that the younger kids believed would result in their own personal harm. Any other policy would have resulted in chaos. Sometimes we came home to broken things and even bumps and bruises, but the kids were safer with an imperfect babysitter than with none at all. Likewise, our daughter learned valuable skills and experience.

So it is with the church. God leaves spiritually mature people in charge. He may not have everything done exactly the way He wants it, and sometimes people get hurt along the way, but He is doing what he can with who He has to work with. We are better off with imperfect leadership than with none at all. Because He can't take away anyone's learning experience, God has to let the prophets and apostles learn by experience just like everyone else. The result is spiritual safety despite some rough patches along the way.

It is simply up to us to decide if we believe they are really the people that God has put in charge. If you don't believe they are, that's fine, but judging those who do, accusing them of whitewashing and minimizing the rough patches, makes you just as pious and judgemental as the members you repudiate. Even worse, it makes you a hypocrite.

Thanks, cowboy.

[swampfrog]

It took me a couple of days to find a paper from a few years ago that has helped me form my opinions on whether church leaders have greater ability than the average Joe for governance. The conclusion is yes, they do, even if inspiration is reduced to expert intuition.

...it is possible that some moral intuitions, which bear directly on group-traits, such as spiritual leadership or communal integrity, emerge among seasoned group members, informing them whether or not certain group activities are functioning. One kind of moral intuition that is likely to be engendered by religious groups is the feeling that it would be good or bad to change certain religious exercises, and thus whether or not aspects of the religion ought to change. In the next section, we shall argue that such feelings emerge from the religious system as a kind of feedback from the system itself.

We believe it is more practical – and far more accurate – to examine religions as dynamic systems that are comprised of interconnected components that function to promote group cooperation and coordination. Those components are supernatural agency detection, ritual behavior, symbolic interpretation, taboo observance, sacredness, authorities, and moral systems

...when the adherents abide by the social conventions of the group, they engender a shared ethos and contribute to the cooperation and social coordination of the group (Bulbulia and Sosis 2011). Perhaps the most important component in this regard is religious specialists, who use their authority to maintain or introduce new ideas to sustain order (Purzycki and Sosis 2009). Such specialists are necessary to any system insofar as they validate the transmission of information, encourage collective acceptance of ideas and exercises, and coordinate the system (250–51). Without religious leaders, then, it is unlikely that the system will cohere long enough for the benefits of cooperation and coordination to be realized.

...the degree to which adherents cooperate and coordinate serves as the output and feedback of the system, which is experienced by adherents directly through social interactions and indirectly through health, reproduction, and survival (Sosis 2012). Feedback of this sort is unlikely to be experienced until there are perturbations to the equilibrium of the religious system, at which time adherents will sense the positive or negative outcomes of change. When the equilibrium is offset, religious authorities or laypeople will initiate alterations to the religious system by changing one of its main components. If the change is successful, the system will adapt to the environment, yielding positive feedback to its adherents. If not, the system will continue to experience negative feedback, eventually leading to the revival or death of the religion.

We are now in a position to appreciate the role of expert intuitions in the religious system. Recall that expert intuition occurs within any situation where the expert, having sufficient familiarity with such situations, operates on information in stored memory and thereby knows implicitly what to expect and, when expectations are violated, what to do (Kahneman 2011, 11). These intuitions are often valid judgments because they constitute an acquired skill that the expert has unconsciously developed through prolonged exposure to instructions, social conventions, and exercises in environments with sufficient regularities (242). As a kind of acquired skill, which develops alongside others within a domain of expertise, such as playing chess, firefighting, and so forth, the expert gains an uncanny ability to know when something is or isn’t the case. However, skills of these sorts are often limited to the domain of expertise and do not show the same degree of accuracy outside of it (417).

It's a long but very informational read and explains the recent reversal of policy.

[Brian]

It took me a couple of days to find a paper from a few years ago that has helped me form my opinions on whether church leaders have greater ability than the average Joe for governance. The conclusion is yes, they do, even if inspiration is reduced to expert intuition.

It's a long but very informational read and explains the recent reversal of policy.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I would imagine it would be more-so for non-average Joes. AKA, world class surgeon, judge, attorneys, Rhodes scholar, high-level business executives, university administrators, etc.

