- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
For those interested in Oaks, I blogged about his visit to Singapore here:
http://www.wheatandtares.org/8220/reactions-to-an-apostles-words/ I thought it was interesting that he states that he just goes by the spirit without prepared remarks. I understand the religious background for such an approach but in an internet age of viral soundbites – I am not sure that speaking off the cuff is wise.
Roy wrote Quote:that he just goes by the spirit without prepared remarks.
I also don’t believe that. None of us does, really. We go by what is input-ed into us. A conversation, an article we read, an personal experience. Like you Roy I also see that as a train wreck waiting to happen in our technology saturated world. One slip and it hits the fan.
Roy wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:For those interested in Oaks, I blogged about his visit to Singapore here:
http://www.wheatandtares.org/8220/reactions-to-an-apostles-words/ I thought it was interesting that he states that he just goes by the spirit without prepared remarks. I understand the religious background for such an approach but in an internet age of viral soundbites – I am not sure that speaking off the cuff is wise.
I’ve heard them say that’s what they’re supposed to do, for whatever reason. Maybe so people don’t ask for copies? Or maybe it’s just so we think they’re super-spiritual. Our Area Authority says the same thing – they’re not supposed to have scripted talks. I think that’s also why we’re asked not to record them – although I’m sure that happens much more frequently now since most people are carrying recording devices around in their pockets.
FWIW, I think that’s why they mostly parrot and why their General Conference talks are “correlated.” It does strike me though that they do sometimes participate in Q&A sessions (we had a Seventy do that a few months ago) and things certainly could come back to bite them. I do believe if any of us were close friends with an apostle (Nelson or Oaks, for instance) and were having a dinner conversation with them they may be much more open and forthright (and long as they trusted us).
nibbler wrote:
Like others one of the few messages that came to mind was his article on Divine Love. I remember that one because there was some debate both internal and external to the church surrounding the teaching that god’s love was conditional. I think the discussion reached a stalemate similar to faith vs. works. Personally I’d rather have a god that loved unconditionally, if god’s love is conditional it gives us permission to place conditions on our love. I’d rather strive for that unattainable ideal than try to determine whether my conditions lined up with what I currently believe to be god’s conditions.
Nibbler…this is a difficult talk to read. I looked it up and had a go. He does say that God’s love is conditional, and he doesn’t do a very good job of defining what “love” is. He then seems to waffle between “God loves the sinner”…but not really.
Two ideas come to mind for me: the idea espoused by someone like SWK about hell fire and damnation (Think the first 3/4 of the book Miracle of Forgiveness), and someone like Brad Wilcox. In the former, the idea is that GOD throws people out and is the force behind their expulsion. In the latter, the idea is that WE leave of our own accord if we are not comfortable where we are.
I like Brad’s approach so much better. I really REALLY do. That is a God I can have faith in–someone who pleads with me to come home, come back, come let me hold you, come let me heal you. That is a God of love and welcoming. The other God,…he is harsh and punitive.
I’m sorry, but part of the impression I get from RMN is the mean, angry judgemental God. For that matter then, why are we self judges through most of our doctrinal teachings,…as in temple recommend interviews?
Is there any way to harmonize the two? It doesn’t seem like it from what you said Nibbler…
Absolutely. It is quite easy, if you focus on the entire message in that talk and not limit the overall meaning by zeroing in on one phrase and making it the entire message. As I said in the other thread where you posted about this talk, it is pretty obvious he meant that the blessings we receive are conditional – that God loves all unconditionally, but he can’t bless all equally and unconditionally. I think he butchered that meaning, to a degree, for an audience that was diverse and was prone to hear his message in different ways, but the basic point that he was making really isn’t that controversial.
To phrase it a little less harshly than I might in a private conversation, we all know that jerks get treated differently by just about everybody than nice people do. Framed differently, if I have an obnoxious, pain in the butt, confrontational, narrow-minded, judgmental sibling or parent or friend, I might love him or her every bit as much as my other, nicer siblings or parent or friends – but I’m not going to associate with them in the same way. My love might be unconditional, but my interaction will be conditional.
Again, I would phrase it differently than he did, but that talk has been used to beat him up unfairly, imo. It’s also a great example of why we get many talks that sound more correlated and less edgy now than in the past, I think. When every word is dissected and then used as a bludgeon, often by ignoring the overall message, we shouldn’t complain when we get more that are fairly generic.
Old-Timer wrote:Absolutely. It is quite easy, if you focus on the entire message in that talk and not limit the overall meaning by zeroing in on one phrase and making it the entire message.
As I said in the other thread where you posted about this talk, it is pretty obvious he meant that the blessings we receive are conditional – that God loves all unconditionally, but he can’t bless all equally and unconditionally. I think he butchered that meaning, to a degree, for an audience that was diverse and was prone to hear his message in different ways, but the basic point that he was making really isn’t that controversial.
