Support NeoGAF

[ronito]

Is this really still happening?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56116400-78/church-women-lds-mormon.html.csp

"Tolerance is a virtue, but, like all virtues, when exaggerated it transforms itself into a vice," said the 88-year-old Packer, speaking from his chair rather than from the pulpit. "We need to be careful of the ‘tolerance trap’ so that we are not swallowed up in it."

Compassion is good, so long as you're not too compassionate.

 

[Truelize]

He isn't saying don't be too compassionate at all.
Tolerance and compassion are different feelings.
He is basically saying that If you are tolerant of everything you stand for nothing.

He never states anything about not showing compassion. The message of love and compassion has been very strong throughout conference this year.

 

[Fathead]

He isn't saying don't be too compassionate at all.
Tolerance and compassion are different feelings.
He is basically saying that If you are tolerant of everything you stand for nothing.

He never states anything about not showing compassion. The message of love and compassion has been very strong throughout conference this year.

Uh, he said all virtues become vice when overdone. Compassion is a virtue. Simple word replacement means: compassion becomes vice when overdone.

 

[Laurentius]

Uh, he said all virtues become vice when overdone. Compassion is a virtue. Simple word replacement means: compassion becomes vice when overdone.

CS Lewis said something along those lines in one of his books...(Mere Christianity I think?) To a point, I can understand the reasoning, even if I don't agree with the specifics that Packer is applying it to.

 

[Truelize]

Well I think you are interpreting differently than he meant then. Definitely different than I felt it was meant.

Actually I hadn't read the comment. Was just going off memory. I'm fine with that comment.

 

[ronito]

Uh, he said all virtues become vice when overdone. Compassion is a virtue. Simple word replacement means: compassion becomes vice when overdone.

by using the opposition in all things corollary then we can assume all vices are virtues if you take them far enough. Yes!

 

[Fathead]

by using the opposition in all things corollary then we can assume all vices are virtues if you take them far enough. Yes!

If I steal enough from someone, their forced poverty will teach them humility, and thus my stealing was not a vice, but the virtue of teaching.

 

[CorvoSol]

Is this really still happening?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56116400-78/church-women-lds-mormon.html.csp


Compassion is good, so long as you're not too compassionate.

Isn't it though? Being helpful is good, but some people help too much. Nothing springs immediately to mind, but I'm sure a situation can be explained in which too much compassion is a thing.

I have to agree with Truelize. I think you're kind of going beyond what he meant.


ON a different note, none of my roommates seemed to believe this was the first time a woman had given a prayer at conference, which I think is indicative that most people don't care/it was never a big deal to anyone.

 

[Yoritomo]

It's Packer, we know exactly what he meant. He means we should questions people's motives when they need help or understanding instead of helping them.

That's what Christ did, he only helped people who deserved help and was only compassionate towards those that deserve it.

But I say unto you, question your enemies, turn away from them that curse you, be passive aggressive to them that hate you, and shake your head for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

I took that from the BKP translation of the bible.

 

[Truelize]

So this actually was the first time a women has given a prayer at conference? My wife and I couldn't figure out if it actually was. I had read about people complaining about that earlier but I have seen women pray plenty of times during broadcasts that I have never given it a second thought.
Did the world change now that a women has prayed in conference? Is the gospel more true for those people that were bothered by that fact?
It's unfortunate how easily some can find negatives in a positive.

 

[CorvoSol]

So this actually was the first time a women has given a prayer at conference? My wife and I couldn't figure out if it actually was. I had read about people complaining about that earlier but I have seen women pray plenty of times during broadcasts that I have never given it a second thought.
Did the world change now that a women has prayed in conference? Is the gospel more true for those people that were bothered by that fact?
It's unfortunate how easily some can find negatives in a positive.

Like I said, none of my roommates or their girlfriends had ever heard of this before. It's kind of a minor thing to the rank and file of the Church. A curio of our history, I guess. It isn't honestly high up on the list of things I think we need to learn about ourselves and how to cope with.

 

[Izayoi]

So like... how bad is looking at porn for Mormons? Is it an instant ticket to hell?

 

[Hitokage]

Like I said, none of my roommates or their girlfriends had ever heard of this before. It's kind of a minor thing to the rank and file of the Church. A curio of our history, I guess. It isn't honestly high up on the list of things I think we need to learn about ourselves and how to cope with.

