View unanswered posts
View active topics
It is currently Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:55 am


Author Message
Abinadi
Post  Post subject: April Conference 2016  |  Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:18 pm
User avatar
MODERATOR

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:23 am
Posts: 7866
Location: D&C 121:39

Offline
Sorry, this was from the Liahona! it was just a "message". However, my observations remain as stated.

Henry B. Eyring, First Counselor in the First Presidency, once again sets the record unstraight:
Quote:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always been led by living prophets and apostles, who receive constant guidance from heaven.
Okay, so what is it - "constantly" or only when needed? "Constant guidance" means a flow of guidance without interruption. Interruptions disrupt constancy.

Then a bit of the old foot-in-mouth:
Quote:
That divine pattern was also true anciently. We learn in the Bible: “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).
Why didn't the prophet warn us, then, of many things of the 20th century before they happened? Is it because the Lord God did nothing during that century!?

Setting the record further unstraight:
Quote:
In general conference twice a year, we are blessed with the opportunity to hear the word of the Lord for us from His servants.

Okay. Wait. Wait!! Then, the talks at conference are NOT the speakers' "opinions"!!? They are the actual "word of the Lord for us"!!!??? Then why for umpteen years have Mormon apologists been whining that we shouldn't hold the church to anything said in conference because it was "the speaker's opinion"? My God, doesn't the right hand know what the left hand is doing? For that matter, doesn't the right hand even know what the right hand is doing!?
Quote:
The servants of God fast and pray to receive the message He has for them to give to those who need revelation and inspiration.
"Fast and pray" - and ask someone else to edit it for them!:
Quote:
Years ago one of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles asked me to read a conference talk he was preparing for general conference. I was a junior member of the quorum. I was honored by his confidence that I might help him find the words the Lord would have him speak. He said to me with a smile, “Oh, this is the 22nd draft of the talk.”
So when God tries to speak through one of His "servants," it takes him upwards of twenty-two attempts!? How do we know the 22nd attempt came out right if the previous 21 did not? What's more, it sounds like these "words of the Lord" came more from an Apostle's own devising - as edited by a "junior member" - than from any celestial downpour.

I know it is easy to nitpick anything to death. I honestly and truly try to avoid that. I do not want to pick at trivial points. In my mind, the source and words of a Divine Revelation are not trivial issues. They are central issues. So please forgive me if I seem to be criticizing harshly, because that is what I mean to do. For decades I have heard this back and forth about inspiration and perspiration, the Lord's anointed and "just his opinion." And I'm sick of it. I wish they would just settle on one story and stick to it. Of course, that, too, would undoubtedly be so full of holes that it would empty itself out with little effort on our part.


Top
Rainfeather
Post  Post subject: Re: April Conference 2016  |  Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:42 pm
User avatar
MODERATOR

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:46 pm
Posts: 6217

Offline
LOL Oh boy. Does he even remember what he said in the past? Doesn't seem like it.

_________________
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never go back to its original dimensions." - Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
productofchoice
Post  Post subject: Re: April Conference 2016  |  Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:29 am
God

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:49 pm
Posts: 2752
Location: NC

Offline
What draft of the BoM are we on?

Peace

_________________
I resigned from the Church of THE Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Feb 2011)

"For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad." - Luke 8:17


Top
Abinadi
Post  Post subject: Re: April Conference 2016  |  Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:09 pm
User avatar
MODERATOR

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:23 am
Posts: 7866
Location: D&C 121:39

Offline
from salamandersociety:

That brings up a question. When are the brethren most inspired or when is the Spiritª the most involved? - by Erik

1. When they write their talk?

2. When a staff member writes their talk for them?

3. When the talk is corrected in committee before presentation?

4. When actually giving the talk?

5. When the talk is later edited?

6. When the video of the talk is later edited?

7. When the PR folks attempt to spin the talk?

8. When the apologists attempt to explain the talk?

9. When the talk is later correlated down to utter blandness?


Top
productofchoice
Post  Post subject: Re: April Conference 2016  |  Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:55 am
God

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:49 pm
Posts: 2752
Location: NC

Offline
Probably only when the talk is regiven, like the 14 principles of following the prophet talk. Because only then is it from the mouth of 2 or more witnesses.

Peace

_________________
I resigned from the Church of THE Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Feb 2011)

"For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad." - Luke 8:17


Top
Abinadi
Post  Post subject: Re: April Conference 2016  |  Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:04 pm
User avatar
MODERATOR

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:23 am
Posts: 7866
Location: D&C 121:39

Offline
“It must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, … righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad” (2 Nephi 2:11; see also verse 15). - Dallin Oaks in the recent Church Conference.

“To provide alternatives on which to exercise our agency, we must have opposition.”
This is not true. (a) I can choose between majoring in Biology or in Literature without opposition. (b) I can choose whether to work as a carpenter or as a plumber. Opposition is not necessary for there to be alternatives. (c) I can even choose to righteously feed the poor without thinking of an opportunity to unrighteously take food from them. How could I!? Until I give them food, they have none for me to take! (d) When our first child was new-born, we took care of that child. There was no wickedness in what we did, but it would be very wrong to say there was no goodness in what we did! We did not have to face evil child-abuse before we were capable of practicing good child nurturing. (e) And our children, and their parents when children, experienced good nurturing – and loved it, they recognized it – and it was performed voluntarily (through “free agency) – even without the presence of child abuse being at hand as an “opposition”. We declined, denounced, and rejected the opposition even while it didn’t even exist.

So Oaks, a lawyer, might say, “Ah-ha, but the opposition was in your mind.” Exactly! We do not need an evil Being, an evil Tree, a Serpent, in order for us to conceive of evil, wrong action, bad behavior, sin. We can conceive of evil even when it does not exist in actual “opposition”.

