Question about LDS Church after Smith's death.

[babe]

I've found it interesting that General Conferences often have "themes" - that is to say, recurring visits to a particular topic. It's seems to me that these "themes" are, a goodly portion of the time, not something that is being generally discussed in the church, but warrants dialogue.

To me, this seems like revelation. A bunch of old white dudes know what the membership needs to hear. I realize you could argue that it's just a case of "whatever the bretheren deem important becomes important to the membership", but I don't see it that way. And I'm a pretty sketchy mormon.

The LDS Church hires professional help in crafting it's teachings and speeches and general public image today. Madison Avenue advertising folks. Then they have some committees staffed by their own professionals. . . degreed sociologists, psychologists, social scientists of all kinds.

They also have secretaries or clerks who read all the mail and file reports highlighting current issues per the mail/email from the public as well as local leaderships. . . . All this goes into the hopper, so to speak.

Leaders chosen to give speeches in conference are notified well in advance so they can submit their proposed remarks to the committees, who go over them analytically looking for problematical ideas or phrases, and edit them out. Sometimes the committees completely rewrite parts of these speeches and sorta tell the GA what he can/must say.

The "themes" are carefully selected and crafted, and not "accidental" by any means, rest assured.

The LDS Church has learned to do a lot better than the Holy Ghost.

 

[babe]

I've found it interesting that General Conferences often have "themes" - that is to say, recurring visits to a particular topic. It's seems to me that these "themes" are, a goodly portion of the time, not something that is being generally discussed in the church, but warrants dialogue.

To me, this seems like revelation. A bunch of old white dudes know what the membership needs to hear. I realize you could argue that it's just a case of "whatever the bretheren deem important becomes important to the membership", but I don't see it that way. And I'm a pretty sketchy mormon.

The LDS Church hires professional help in crafting it's teachings and speeches and general public image today. Madison Avenue advertising folks. Then they have some committees staffed by their own professionals. . . degreed sociologists, psychologists, social scientists of all kinds.

They also have secretaries or clerks who read all the mail and file reports highlighting current issues per the mail/email from the public as well as local leaderships. . . . All this goes into the hopper, so to speak.

Leaders chosen to give speeches in conference are notified well in advance so they can submit their proposed remarks to the committees, who go over them analytically looking for problematical ideas or phrases, and edit them out. Sometimes the committees completely rewrite parts of these speeches and sorta tell the GA what he can/must say.

The "themes" are carefully selected and crafted, and not "accidental" by any means, rest assured.

The LDS Church has learned to do a lot better than the Holy Ghost.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

There is never question on alt fake accent. Why do truthers say truth?

I take your silence as conceding to my point. My friend why does LDS make this false doctrine nobody other religion claims? Other religion say the Catholics goes astray in dark ages. LDSes make new claims there is never succession beyond Jesus Christ? There is no historical evidence in fact this is opposite. If you need to sell people into religion long term it is easyier to claim the Bible was rewritten by evil popes like the Martin Luther said.

 

[babe]

I take your silence as conceding to my point. My friend why does LDS make this false doctrine nobody other religion claims? Other religion say the Catholics goes astray in dark ages. LDSes make new claims there is never succession beyond Jesus Christ? There is no historical evidence in fact this is opposite. If you need to sell people into religion long term it is easyier to claim the Bible was rewritten by evil popes like the Martin Luther said.

Mormon silence should never be construed to mean "conceding" a point. Rather, it's a statement that the unbelievers are no longer deemed "missionary contacts" but "swine". As in not worthy of having pearls to trample in the mud.

LDS doctrine considers, in relation to the Catholics, whether east/west, Roman/Orthodox, that God just walks away from Church leadership that rejects God's leadership, and starts things over again. Well, except in their own case, since the doctrine of papal infallibility has been resurrected and raised from the dead on steroids in Mormonism. We are the last dispensation, there isn't time to "start over". Instead, Joseph Smith wrote, God will send Jesus in Glory to destroy the wicked. Even Catholics will face this judgment. The New Testament describes conditions of apostasy in that time frame as prevailing prior to the return of Jesus. Some Mormons, who have actually paid attention to the scriptures, have the notion that God will "set the Church in order" first, as well. . . indicating a judgment to be made on LDS leadership.