Women aren't a high priority? Well, I guess not.

 

[CorvoSol]

Women aren't a high priority? Well, I guess not.

Oh, that's not what I said and you know it. The curious fact that a woman has not given a prayer in General Conference is what it is: a curious fact. It's unusual, curious, and nothing more. That women aren't a priority is not what I said, and not indicated by this one strange thing. If that's a point you want to make, there are other things which you can point to to make it.

Who gives the prayer in General Conference is not a high priority. You don't exactly see that person or their name and all anyone ever thinks about during the prayers in General Conference is "Please, Lord, don't let this be a talk-in-a-prayer."

Misconstruing my words as indicative of sexism is impolite.

 

[Hitokage]

Misconstruing my words as indicative of sexism is impolite.

The bottom line is that women are an afterthought to the organization of the Church. True, who gives a prayer is not a big thing in and of itself, but that it is such a minor thing and wasn't allowed to budge for so long speaks volumes on the male-dominated nature of the exercise.

 

[CorvoSol]

The bottom line is that women are an afterthought to the organization of the Church. True, who gives a prayer is not a big thing in and of itself, but that it is such a minor thing and wasn't allowed to budge for so long speaks volumes on the male-dominated nature of the exercise.

You're free to say that, but I don't know. It seems entirely in conflict with the fact that women have been speaking in conference for goodness knows how long, and speeches in Conference are 1)paid attention to, whereas everyone just wishes prayers could be "Thank you Jesus Christ Amen" and 2)published and distributed for everyone to read and study.

You might well be right, though. Either way, it wasn't what I was saying or implying, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

 

[Hitokage]

You might well be right, though. Either way, it wasn't what I was saying or implying, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

I did go in a bit hard and I'm sorry for that.

 

[CorvoSol]

I did go in a bit hard and I'm sorry for that.

Then there's no hard feelings.

 

[mik]

My Facebook feed is currently festooned with this quote:

"Imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to him, but he deals with it."

And I don't even get it. Kinda seems like, at best, a backhanded compliment to God. At worst, it's a direct slight at His abilities as a deity.

 

[CorvoSol]

My Facebook feed is currently festooned with this quote:

"Imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to him, but he deals with it."

And I don't even get it. Kinda seems like, at best, a backhanded compliment to God. At worst, it's a direct slight at His abilities as a deity.

It was a joke Elder Holland told. If I recall he was talking about how we shouldn't be so surprised when we're imperfect or upset when we're dealing with imperfect people, because God deals with imperfect people every day, and He gets through it.

Speaking of Facebook feeds, mine never has stuff like this. I had like, ten people, eleven including myself, mention that they liked Conference in their feeds, and that was immediately after. Then it was kinda over.

 

[ronito]

So like... how bad is looking at porn for Mormons? Is it an instant ticket to hell?

Depends.
One thing I actually like about the LDS church is that it's one of the few religions left where a sin actually means something. Its certainly not like most evangelical christianity where you can essentially do what you want.

Porn is like the church's bane. You'll hear about it nearly weekly. And the church used to teach that porn would cause you to molest kids and become a rapist (or at least it used to when I was a kid). It certainly still teaches that porn will lead to failed marriages and untreated to addiction.

When I was a member admitting to porn was enough to get you disfellowshipped. Meaning you couldn't take the sacrament for a number of weeks also during that time you can't go to the temple. If you keep on not stopping they'll take it up to the next level and disfellowship you meaning you not only can't sacrament you also can't hold any callings in the church and you also can't go to the temple. The crux of it is the temple thing. Essentially if you can't go to the temple then you can't really go to the highest level of heaven. You could get to lower levels of heaven but you wont get exalted. So in a way, yeah you're going to hell in a way.

Honestly the church has a laughably immature way of dealing with porn. If I had a dollar for every time a mormon came to me distraught because they were "addicted" to porn and when I asked what addicted meant they were like "You know like once a week or so." I could quit my job. I've also known couples that have gotten divorced solely because the guy would watch porn from time to time. One of them was a hilarious thread here where I told the wife to lighten up and be open to the idea. She ended up leaving him going through a divorce and then a few months later was dating someone else and then found his porn stash.