[Walter Sobchak]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I would imagine it would be more-so for non-average Joes. AKA, world class surgeon, judge, attorneys, Rhodes scholar, high-level business executives, university administrators, etc.

Personally I prefer retired airline pilots.

Judges, attorneys, university administrators (and professors)?

[swampfrog]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I would imagine it would be more-so for non-average Joes. AKA, world class surgeon, judge, attorneys, Rhodes scholar, high-level business executives, university administrators, etc.

Yes, I would agree, those capable of high levels of abstract thinking can likely store information in their brains organized for quick retrieval and intuit naturally what needs to be retrieved for a specific set of circumstances. These people rise within their field of competence. This is observable in many fields that require high levels of cognition. It includes the ability to recognize others with the same capability. It's also contrary to the "new blood" and "diversity" mandates. I've experienced this in professional situations where "new ways of thinking" are brought in, and the whole organization essentially disintegrates over time.

[RC Vikings]

With all the changes I'm starting to wonder if TSM had burnt himself out as a 25 year old bishop in SLC taking care of all the widows. He made have had it on cruise control during his years.

[clackamascoug]

Hold my root beer... what?

Had Easter dinner with the extended family today - started talking about the fun rumors surrounding conference - word of wisdom explicitly - and it was brought up by mom and hal (friends of temple president) and twice a week temple goers, that the WOW is no longer a recommend question. Did the church change this on the sly and not tell anybody about it? Pretty easy way to change and not mention it to anybody.

Can anyone confirm this?

[Donuthole]

Had Easter dinner with the extended family today - started talking about the fun rumors surrounding conference - word of wisdom explicitly - and it was brought up by mom and hal (friends of temple president) and twice a week temple goers, that the WOW is no longer a recommend question. Did the church change this on the sly and not tell anybody about it? Pretty easy way to change and not mention it to anybody.

Can anyone confirm this?

Mrs. Donut and I had our TR interviews with the stake just 2 days after conference. We were both asked about the WOW. Sorry to disappoint.

[LVAllen]

Mrs. Donut and I had our TR interviews with the stake just 2 days after conference. We were both asked about the WOW. Sorry to disappoint.

Did the TR questions get updated with the major changes to Handbook 1 that came out last week?

[Donuthole]

Did the TR questions get updated with the major changes to Handbook 1 that came out last week?

What changes to HB1 would potentially affect the TR questions?

[Eddie]

There's been no official communication regarding changes to the temple recommend questions that I'm aware of - and I just looked again to be sure.

As far as I know, the questions haven't changed. Only changes I've seen to temple recommend questions in the last 7 years has been when they changed the statement they ask us to read about garments to include the "...to work in the yard..." bit. And they changed the recommend questions for youth limited use recommends a year or so ago - just to simplify them using words the kids understand instead of, for example, keeping that mess of a question about "affiliate with or agree with any group or individual who's teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted..."

There were some updates to HB1 about temple recommends - but the biggest piece of that I can see is updating to recognize that YM can get their recommend at 11, and YM are ordained at age 11 now.

[RC Vikings]

As far as I know, the questions haven't changed. Only changes I've seen to temple recommend questions in the last 7 years has been when they changed the statement they ask us to read about garments to include the "...to work in the yard..." bit.

They really need to look at that, with all the emphasis put on it a person would believe gardening without your g's on is the worst sin you can commit.

[Jeff Lebowski]

They really need to look at that, with all the emphasis put on it a person would believe gardening without your g's on is the worst sin you can commit.

Agreed. It is also self-contradictory. You get all these specific rules and then it says, "ultimately the proper wearing of the garment is between the member and the Lord" (or something like that).

Also weird that interviewers are told not to give any specific rules on WoW, sabbath, etc. but then we have this long list of rules for the garment. That has to be confusing to members.

[Eddie]

They really need to look at that, with all the emphasis put on it a person would believe gardening without your g's on is the worst sin you can commit.

I thought it was funny when it came out: "Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing, even when such clothing may be generally accepted. The garment should not be removed, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing."

Anytime people ask me specifics about it - I just re-read the last part: "Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment." Then I tell them it's up to them to figure out.

[Moliere]

They really need to look at that, with all the emphasis put on it a person would believe gardening without your g's on is the worst sin you can commit.

My old bishop, before being called as bishop, used to mow his lawn with his shirt (and garment top) off. Makes me wonder if he was the reason for the clarification.