So yes, it's Mormon doctrine that internal leadership that goes sufficiently wrong must be removed from their office by some act of God at some point sufficiently close to the coming of Christ. Joseph Smith also taught that leadership that goes wrong has no "Priesthood" with God. So it's tautological that when leadership goes wrong, the assertion of infallibility is false.

 

[LogGrad98]

I take your silence as conceding to my point. My friend why does LDS make this false doctrine nobody other religion claims? Other religion say the Catholics goes astray in dark ages. LDSes make new claims there is never succession beyond Jesus Christ? There is no historical evidence in fact this is opposite. If you need to sell people into religion long term it is easyier to claim the Bible was rewritten by evil popes like the Martin Luther said COMRADE.

Hilarious!!

 

[b_line]

The LDS Church hires professional help in crafting it's teachings and speeches and general public image today. Madison Avenue advertising folks. Then they have some committees staffed by their own professionals. . . degreed sociologists, psychologists, social scientists of all kinds.

They also have secretaries or clerks who read all the mail and file reports highlighting current issues per the mail/email from the public as well as local leaderships. . . . All this goes into the hopper, so to speak.

Leaders chosen to give speeches in conference are notified well in advance so they can submit their proposed remarks to the committees, who go over them analytically looking for problematical ideas or phrases, and edit them out. Sometimes the committees completely rewrite parts of these speeches and sorta tell the GA what he can/must say.

The "themes" are carefully selected and crafted, and not "accidental" by any means, rest assured.

The LDS Church has learned to do a lot better than the Holy Ghost.

Having known someone who has spoken in conference personally, I can attest to the falseness of this statement. Unless that person was lying to me. But I strongly doubt that.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I take your silence as conceding to my point. My friend why does LDS make this false doctrine nobody other religion claims? Other religion say the Catholics goes astray in dark ages. LDSes make new claims there is never succession beyond Jesus Christ? There is no historical evidence in fact this is opposite. If you need to sell people into religion long term it is easyier to claim the Bible was rewritten by evil popes like the Martin Luther said.

No, I try not to respond to alts with fake accents. I only read the first line of this post because you quoted me.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Mormon silence should never be construed to mean "conceding" a point. Rather, it's a statement that the unbelievers are no longer deemed "missionary contacts" but "swine". As in not worthy of having pearls to trample in the mud.

LDS doctrine considers, in relation to the Catholics, whether east/west, Roman/Orthodox, that God just walks away from Church leadership that rejects God's leadership, and starts things over again. Well, except in their own case, since the doctrine of papal infallibility has been resurrected and raised from the dead on steroids in Mormonism. We are the last dispensation, there isn't time to "start over". Instead, Joseph Smith wrote, God will send Jesus in Glory to destroy the wicked. Even Catholics will face this judgment. The New Testament describes conditions of apostasy in that time frame as prevailing prior to the return of Jesus. Some Mormons, who have actually paid attention to the scriptures, have the notion that God will "set the Church in order" first, as well. . . indicating a judgment to be made on LDS leadership.

So yes, it's Mormon doctrine that internal leadership that goes sufficiently wrong must be removed from their office by some act of God at some point sufficiently close to the coming of Christ. Joseph Smith also taught that leadership that goes wrong has no "Priesthood" with God. So it's tautological that when leadership goes wrong, the assertion of infallibility is false.

Not really true either babe, I planned on responding to another of your posts but got busy. I think you're off your meds or have a new axe to grind. If I felt boobs was anything other than a troll I'd respond.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

The LDS Church hires professional help in crafting it's teachings and speeches and general public image today. Madison Avenue advertising folks. Then they have some committees staffed by their own professionals. . . degreed sociologists, psychologists, social scientists of all kinds.

They also have secretaries or clerks who read all the mail and file reports highlighting current issues per the mail/email from the public as well as local leaderships. . . . All this goes into the hopper, so to speak.

Leaders chosen to give speeches in conference are notified well in advance so they can submit their proposed remarks to the committees, who go over them analytically looking for problematical ideas or phrases, and edit them out. Sometimes the committees completely rewrite parts of these speeches and sorta tell the GA what he can/must say.

