- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I really like Elder Held’s talk. I like the discussion of opposites being necessary for full understanding and growth – and the clear but unspoken repudiation of the prosperity gospel view. I went on youtube this morning. On the main screen that came up was series of stories or themes that I usually look at. One of the stories was the talk by Elder Uchtdorf. There were no other talks
from General Conference. I don’t necessarily know what that means. Was his talk the most watched or
liked? Or resonated with views of GC?
There were talks I liked very much. Others, not so much. I’ve decided that I need to read some of them
before I can comment. I find that I admire the speakers who speak English as a second language. They
seemed to be speaking more from the heart then the head. I hope that makes sense.
nibbler wrote:
And I will say that I was a bit saddened to see Gerard resurrect something Oaks said some time ago.Quote:But our zeal to keep this second commandment must not cause us to forget the first, to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind.
I know I’m reading more into it than what’s said but this has very often been interpreted to mean we should restrict the ways we love our neighbor because it might condone their behavior in such a way that causes us to break the first great commandment.
IMO the two great commandments aren’t at odds with each other and one does not rank above another. They’re one and the same. You can’t obey one without obeying the other.
If we place rules around proper and improper ways to love our neighbor we jeopardize our ability to follow the first great commandment.
An unexpected consequence if you “
can’t” keep the “1st commandment of Loving God” then are you still judged for focusing on the humanitarian “Love your Neighbor” commandment? We don’t always have a solid, consistent belief in the existence and/or nature of God and/or the existence of and/or nature of and/or mission of Jesus Christ as our Savior. If you are in a position where you don’t have the faith to keep the “1st commandment” sometimes you can (with supports) keep the “2nd commandment” in hopes to getting to know God better. In a sense, Adam (post garden) kept the 2nd commandment (Love your Neighbor – in this case wife and kids) to get to know God better.
Old-Timer wrote:
I like that the Primary President is talking to the children, and I like the general idea of focusing on knowledge, growth, and showing. I have intellectual concerns about focusing on spiritual “knowledge” over faith – and the idea that every prayer can be answered, but I like the way she is framing this talk. I also like the focus on what we can do and learn from our trials.I love her focus on showing God’s love to others. I also love that she shared openly that her father died at 86 and never joined the Church.
I also love the song that followed her talk: A Child’s Prayer.
I listened to this talk and I liked what she shared about feeling a warm feeling a few months after her dads passing to indicate that he had accepted “the gospel” in the afterlife. I believe there is a hardline view in the church that God is the ultimate judge but temple work is only for people that did not have the opportunity to hear and accept during this life. The idea that a member of a part member family that was constantly exposed to the LDS church over his 86 year lifespan could accept in the afterlife directly refutes this hardline “shake the dust off your feet” type of approach. I celebrate that it was shared in GC. To me it represents a gradual softening of our doctrinal stances.
Old-Timer wrote:
Elder Renlund looks much older than I remember him. His sense of humor is good to see.[snip]
Baptismal and temple covenants are NOT the source of power; they help us focus on Jesus and the power we can develop over time by focusing on his Gospel.
We don’t need to be judgmental and assume we are more righteous than others who are struggling. Our job is to love. Period.
I absolutely LOVE this talk.
This is another talk heard. I loved that along with his condemnation of judgement he talked about how we all need the atonement of Jesus Christ and none of us can earn our way into heaven. I think we tend to forget this with all our talk of “worthiness.”
This is my favorite. Minyan Man wrote:
This is my favorite.https://www.youtube.com/shorts/A2auqzcqwXU
Definitely a highlight!
:clap: :clap: :clap: I never really perceived the great two commandments as exclusionary. Love God and the second is like into it, love your neighbor. I kind of took it as this is how you love God. Do it into the least of these. If I remember correctly, once Jesus preached of these two commandments he was asked who is your neighbor. He then gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. Your neighbor isn’t the just the folks nearby, but even those who don’t share our beliefs or cultures. Everyone. Love everyone. I feel it’s egregious to suggest that we may stray from loving God if we love our neighbor too much. That’s not what I believe and that’s not what I get from studying Jesus. What kind of leader would suggest this? What am I missing?
Cnsl1 wrote:
I never really perceived the great two commandments as exclusionary. Love God and the second is like into it, love your neighbor. I kind of took it as this is how you love God. Do it into the least of these. If I remember correctly, once Jesus preached of these two commandments he was asked who is your neighbor. He then gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. Your neighbor isn’t the just the folks nearby, but even those who don’t share our beliefs or cultures. Everyone. Love everyone.I feel it’s egregious to suggest that we may stray from loving God if we love our neighbor too much. That’s not what I believe and that’s not what I get from studying Jesus. What kind of leader would suggest this? What am I missing?