I think this is just one of the reasons that the church has a serious issue in the modern age. The message is too antiquated and non-nuanced for the modern age. "What's that? Porn is addicting? I know tons of people that look at it and they're fine. Oh and it destroys marriages? I know tons of couples that watch it together and are fine."

But in short. Yeah. It's bad. The church has taken the stance that sins of a sexual nature are "second only to murder." So it's pretty damn serious.

 

[Izayoi]

Why would God be frustrated working with imperfect people?

Didn't he make us that way? Why would he cause himself frustration?

 

[Hitokage]

"The Lord prefers common-looking people. That is why he made so many of them." - Lincoln

 

[mik]

Why would God be frustrated working with imperfect people?

That was my immediate reaction: He's frustrated? At what--his own inability to make something perfect? Or that when he intentionally makes something imperfect that it isn't perfect? One of those makes him sound like less than a god. The other just makes him sound insane. But I feel incredibly powerful knowing I have the ability to frustrate god. I should be able to market that skill.

 

[Izayoi]

That was my immediate reaction: He's frustrated? At what--his own inability to make something perfect? Or that when he intentionally makes something imperfect that it isn't perfect? One of those makes him sound like less than a god. The other just makes him sound insane. But I feel incredibly powerful knowing I have the ability to frustrate god. I should be able to market that skill.

But like... he's all-powerful and all-knowing, right? That means he intentionally made humans imperfect. So why, exactly, would he be frustrated if he intentionally made us how we are? He would be able to see that it would frustrate him, so why do it? Does he like being frustrated?

I'm so confused.

But in short. Yeah. It's bad. The church has taken the stance that sins of a sexual nature are "second only to murder."

Yikes. I feel kinda bad for guys who have to live under that kind of scrutiny. If I have to go without porn for just a day I generally feel like I didn't live my fullest that day. I can't imagine being shamed out of an entire society because I admitted to watching it once. ;_;

 

[ronito]

Why would God be frustrated working with imperfect people?

Didn't he make us that way? Why would he cause himself frustration?

Reminds me of the whole line "The natural man is an enemy to god." I got kicked out of seminary once for saying "Well, then, we should take that up with the person that created man shouldn't we? It's HIS fault after all."

 

[Laurentius]

But like... he's all-powerful and all-knowing, right? That means he intentionally made humans imperfect. So why, exactly, would he be frustrated if he intentionally made us how we are? He would be able to see that it would frustrate him, so why do it? Does he like being frustrated?

I'm so confused.

Well...if you go deeper into Mormon theology, God actually didn't make some inner essence of us. He created our spirits and bodies, but there was something of us that existed before that he didn't create (called "intelligences"). In Mormon theology these "intelligences" have existed forever. It's an interesting thought, because it helps preserve the idea of free will and can avoid some of the sticky theological questions. (Like, if he created us and we sin, isn't it his fault that he created us that way? Doesn't that sort of fly in the face of free will?)

According to this, God didn't necessarily make our imperfections.

EDIT: Well, at least that's one interpretation of the scriptures. It's how I always saw it, but there may very well be other interpretations.

Anyway, on a side note, being frustrated doesn't sound like a very God-like thing to do in the first place.

 

[ronito]

So just in time for conference it seems Grant Palmer (a mormon historian) has some claims about a GA claiming that the 12 know the church isn't true.

I wont go into it here unless people here really want to know the details. But I am highly skeptical. I mean it sounds nice and it obviously makes a lot of sense that when they get up that high and are like "Well, this isn't any different than before. Where are the angels and all that?" They'd put two and two together just as I and thousands of others did. I do think they do believe, but they might not believe in all the founding claims but they believe. And that does lead creedence to the rumor that Holland believes in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction.

I do know that my parents in law also know a secretly "rogue" GA. Who tells them to "tell them [church leadership] what they want to hear" and doesn't believe in all of the church. Perhaps it's the same guy as Grant Palmer's source but I doubt it. But like I said in an earlier post the church should make such GAs their primary goal. Going after "anti-mormon" exmos is nice but honestly no one listens to us anyway. But GAs are treated like king solomon. They can/do far more damage than any exmo ranting could.

 

[Laurentius]

I saw that, but I'm skeptical about whether it actually came from Grant Palmer or not...it was basically just posted on some random blog that popped up out of nowhere, with no name attached to it. Just a story, and a claim that Grant Palmer had "given permission" that it could be posted there.