Oaks does not propose what opposed the Plan of Salvation. I do not mean what opposed the process and unfolding of the Plan of Salvation. I mean the establishment of the Plan of Salvation. Was it never established? If a plan is not established, how can it have existence. The very concept of plan implies both a time before its fulfilment and a time before its establishment. A plan looks to the future, because it is based on past considerations. If nothing was considered, no plan could be proposed. If neither considered nor proposed, it could not be implemented. So what opposed the Plan of Salvation from the very first earliest primeval "Beginning of Days" - before there even were days?


Also from 2 Nephi, the Book of Mormon “author” writes “it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.” There “had to be” opposition? God lacked the ability to put a single tree in a garden!? Heck, even I can do that, plant one tree and stop before planting a second one. But God could not put a sweet tree in the garden; he lacks that power. He had to put a bitter tree in the garden so that he could put a sweet tree in it. Evil, bitterness, opposition always precedes goodness, sweetness, harmony. Therefore evil is prior to goodness, goodness depends for its existence on evil, and therefore evil is the more powerful force in the universe. We would be better off worshipping Satan than such a half-god.


Continuing with the Book of Mormon, Oaks quotes, “Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other”
It is difficult to understand what this means. Must one be “enticed” before one acts? In the a very broad sense, perhaps. Is hunger an “enticement?” If so, then yes, we must be “enticed” in order to eat that we may continue our lives. A better word would be “stimulated” or “moved upon.” A worse word would be “tempted.” I do not need to be tempted to sin; I can do it without hardly thinking at all. Likewise, I do not need to be offered an opportunity (enticement) to do good. I can conceive of some good on my own, with no one around, and go out and perform that good deed. If “enticement” is extended to include my thoughts, well then the teaching is vacuous. To say one must be “enticed” is saying no more than one decides to do something without or without an outside stimulus.

Oaks continues, “Similarly, in modern revelation the Lord declares, “It must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves” (D&C 29:39).”
If we cannot have free agency without the tempting of the devil, then how does his temptation create free agency? If we cannot have free agency without the Devil, then the Devil is co-Creator of man, in the sense of a being possessed of moral understanding and free will. That is enough reason to reject this teaching.

Does the devil tempt through free agency or is he forced to tempt whether he wants to or not? If he has free agency, how did he get it? We can’t get free agency until we are on earth, hear the commandments (for Adam and Eve) or the Plan of Salvation (their descendants), and obey or disobey (in our case) or both obey and disobey (in Adam’s and Eve’s cases). Adam and Eve, and the rest of us, need a Tempter, an Opposition, in order for us to exercise agency. Then what Tempter or Opposition did Satan face that allowed him to exercise agency? Because remember, he became Satan while he was in the Presence of God, and that is where he was when he became Satan. So what was it, in the Presence of God, where no wickedness nor unclean thing can dwell, that wickedly opposed God and wickedly tempted Satan, that allowed him to make a free choice, to choose to be damned. One who truly understands the Plan of Salvation, would he choose eternal damnation? Not unless he was insane. Is there insanity in heaven? If Satan was insane, he should not have been held responsible for his actions (in Mormon pre-existence heaven).

Oaks continues, “Opposition was necessary in the Garden of Eden. If Adam and Eve had not made the choice that introduced mortality, Lehi taught, ‘they would have remained in a state of innocence, … doing no good, for they knew no sin’.”
How can sin make good deeds good? Is there no absolute good? Is all good conditioned on the presence of sin? If I can sin without goodness, why can’t I do good without sin being connected to it? If Adam did nice things for his wife and Eve did nice things for her husband, is that not good? If it is neither good nor evil, what is it? Neutral? If it is neutral then, when done from free choice, what makes it good after knowing sin? What is the qualitative difference between the two deeds – a good act done when there is no sin around, before or after, and a good act done where there is sin around? Is love good only when there is adultery? Is love neutral (not “good”) when there is no adultery involved?

Here’s something odd.
Oaks says, “From the beginning, agency and opposition were central to the Father’s plan and to Satan’s rebellion against it. As the Lord revealed to Moses, in the council of heaven Satan “sought to destroy the agency of man.”
Satan wanted to destroy man’s free agency. Satan tempted man, which “needs be” in order that they “be agents unto themselves.” If Satan wanted to destroy the agency of man, why did he co-create that agency in the first place? If he simply had refrained from tempting man, men would not have become “agents unto themselves.” Voilá, the Plan of Salvation obstructed!

Another oddity:
“Thus, Satan proposed to carry out the Father’s plan in a way that would prevent the accomplishment of the Father’s purpose and give Satan His glory.”
How can it be said that Satan proposed to carry out the plan if his proposal would prevent the carrying out (“accomplishment”) of that plan (“purpose”)!? If the proposal was to carry out the Plan, then it could not have prevented the Plan, could it? If it in any way hindered the Plan, if it hindered it, it could not be said it was carrying it out. Is it just that Oaks expressed himself poorly here – in General Conference for which he had a year to prepare – or was he hinting at a “mystery” known only in the highest councils of the Church?

Was the epistolator thinking of Oaks when he woefully wrote,

“These are spots in your feasts of charity…: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; … wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.”

Why was Oaks heedless of 1 Nephi 3:7 when he referenced opposition in all things:
“And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.”

If God commanded Adam to not eat of the tree of Knowledge, and also commanded him to stay with Eve, then God must have provided a way where Adam could have fulfilled both commandments. Is God tempting Adam to sin, by giving contrary commandments so that he has no choice but to disobey one of them? Not according to James: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” (1:13)
“But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” (1:14) In other words, Adam was drawn away by lust, not by his desire to obey a commandment.
“Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” (1:15) In other words, “In Adam, we sinned all.”


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.