The "themes" are carefully selected and crafted, and not "accidental" by any means, rest assured.

The LDS Church has learned to do a lot better than the Holy Ghost.

Very conspiracy theory of you babe.

My first thought when I read this was Elder Wirthlin when he couldn't see well enough to read a prepared talk. He just got up there and spoke and it was no big deal.
I believe the speakers to try to prepare ahead of time, and send the talk to someone for faster access to get it online, and in print. This whole committee idea of changing peoples talks is bogus. There are many things in the church that are organized, planned and thought out but not what you are presenting.

 

[b_line]

Speakers in general conference are chosen and invited to speak by the leadership. They are not given subjects, but must turn in their text for approval prior to the conference. They are generally approved, but sometimes small suggestions are made to the speaker. It's pretty similar to the way a sacrament meeting or stake conference is run in the regard that the speakers are generally left to preach what they feel is needed.

At least that's the way it was communicated to me. The person I iniw personally who has spoken in general conference is my former mission president, Anthony Perkins. He is now a general authority for the church.

 

[BENTLEY]

The subject of religion often digresses into personal interpretation of scripture: "I interpret a scripture to mean X, whereas you interpret it to mean Y for you." Which is postmodernism, ie: what is true for me isn't necessarily true for someone else, ie: there is no absolute truth.

The problem with this is: Aren't we involved in religion because we're looking for truth? Is there actual legit truth? Or do we define truth by merely closing our eyes and imagining the world as we'd like it? (I have a lot of new age friends who believe this, but it's crap). This whole postmodernism my-truth-is-different-from-your-truth mindset prevents any serious discussion about religion because we can't agree on the simple meanings of words. Words have meanings. But there's no discussion if somebody decides that for them black means white, up means spoon, feeling means spirit, etc. The dictionary is our agreed upon standard for the meanings of words so we can meaningfully connect with one another. Otherwise, there's no point in trying.

Anyway, just hoping to avoid the my truth is different from your truth line. Which means I'm probably asking for it. Fine. Whatevs.

Anywho, here's a video I think is cool and iirc addresses the "corrupted Bible" claim. Somebody's post made me think of it but I can't remember whose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHWVWw9gJT8

 

[babe]

The subject of religion often digresses into personal interpretation of scripture: "I interpret a scripture to mean X, whereas you interpret it to mean Y for you." Which is postmodernism, ie: what is true for me isn't necessarily true for someone else, ie: there is no absolute truth.

The problem with this is: Aren't we involved in religion because we're looking for truth? Is there actual legit truth? Or do we define truth by merely closing our eyes and imagining the world as we'd like it? (I have a lot of new age friends who believe this, but it's crap). This whole postmodernism my-truth-is-different-from-your-truth mindset prevents any serious discussion about religion because we can't agree on the simple meanings of words. Words have meanings. But there's no discussion if somebody decides that for them black means white, up means spoon, feeling means spirit, etc. The dictionary is our agreed upon standard for the meanings of words so we can meaningfully connect with one another. Otherwise, there's no point in trying.

Anyway, just hoping to avoid the my truth is different from your truth line. Which means I'm probably asking for it. Fine. Whatevs.

Anywho, here's a video I think is cool and iirc addresses the "corrupted Bible" claim. Somebody's post made me think of it but I can't remember whose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHWVWw9gJT8

I listen to bible-based teachers enough to have heard some defenses of Biblical accuracy that cast some reasonable doubt on early Mormon claims of Bible mistranslation. It is nevertheless true that most early converts to Mormonism were influenced by reading the Bible to join Mormonism, rather than the Book of Mormon, for example. Even today, the Book of Mormon plays about fourth fiddle to the Bible, to contemporary leadership, The Doctrine and Covenants, and popular culture.

So, for your faithful LDS folks who are comfortable with your present understanding, just diss whatever I say as me having some ax to grind, or else go get some actual data on Conference talk references and sources for quotes. The Bible plays a bigger role in Mormonism than either the Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine and Covenants, but takes second place to authorities quoting one another, and aphorisms from contemporary culture.

 

[babe]

Very conspiracy theory of you babe.