It could be legit, I dunno.

Also, even in the story, this supposed GA didn't have any actual solid evidence saying that the 12 don't believe the church to be true.

He said that none of the apostles ever said to him directly that they did not believe; but that it was his opinion based on “my interactions with them.”

 

[Deleted member 1159]

It sounds like Palmer has claimed the story, so there's that. I think Palmer is credible to a point, i.e. I believe there's a GA and Mission President who are secretly apostate and they are communicating to him their beliefs. It sounds like the 70 has been around a while. I bet there are plenty more in the closet too. The specifics of their claims seem impossible to verify, though. It is worth noting that Steve Benson, grandson of Ezra Benson and fellow apostate, said the account would jive with his experiences interviewing Dallin Oaks, Neal Maxwell and his own grandfather. So there's that too. Also, million dollar payouts would circumstantially explain the secretive finances.

In the end, unless there's some real evidence put forth, I must apply the same skepticism here as I did to my former faith. I want to believe it (OMFG the vindication and crow serving) but I know it'll never be verified to the extent that I could shove it in anyone's face. I also think a redditor made a good point:for the church to immediately explode and crumble like an admission like this would cause would almost do more harm than good. Better to let the air out slowly and have it fizzle out into irrelevance.

 

[ronito]

I personally think that this GA and mission president are truly feeling this way then they are cowards. I know how difficult it is to leave the church when it's been all your life. I'm still dealing with the ramifications daily.

But to make such claims against the church but continue to be in it, you're just a coward. If you really have that view then you need to come out and tell the truth. You owe it to the culture you grew up with. You can't just go saying stuff like that without evidence or anything. You're just messing with people's beliefs for no reason. I just find it cowardly. Personally I hope that if this is true that Palmer the Mission President and the GA come forward instead of doing this hearsay crap.

 

[Yoritomo]

I personally think that this GA and mission president are truly feeling this way then they are cowards. I know how difficult it is to leave the church when it's been all your life. I'm still dealing with the ramifications daily.

But to make such claims against the church but continue to be in it, you're just a coward. If you really have that view then you need to come out and tell the truth. You owe it to the culture you grew up with. You can't just go saying stuff like that without evidence or anything. You're just messing with people's beliefs for no reason. I just find it cowardly. Personally I hope that if this is true that Palmer the Mission President and the GA come forward instead of doing this hearsay crap.

As a GA or mission president their livelihood is also tied up with the church.

 

[Hitokage]

As a GA or mission president their livelihood is also tied up with the church.

They also oversee the church's vast material investments, although they almost certainly own stock in unrelated companies as well.

 

[Laurentius]

I personally think that this GA and mission president are truly feeling this way then they are cowards. I know how difficult it is to leave the church when it's been all your life. I'm still dealing with the ramifications daily.

But to make such claims against the church but continue to be in it, you're just a coward. If you really have that view then you need to come out and tell the truth. You owe it to the culture you grew up with. You can't just go saying stuff like that without evidence or anything. You're just messing with people's beliefs for no reason. I just find it cowardly. Personally I hope that if this is true that Palmer the Mission President and the GA come forward instead of doing this hearsay crap.

If it is true, then I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. It sounds like they are somewhat early in their disaffection process, and there could potentially be some pretty big consequences if/when they actually come out. I don't, for example, know what either of their financial situations are. Generally speaking, Seventy and Mission Presidents are financially stable even without the church, but there could be issues if they came out and left the church. Both would lose the financial support the church gives people in their situations. An even bigger issue that I'm sure they are struggling with would be the family issues.

The fact that they're allegedly meeting with Grant Palmer monthly about these issues seems to make me think they are trying to decide for sure that this is what they want to do, and the best way to approach it.

I wouldn't call them cowards because they didn't immediately come out with this. Only if they ultimately decide to stay in the system even after all of that.

 

[CorvoSol]

Why would God be frustrated working with imperfect people?

Didn't he make us that way? Why would he cause himself frustration?