I agree. I think if you are doing one you are most certainly doing the other. There is no dichotomy on these two commandments.
Cnsl1 wrote:
I feel it’s egregious to suggest that we may stray from loving God if we love our neighbor too much. That’s not what I believe and that’s not what I get from studying Jesus. What kind of leader would suggest this? What am I missing?
Disclaimer, this isn’t how I personally feel, just a guess…
I believe the train of thought is that if we show too much love, empathy, or support for people that we judge as sinning then the sinner may interpret it as their behavior not being a sin. If they do that, they’ll continue in their sin and bring damnation to their soul. What’s worse, society at large will start to believe it isn’t a sin, so people will start engaging in the behavior even more. Pretty soon what was once considered sin no longer is, and now god has his garments in a bunch with
usfor not being forceful enough to ward others off sin. nibbler wrote:
Cnsl1 wrote:
I feel it’s egregious to suggest that we may stray from loving God if we love our neighbor too much. That’s not what I believe and that’s not what I get from studying Jesus. What kind of leader would suggest this? What am I missing?
Disclaimer, this isn’t how I personally feel, just a guess…
I believe the train of thought is that if we show too much love, empathy, or support for people that we judge as sinning then the sinner may interpret it as their behavior not being a sin. If they do that, they’ll continue in their sin and bring damnation to their soul. What’s worse, society at large will start to believe it isn’t a sin, so people will start engaging in the behavior even more. Pretty soon what was once considered sin no longer is, and now god has his garments in a bunch with
usfor not being forceful enough to ward others off sin.
Thanks for offering a possible explanation. This still comes down to withholding love from some people. That some are less worthy of love than others. Jesus told those who were without sin to cast the first stone.. but he also indicated that those who abuse the little ones would be better off drowned with a millstone around their neck. So maybe abusers and pedophiles are less worthy of our love. They are certainly less lovable.
Ironically, the church does seem to protect child abusers, or supress some leaders from reporting abuse, yet has a history of marginalizing or casting stones at those who are different and those who have engaged in what are considered sins but not crimes.
When these top church leaders are suggesting we not forget the 1st commandment in our zeal to keep the 2nd are they asking us to follow their lead and marginalize those who are different? That we not stand with them, hug them, support them, weep with them. But that we love and support and forgive those who might commit a crime against children? No sane leader would put it in those words, I’m sure, so please tell us what you mean.
How does what you (Oaks and other leaders) are saying not twist the words of the very Jesus who reportedly offered them in the first place? Clarify. Say what you really mean. Skip the attempted pithy, quotable message and tell us why we can go wrong by following Jesus’s command to love.
For that matter, what are the true wages of these “sins” that leaders are afraid of people accidentally condoning? It would seem that the #1 consequence for many “sins” is that your neighbors are all up in your business and giving you a hard time. If neighbors are no longer up in your business and giving you a hard time, all the consequences go away.
I want to cut to the chase, I think when leaders talk about the two great commandments being at odds with one another it’s a veiled way for them to talk about LGBT+ topics without coming right out and saying they’re talking about LGBT+ issues. It’s passive aggressive. What they’re really saying is don’t be tempted to listen to society, society is wrong, continue to listen to us.
It’s coded language used to continue down a path where I believe they are dead wrong.
nibbler wrote:
For that matter, what are the true wages of these “sins” that leaders are afraid of people accidentally condoning?It would seem that the #1 consequence for many “sins” is that your neighbors are all up in your business and giving you a hard time. If neighbors are no longer up in your business and giving you a hard time, all the consequences go away.
I want to cut to the chase, I think when leaders talk about the two great commandments being at odds with one another it’s a veiled way for them to talk about LGBT+ topics without coming right out and saying they’re talking about LGBT+ issues. It’s passive aggressive.
What they’re really saying is don’t be tempted to listen to society, society is wrong, continue to listen to us.It’s coded language used to continue down a path where I believe they are dead wrong.
They say the same about any resources that directly empower women to “lead” or recognize them leading. When it comes to domestic violence, equal salaries, “keeping house” (all the things that make a house a functional home like laundry, home repairs, culture), and the like – their ways may have merit in some instances, but also have a tendency to induce a lot of harm that could be prevented.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.