To phrase it a little less harshly than I might in a private conversation, we all know that jerks get treated differently by just about everybody than nice people do. Framed differently, if I have an obnoxious, pain in the butt, confrontational, narrow-minded, judgmental sibling or parent or friend, I might love him or her every bit as much as my other, nicer siblings or parent or friends – but I’m not going to associate with them in the same way. My love might be unconditional, but my interaction will be conditional.
Again, I would phrase it differently than he did, but that talk has been used to beat him up unfairly, imo. It’s also a great example of why we get many talks that sound more correlated and less edgy now than in the past, I think. When every word is dissected and then used as a bludgeon, often by ignoring the overall message, we shouldn’t complain when we get more that are fairly generic.
Makes total sense.
Old-Timer wrote:As I said in the other thread where you posted about this talk, it is pretty obvious he meant that the blessings we receive are conditional – that God loves all unconditionally, but he can’t bless all equally and unconditionally. I think he butchered that meaning, to a degree, for an audience that was diverse and was prone to hear his message in different ways, but the basic point that he was making really isn’t that controversial.
To phrase it a little less harshly than I might in a private conversation, we all know that jerks get treated differently by just about everybody than nice people do. Framed differently, if I have an obnoxious, pain in the butt, confrontational, narrow-minded, judgmental sibling or parent or friend, I might love him or her every bit as much as my other, nicer siblings or parent or friends – but I’m not going to associate with them in the same way. My love might be unconditional, but my interaction will be conditional.
I agree and agree. The only caveat (and I posted this on the other thread) is that the amount of “blessings” received in this life does not appear to correlate to either God’s love or personal merit. I assume that whatever we find in heaven it will be a vast improvement from what we have here.
I grew up in the same stake as RMN. My parents knew him quite well. I remember those 8 daughters quite well, especially the one my age. As I recall they were the traditional Mormon family doing all the Mormon stuff. Nothing stands out as I recall. I did run into him a couple of years ago at a wedding of a mutual friends daughter. He had know clue who I was which is not surprising at all. I told him who my parents were but he drew a blank. He seemed to be unable to focus on the conversation. He seemed like an old man who forgets things. Maybe he was just having a bad day.
Shawn wrote:I hope the “seniority” practice is abandoned and Dieter Uchtdorf becomes the next president.
The reason it’s maintained is political, IMHO. It avoids factionalism, but I too wish it were abolished.
Bumping this thread from 2015 For the record, as a whole, I have really liked Russel M. Nelson. But I had a thought; Why do we ordain the most senior apostle to be the prophet? It sounds like a VERY bad idea. When you think about it, the prophet (according to Church Doctrine), is the most important position in the entire world. You need someone in tip-top shape, who can hold up to a rigorous schedule, and has the mental clarity to recieve clear and direct communication from God.
If you had a company, and you needed to find a highly qualified CEO, would you pick a 93 year old man, with an undisclosed health history, who is probably on half a dozen medications? That would be a disaster. I say, let the man have a well deserved retirement.
Quote:But I had a thought; Why do we ordain the most senior apostle to be the prophet?
I cover that above. It’s political.
The LDS has a bad memory of the succession crisis after JS’ death. It changed to a system which minimizes conflict.
SamBee wrote:
I cover that above. It’s political.The LDS has a bad memory of the succession crisis after JS’ death. It changed to a system which minimizes conflict.
It feels seems like they switched from a bad, uninspired system to a bad, uninspired system. If they’re going to get in a conflict over who becomes the next God-chosen, inspired prophet, they don’t seem worthy of leading the Church.
dande48 wrote:
SamBee wrote:
I cover that above. It’s political.The LDS has a bad memory of the succession crisis after JS’ death. It changed to a system which minimizes conflict.
It feels seems like they switched from a bad, uninspired system to a bad, uninspired system. If they’re going to get in a conflict over who becomes the next God-chosen, inspired prophet, they don’t seem worthy of leading the Church.
I don’t see a problem with them wishing to avoid conflict. The big problem is with their great age of course, although unfortunately one could argue “God gets the vote”.
A lot of people of a certain mold were itching to see a Packer Presidency, but it didn’t happen as he was “called back to Jesus” (and Heavenly Father). So in a sense, non-committee factors *do* decide who does and doesn’t become the leader of the church out of the GAs.
I almost needn’t point out that under this system, Joseph Smith would have never been the church president. Not only for his quirky, uncorrelated leadership, but the fact he died long before most people get called to be GAs, and he started in his teens.
There also is historic danger in young leadership. I am not defending the current age of leadership, but having young leaders wasn’t a walk in the park on a beautiful, summer day, either.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.