Well first, as I said, Elder Holland was joking. It wasn't, strictly speaking, meant to be taken as fact when the Apostle was telling a joke. Second is that you can't, technically, say God made man imperfect in Mormonism. Whether you look at it from the premortal view or starting in the Garden, the idea tends to be that man began innocent at the time of his creation, and then grew into his imperfections from there. That'd require we have a long discussion on the difference between "innocent" and "perfect," though, as well as the perennial argument concerning the responsibility of Deity in man's imperfection, since that transpired according to His plan. Third is that we have a tendency in the Church to light-heartedly view God as a very patient Being who puts up with a very stupid race, usually this comes up in the Old Testament.

But most important of all is just to remember that it was a joke.

 

[mik]

Tell that to the myriad dopes who are already firing up their Cricuts to make it into a vinyl masterpiece over their headboard, reminding their husbands that erectile dysfunction frustrates the Almighty, too.

 

[CorvoSol]

Tell that to the myriad dopes who are already firing up their Cricuts to make it into a vinyl masterpiece over their headboard, reminding their husbands that erectile dysfunction frustrates the Almighty, too.

There will always be some people who over apply the things they hear in Church. I knew a woman once who had taken a statement by Pres. Hinckley concerning the Last Days to mean that we were in the Half Hour of Silence which she had calculated according to the time of Kolob (which I don't know that that's a thing known to man) to mean that there were something like, 27 years left before the world would end.

Elder Holland is a popular guy, so it makes sense people are prone to over apply his talks.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

If it is true, then I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. It sounds like they are somewhat early in their disaffection process, and there could potentially be some pretty big consequences if/when they actually come out. I don't, for example, know what either of their financial situations are. Generally speaking, Seventy and Mission Presidents are financially stable even without the church, but there could be issues if they came out and left the church. Both would lose the financial support the church gives people in their situations. An even bigger issue that I'm sure they are struggling with would be the family issues.

The fact that they're allegedly meeting with Grant Palmer monthly about these issues seems to make me think they are trying to decide for sure that this is what they want to do, and the best way to approach it.

I wouldn't call them cowards because they didn't immediately come out with this. Only if they ultimately decide to stay in the system even after all of that.

I agree. I believe their level of investment in the church is much greater than I ever had. While I certainly had a testimony and believed enough to go on a mission, I would have to say that the 21 years I spent in the church, the little tithing I paid (compared adults making real money), the fact I was unmarried and had no children, etc., were all factors that eventually made accepting the falseness of the gospel and "coming out" as an apostate much easier than it would be had I much more invested in the church. In other words I had less to lose.

So I do somewhat understand their position of wanting to stay anonymous, at least for now. Also don't forget the kind of rhetoric that followed high-level apostates back in the good old 1800s.

 

[ronito]

I agree. I believe their level of investment in the church is much greater than I ever had. While I certainly had a testimony and believed enough to go on a mission, I would have to say that the 21 years I spent in the church, the little tithing I paid (compared adults making real money), the fact I was unmarried and had no children, etc., were all factors that eventually made accepting the falseness of the gospel and "coming out" as an apostate much easier than it would be had I much more invested in the church. In other words I had less to lose.

So I do somewhat understand their position of wanting to stay anonymous, at least for now. Also don't forget the kind of rhetoric that followed high-level apostates back in the good old 1800s.

I dunno. I hear the same thing from that rogue GA I know about they always say they "want to change the church" well you're not going to do that by staying in it.

You guys know as well as I do, GAs are treated like Kings. One leaving and telling their story would do far more to change the church than 20 staying and making furtive comments.

You know, where much is given, much is required. Like I said anyone that was active in the church and leaves takes significant losses and earns serious scars. But we do it because we wanted to be true to ourselves. I know these people have livelihoods and are entrenched in the church but even people like that have done it. I'm reminded about the CES teacher who left because he couldn't teach it anymore on mormonstories that was heartbreaking but he had the strength to leave. To be making these claims it's time to put up or shut up. None of this, "I'm gonna skewer the church in secret." Crap. If you're going to say stuff like this come out and say it, otherwise be quiet like everyone else.

Well first, as I said, Elder Holland was joking. It wasn't, strictly speaking, meant to be taken as fact when the Apostle was telling a joke. Second is that you can't, technically, say God made man imperfect in Mormonism. Whether you look at it from the premortal view or starting in the Garden, the idea tends to be that man began innocent at the time of his creation, and then grew into his imperfections from there. That'd require we have a long discussion on the difference between "innocent" and "perfect," though, as well as the perennial argument concerning the responsibility of Deity in man's imperfection, since that transpired according to His plan. Third is that we have a tendency in the Church to light-heartedly view God as a very patient Being who puts up with a very stupid race, usually this comes up in the Old Testament.