My first thought when I read this was Elder Wirthlin when he couldn't see well enough to read a prepared talk. He just got up there and spoke and it was no big deal.
I believe the speakers to try to prepare ahead of time, and send the talk to someone for faster access to get it online, and in print. This whole committee idea of changing peoples talks is bogus. There are many things in the church that are organized, planned and thought out but not what you are presenting.

I consider your "conspiracy theory" comment an unfounded slur that totally discredits the rest of what you might have to say. My comment describes modern organizational practices that are commonly employed where- and when-ever there is good leadership trying to improve organizational policy.

Wirthlin would never be one to go out of the commonly understood path, and I can easily see him being allowed to speak about as freely as anyone, but make no mistake about it, the leaders are agreed on the plan to winnow out the loose cannons.

 

[babe]

Not really true either babe, I planned on responding to another of your posts but got busy. I think you're off your meds or have a new axe to grind. If I felt boobs was anything other than a troll I'd respond.

a generality laced with what I consider to be a bit of humor will not read like a law of physics that has no exceptions, and there may be some more "politically correct" ways to phrase it, for sure. But you'd be disingenuous to deny that Mormons often resort to the pearls/swine notion and decide to just leave some bone of contention in the mud.

 

[babe]

Having known someone who has spoken in conference personally, I can attest to the falseness of this statement. Unless that person was lying to me. But I strongly doubt that.

Well, I'd be glad to learn that in some cases my idea as expressed above is false. I didn't want to believe it in the first place, and spent years trying to deny it. If it were invariably true, I wouldn't consider it as a one-blow axe that could prove Mormonism false, but maybe a consequence of the bitter persecutions the LDS have absorbed ever-so-politely across many decades. And I couldn't say I'm a better man, either, than those who may have resorted to this policy. I rely on my wife's criticisms and analysis of people, and humbly accept her guidance in my business dealings. My cows, however, don't get the benefit of that sort of improved management, as I can speak my mind quite freely with them, and rarely get much flack for it.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Am I correct in understanding that Mormons don't believe the Bible is currently accurate?

 

[Dr. Jones]

I listen to bible-based teachers enough to have heard some defenses of Biblical accuracy that cast some reasonable doubt on early Mormon claims of Bible mistranslation. It is nevertheless true that most early converts to Mormonism were influenced by reading the Bible to join Mormonism, rather than the Book of Mormon, for example. Even today, the Book of Mormon plays about fourth fiddle to the Bible, to contemporary leadership, The Doctrine and Covenants, and popular culture.

So, for your faithful LDS folks who are comfortable with your present understanding, just diss whatever I say as me having some ax to grind, or else go get some actual data on Conference talk references and sources for quotes. The Bible plays a bigger role in Mormonism than either the Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine and Covenants, but takes second place to authorities quoting one another, and aphorisms from contemporary culture.

You are a pretty fair and balanced guy, imo. The bolder surprises me. Almost every friend I have now is LDS and my business partners (every one of them) are bishops and stake presidents. Each one of them, to the person, can quote BoM chapter and verse (end hyperbole) but readily admit they only passively crack open the Bible. That is every Mormon I know. That's not being judgmental by the way, just an observation.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Am I correct in understanding that Mormons don't believe the Bible is currently accurate?

I'm not Mormon, but yes. According to everyone I know that is accurate.
Not that I was asked, but I believe the Bible is inspired but written/re-written by fallible men (albeit also inspired).
In my way of belief, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, I get what is needed, for me, at that time, when I seek Him through His Word.

 

[Stoked]

Am I correct in understanding that Mormons don't believe the Bible is currently accurate?

Basically it has been translated over and over and over and over....and as a result man has made mistakes and small changes add on small changes...

You get the general idea. But Mormons believe in the bible and use it constantly in their teachings.

For example: Seminary. High school kids can attend a seminary class every school day for about an hour a day for 4 years. Every year they cover a Mormon text (Bible, Book Of Mormon, D&C). One year is the Old Testament and one year is the New Testament.

PKM had a good answer.

 

[Bronco70]

But you'd be disingenuous to deny that Mormons often resort to the pearls/swine notion and decide to just leave some bone of contention in the mud.

This is the hyper-cynical way of saying someone simply might not want to belabor a futile argument.