183 Semiannual General Conference Thread

[Tex]

Right. My point is that making statements like "Either x is true or else the church is false!" is a really bad idea. Bruce R McKonkie made a bunch of those sorts of statements, and he turned out to be objectively wrong on a lot of them. So according to BRM, and now according to you, the church is false.

Call them milquetoast all you want, but at least they're making an effort to preserve their religion. Isn't it better to incorporate reality into one's beliefs, rather than holding your own church hostage like that? Why not work to figure out how to reconcile evidence with your religion, rather than simply denying objective reality? Do you really think that's a good long-term strategy?

What I prefer is a church based on revelation.

[Indy Coug]

What I prefer is a church based on revelation.

You should have received revelation by now that butting heads with people who reject revelation is a fool's errand. At that point, all that's left is to troll them mercilessly.

[byu71]

What I prefer is a church based on revelation.

I am really curious on this. For you and your family do you prefer personal revelation or church based revelation? I am allowing for the fact that in many instances, maybe most they end up being the same. However, if there was a conflict for someone, how would you advise them?

[TripletDaddy]

I've found that spiritual answers have rarely come to me without my active participation in trying to figure out the answer beforehand.

lol. Indy begging people to meet him or have lunch with him or whatever is funny. But Indy pretending to have any personal insight into the workings of the Spirit is over the top.

[Indy Coug]

lol. Indy begging people to meet him or have lunch with him or whatever is funny. But Indy pretending to have any personal insight into the workings of the Spirit is over the top.

Say hi to the Holy Ghost for me.

[TripletDaddy]

Say hi to the Holy Ghost for me.

lol. even the holy ghost didnt want to meet you for lunch? maybe he couldnt triangulate your seats at the game.

[Indy Coug]

lol. even the holy ghost didnt want to meet you for lunch? maybe he couldnt triangulate your seats at the game.

Like a ghost could eat lunch.

[Tex]

You should have received revelation by now that butting heads with people who reject revelation is a fool's errand. At that point, all that's left is to troll them mercilessly.

For all this my anger is not turned away, but my hand is stretched out still.

I am really curious on this. For you and your family do you prefer personal revelation or church based revelation? I am allowing for the fact that in many instances, maybe most they end up being the same. However, if there was a conflict for someone, how would you advise them?

I get the feeling I'm being baited, but what the heck, I'll bite.

There is no difference. Revelation is revelation. The problem for Milquetoasters is unbelief clouds their ability to discern when they've exceeded the scope of their authority or domain.

[jay santos]

Question from conference:

They mentioned the missionary from Nepal that got called on a mission to India and that he was having a hard time speaking English. Why are missionaries teaching the gospel in English in India and not learning Hindi? I'm very curious about this.

[CardiacCoug]

There is no difference. Revelation is revelation. The problem for Milquetoasters is unbelief clouds their ability to discern when they've exceeded the scope of their authority or domain.

So somebody who thought and said in 1977 that institutional racism in the LDS Church was wrong. Is he a recipient of revelation or just someone who was wrong and exceeding the scope of his authority? Curious what you think honestly.

[Solon]

I think that there's a disconnect between the mythology that we have perpetuated in the church (and which church leaders have generally been content to look upon with benign indifference) that holds that God presents himself to his leaders in ways are fundamentally different than how he presents himself to any one of us (Denver Snuffer excepted) and the way that revelation actually works. He doesn't appear in person to GAs, they do not hear his voice in unique ways, he does not reveal his will verbatim to them. They struggle, as well all do, to discern his will and they exercise their best judgment according to the life experiences they've had and the sensitivities they have cultivated over a lifetime of experience. It is natural that their impressions are refined in conversations with others. Revelation can be a collective affair, the end result of a messy process of disagreements and differences of opinions with a plurality of voices providing necessary checks and balances.

This isn't quite the picture of divine revelation that the ordinary missionary presents to the ordinary investigator but I think this is a fair appraisal of how things actually work.

I was under the impression that General Authorities received a little card authorizing the use of the superfluous "e" when saying "especial witness."

I wonder if you can get one of those cards on the black market.

[byu71]

For all this my anger is not turned away, but my hand is stretched out still.





There is no difference. Revelation is revelation. The problem for Milquetoasters is unbelief clouds their ability to discern when they've exceeded the scope of their authority or domain.

The fact they may be unable to discern correctly applies also to "mullahs" and "ALUF's". The fact they may fall back on the idea they are interpreting what the prophet said correctly or that we should just follow everything said in conference, does not provide them cover.

So I think we agree, personal revelation for oneself and one's family trumps speeches in conference or a direction from the Bishop. Again, most of the time they are in harmony I am just speaking of those times they aren't.

[woot]

What I prefer is a church based on revelation.

No wonder you're so frustrated.

[LA Ute]

Of course the truly significant case of discrete editing in the recent past was the talk that BKP was obliged to emend. For the pres of the Q12 to be forced to downgrade his characterization of the PoF from a "revelation" to something else was stunning, especially given that he had not called it a "revelation" in an off-the-cuff way but had actually argued for it to be such in his original talk. One wonders who in the 1P (presumably) called his attention to it, told him it was wrong, and asked him to change it. To do that to someone that DHO once characterized as a "grizzly bear" takes real cojones. I'll go out on a limb and say that there is a hell of a lot more diversity of thought among the GAs than the ordinary church member would ever guess.

Ive been wondering about that one. I don't think the revision is a big deal. Since that talk was given I've heard the PoF referred to several times in GC and similar venues as "prophetic counsel" or words to that effect. Prophetic counsel can be revelatory too. As I understand the subject, calling something a revelation puts it in an entirely different category and requires a sustaining vote of all the GAs, a vote in GC, etc., like the various Official Declarations that have been added to the D&C. So to me, that the PoF is not included in the D&C doesn't mean it's something I can wisely feel free to ignore. As always, I know others see this differently. Just my opinion.

[Northwestcoug]

I think that there's a disconnect between the mythology that we have perpetuated in the church (and which church leaders have generally been content to look upon with benign indifference) that holds that God presents himself to his leaders in ways are fundamentally different than how he presents himself to any one of us (Denver Snuffer excepted) and the way that revelation actually works. He doesn't appear in person to GAs, they do not hear his voice in unique ways, he does not reveal his will verbatim to them. They struggle, as well all do, to discern his will and they exercise their best judgment according to the life experiences they've had and the sensitivities they have cultivated over a lifetime of experience. It is natural that their impressions are refined in conversations with others. Revelation can be a collective affair, the end result of a messy process of disagreements and differences of opinions with a plurality of voices providing necessary checks and balances.

This isn't quite the picture of divine revelation that the ordinary missionary presents to the ordinary investigator but I think this is a fair appraisal of how things actually work.

I try hard to separate my church disaffection from my initial faithful expectations. I don't think I'm in the minority when I say it was either explicitly or 'wink-wink' taught multiple times that the first presidency and 12 apostles had a direct line of communication with God. This included a personal visitation with Jesus, else how could they be (e)special witnesses to the world?

So when I hear their meetings and deliberations may be what essentially transpires in a ward council, naturally I feel a little duped. But for me, it also has the benefit of allowing me to use my own intellect on deciding how much weight I should place on their words. If they're still arguing about what constitutes doctrine or what God wants us to know right now, then I feel OK weighing their words on the basis of my judgement, and not solely on faith.