But most important of all is just to remember that it was a joke.

This ties into something I wanted to talk about.

Someone posted on facebook about how their kid was whining about "I don't wanna watch conference anymore!" and their reply was "Well then take a nap, some of us want to hear the word of God."

But here's the thing. How much of is that is generally held true by the general active mormon populace? I mean we look at that Holland "joke" and roll our eyes but most people will take it as truth. I mean you see this a lot active mormons backpedalling on stuff said in conference despite it being televised, published on the web, printed in the Ensign, given talks about in Sacrament meeting and lessons given on them in Priesthood and Relief Society. I remember when I was a mormon people would hold up their quad and the conference edition of the Ensign and say "The word of God."

Do people still do that? I mean what people are saying here is sorta true, many are going to take that saying and think it nigh unto scripture. And I don't think it's fair to joke around that "Well some people are crazy." From the moment they join it's taught to them that what the modern prophet says is scripture and it's drilled in by the importance we give conference and the fact we keep on revisiting it.

Perhaps it has changed but I don't think I've been out of it that long.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Hey I'm not saying it's the right thing to do necessarily, I just understand the hesitance to "come out" as an unbeliever, and the greater hesitance when there's more at stake.

That said, I'm proud of the healthy skepticism being thrown Palmer's way over this. This story really is a juicy steak that all ExMos would be happy to devour, if true. But the response has been surprisingly rational. It helps reaffirm the belief I have that we aren't just irrational disaffected members looking for any anti-Mormon material we can find.

 

[Yoritomo]

The worst part is that it's even viewed as a guiding message, it represents the baseline.

Anything that can be interpreted from the subtext of a talk and expounded upon through historical doctrine will be repeated ad nauseum.

The great Caffeine clarification is a recent example of something specific finally undoing years of rumors and folk doctrine.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

If I've learned anything, it's that the church has no real doctrine. Whatever the current leadership says, goes. It doesn't matter how contradictory it is to previous leadership. I really hate the word "sheeple," but I feel it's almost an apt description of those who take the conference talks seriously and hold on to every word.

 

[CorvoSol]

This ties into something I wanted to talk about.

Someone posted on facebook about how their kid was whining about "I don't wanna watch conference anymore!" and their reply was "Well then take a nap, some of us want to hear the word of God."

But here's the thing. How much of is that is generally held true by the general active mormon populace? I mean we look at that Holland "joke" and roll our eyes but most people will take it as truth. I mean you see this a lot active mormons backpedalling on stuff said in conference despite it being televised, published on the web, printed in the Ensign, given talks about in Sacrament meeting and lessons given on them in Priesthood and Relief Society. I remember when I was a mormon people would hold up their quad and the conference edition of the Ensign and say "The word of God."

Do people still do that? I mean what people are saying here is sorta true, many are going to take that saying and think it nigh unto scripture. And I don't think it's fair to joke around that "Well some people are crazy." From the moment they join it's taught to them that what the modern prophet says is scripture and it's drilled in by the importance we give conference and the fact we keep on revisiting it.

Perhaps it has changed but I don't think I've been out of it that long.

I don't really consider pointing out the obvious nature of a joke as a joke as backpedaling. The phrase was posted in this thread without the context that it was a joke, and it's not backpedaling to explain that it was spoken in the context of a joke.

What the Prophets and Apostles say as Prophets and Apostles is still considered modern scripture. What Elder Holland said during his talk is considered modern scripture, and I will stand by it as true. But what he said at that moment was a joke, meant to get the Church to laugh, and that's what happened. Everybody laughed. It tied into his talk, and got people to remember his talk, but it isn't rife with deep meaning we need to overexamine.

I don't think teaching people that the Prophets and Apostles receive and disseminate revelation is justification for the over-application and insanity some members display. Like I said with the lady who thought she'd calculated the exact hour of the end of the world. The Church teaches frequently about wresting the Scriptures to your own destruction, and there are members who do that, however consciously. They apply things that were said in ways that were not meant.

People overscrutinize and overapply the things said in Conference and completely miss the point of what was said. It's not backpedaling and it is not unfair to correct when people take out of context what was said. This thread already provides us a fair example: Elder Holland makes a joke about God getting frustrated with dealing with imperfect people, and a hop, skip, and two posts later we've got the conclusion that Elder Holland has fallaciously implied that God has created an imperfect race that he hates. President Packer says "too much of a virtue can be a bad thing" and two posts later we have "I should steal a lot to make others humble!"

And two posts after that, we have me treating what I assume to be statements made half-in-jest as totally serious. Am I making my point that you can take something and completely misconstrue it in a matter of moments?

People do consider what is said in Conference as scripture, and rightly so. People also have the good sense to know that a joke is a joke is a joke. The obsession that some have with everything in the Church having a deep, dark, mysterious, or alternative meaning is not consistent. Many things are symbolic, but sometimes, when President Monson makes a joke, it's just a joke. Even if it fits the theme of his talk.

There is no need for us to tear apart Elder Holland's joke and come to the conclusion that, in spite of everything else said in that talk, Elder Holland is telling us that God hates people he intentionally made imperfect. Especially since it's inconsistent with 1)the joke itself, 2) the talk itself, 3)what was said during conference and 4)the grand sum of Church teachings today.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

If you're going to make the claim that what is said in conference is scripture, it damn well better stand up to scrutiny.

 

[mik]

People overscrutinize and overapply the things said in Conference and completely miss the point of what was said. It's not backpedaling and it is not unfair to correct when people take out of context what was said. This thread already provides us a fair example: Elder Holland makes a joke about God getting frustrated with dealing with imperfect people, and a hop, skip, and two posts later we've got the conclusion that Elder Holland has fallaciously implied that God has created an imperfect race that he hates.

I didn't take that quote out of context. I presented it in exactly the context it was presented to me: as a decorative Pinterest design (four or five of them, actually), accompanied by comments like, "Oh, I love this quote!" and "This is so true! We need to deal with it, just as He does! " and "Elder Holland nails it in his talk--perfect quote!"

I didn't listen to the talk. And neither did 75% of the True Blues who will hang that up in their home, quote it in their next sacrament meeting talk, etc.

 

[CorvoSol]

If you're going to make the claim that what is said in conference is scripture, it damn well better stand up to scrutiny.

Is this scrutiny? I dare say it is not. Elder Holland tells one joke and then this thread is alight with "The Church has no set doctrine." and the like. Frankly, I do not consider this scrutiny in the least. Scrutiny would be a criticism of the actual content of the talk and not a joke. That you're defending the tearing apart of one joke as if it were an intelligent, critical thing to do is outrageous.

This is a farce. I can't compete with this. I cannot have an answer for every possible riposte voiced here. I will not have an answer for the defense of this so-called scrutiny of Elder Holland's joke. And honestly, I don't see need nor reason to do so.

There is nothing critical being done here, and it baffles me that anyone would dare say otherwise. It's beneath you all to spend so much time wailing about a joke. To build so much out of so little.

Every. Single. Time. No matter the announcement one little thing gets built up into some majestic evidence of the falseness of it all. The other day we had "There's nothing the Church says about the Great Apostasy which it hasn't done." Oh yeah, I totally remember the Church hunting Apostles down. Yeah, that legit happened, uh-huh.

It's a merry-go-round. Today it's how the Apostles and Prophets don't believe. Tomorrow it's Racism. Then we're on to Gays, then the eternal litany of the Church moving away from what it stood for then how the Church hasn't progressed enough until it's a blinding cacophony of condemnation.

Just drop the Mormon from the title and leave it at Ex-, Ronito. It's not like the Actives participate in this thread anyway, and goodness knows I'm out. I don't mind when there's criticism, but I'm not going to stand here and take construing one joke as evidence of the falsehood of conference as legitimate scrutiny. I have nothing against anyone here as a person. You're all nice people I've enjoyed interacting with in other threads, but I can't deal with this.

 

[mik]

The Lord gets frustrated with us, too. But he deals with it. So should you.

Hey--it works!

 

[Yoritomo]

Is this scrutiny? I dare say it is not. Elder Holland tells one joke and then this thread is alight with "The Church has no set doctrine." and the like. Frankly, I do not consider this scrutiny in the least. Scrutiny would be a criticism of the actual content of the talk and not a joke. That you're defending the tearing apart of one joke as if it were an intelligent, critical thing to do is outrageous.

This is a farce. I can't compete with this. I cannot have an answer for every possible riposte voiced here. I will not have an answer for the defense of this so-called scrutiny of Elder Holland's joke. And honestly, I don't see need nor reason to do so.

There is nothing critical being done here, and it baffles me that anyone would dare say otherwise. It's beneath you all to spend so much time wailing about a joke. To build so much out of so little.

Every. Single. Time. No matter the announcement one little thing gets built up into some majestic evidence of the falseness of it all. The other day we had "There's nothing the Church says about the Great Apostasy which it hasn't done." Oh yeah, I totally remember the Church hunting Apostles down. Yeah, that legit happened, uh-huh.

You don't need to correct or combat anything. We're not trying to convince you and we or at least I enjoy the interaction. We say things here we can't or won't say to family because it would hurt family.

Holland's statement is less about outrage and proving the the church false and more about putting words into God's mouth. I hated it even when I was a full believer. Nothing bothered me more than that little poster of Christ that said "I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it." He actually did say it is easy. "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Those of us who aren't believers have no new inspirational stories to share that are mormon experiences, which means anything we contribute to this thread ends up being something negative. Because of context our inspirational stories are no longer "mormon" and we see different motive from the history and PR departments of the church than a believing member would.

 

[Fathead]

I guess I don't count as active.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Is this scrutiny? I dare say it is not. Elder Holland tells one joke and then this thread is alight with "The Church has no set doctrine." and the like. Frankly, I do not consider this scrutiny in the least. Scrutiny would be a criticism of the actual content of the talk and not a joke. That you're defending the tearing apart of one joke as if it were an intelligent, critical thing to do is outrageous.

I have a great detailed tearing apart of the doublethink and manipulation in Holland's talk, it has nothing to do with the quote that's making so many waves. Do you really want to read that?

That said, I stand by my comment that the LDS church has no set doctrine. Even what's in the standard works is open to interpretation, and as soon as a prophet says "this is the correct interpretation," then the belief has changed.

This is a farce. I can't compete with this. I cannot have an answer for every possible riposte voiced here. I will not have an answer for the defense of this so-called scrutiny of Elder Holland's joke. And honestly, I don't see need nor reason to do so.

You don't need to compete with anything, you don't have to answer for every dart thrown at the church. Nobody's attacking you. A simple "I disagree" will be fine.

There is nothing critical being done here, and it baffles me that anyone would dare say otherwise. It's beneath you all to spend so much time wailing about a joke. To build so much out of so little.

Every. Single. Time. No matter the announcement one little thing gets built up into some majestic evidence of the falseness of it all. The other day we had "There's nothing the Church says about the Great Apostasy which it hasn't done." Oh yeah, I totally remember the Church hunting Apostles down. Yeah, that legit happened, uh-huh.

An ex-Mormon is invariably going to view news from a completely different perspective than yours (until you join us...joooin ussss). Getting upset about it isn't doing you any good when you could simply laugh it off as "apostates gonna apostate."

It's a merry-go-round. Today it's how the Apostles and Prophets don't believe. Tomorrow it's Racism. Then we're on to Gays, then the eternal litany of the Church moving away from what it stood for then how the Church hasn't progressed enough until it's a blinding cacophony of condemnation.

Just drop the Mormon from the title and leave it at Ex-, Ronito. It's not like the Actives participate in this thread anyway, and goodness knows I'm out. I don't mind when there's criticism, but I'm not going to stand here and take construing one joke as evidence of the falsehood of conference as legitimate scrutiny. I have nothing against anyone here as a person. You're all nice people I've enjoyed interacting with in other threads, but I can't deal with this.

We are open to talking about everything in church news, not just the positive, faith-promoting bullshit. This means when Grant Palmer, a prominent ex-Mormon scholar, claims he has a source from the Quorum of the Seventy that says the apostles secretly don't believe, that's news. The church has a racist past. The church is actively working to suppress gay rights. We're not making stuff up or lying about the church, we're discussing it. If you have a testimony that the church is true then you should grow a pair and feel comfortable discussing it, flaws included.