LDS General Conference - Apr 2015

[Carbon13]

Isnt that the whole point? Based on verifiable evidence, life has no greater meaning. Religion provides meaning, but in order to attain that, you simply have to have faith. So arguing against faith based on verifiable evidence is an absurd concept altogether.

 

[Carbon13]

Just read thru all the posts. Ignore what i just wrote above. Sorry to side bust!

 

[Witty Username]

There's not going to be any gospel that appears to you after you die that allows you to turn into a glorious Mormon, so there's that. The sanctimonious reprieve in that logic is staggering. I've lived among them them long enough to get the gist of that psychological scapegoat concept. You're either with us, or you're against us, so in the end just go all in and be with us while you're here! That'll be 10%, please

 

[Stoked]

I hope that a minority apostle is chosen. Add some diversity o the church. Plenty of 70s that are Hispanic for example.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Sorry for the delayed response.

I guess, I'm thinking about this situation in a more pragmatic sense. Meaning, you have belief in your Mormon religion because of faith not because of anything that is verifiable. I don't believe in religion or the afterlife or a supreme being because none of it is verifiable. Now, unless, you're saying that my consciousness changes once I am in "the immediate afterlife" I would accept the gospel, because, well, it's in front of me. Everything I have ever known, the reality, my reality, will have been changed. If it's in front of me and I can see it, why would I not accept it?

Hopefully that makes sense.

I don't think it will be as simple as that. This is just all my opinion, so keep that in mind.

I think when we die we will essentially be the same people we are now, yet we will be alive as spirits but without a body.
There will still be spirits that are LDS, that are Catholic, that are no religion, etc. Everyone will still have their ideas about what to believe and what to not believe as to what stage you are or what comes next.
There will still be a faith aspect of what to believe and what to not believe there too. It won't be cut and dried immediately many of us imagine it to be.

So basically I'm saying I don't think it will be "in front of me and I can see it".

After the very end of all of this where we are finally "judged" and all that... that is when it will all be "in front of me and I can see it" so to speak.

Does that make sense?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I hope that a minority apostle is chosen. Add some diversity o the church. Plenty of 70s that are Hispanic for example.

I have no preference as to the diversity of the next apostle. It doesn't matter to me.

If I were to guess, I would say that every year the odds seem to increase that there will be one as there are more and more members and more and more leaders as general authorities in the other quorums that are "minorities". I'm not sure they can be considered minorities though. There may be more members of the LDS church that are not white than are white, so I guess I'm not sure what a minority would be considered if you look at total church membership. But if you go by the ratio in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, I guess there is still an argument.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't think it will be as simple as that. This is just all my opinion, so keep that in mind.

I think when we die we will essentially be the same people we are now, yet we will be alive as spirits but without a body.
There will still be spirits that are LDS, that are Catholic, that are no religion, etc. Everyone will still have their ideas about what to believe and what to not believe as to what stage you are or what comes next.
There will still be a faith aspect of what to believe and what to not believe there too. It won't be cut and dried immediately many of us imagine it to be.

So basically I'm saying I don't think it will be "in front of me and I can see it".

After the very end of all of this where we are finally "judged" and all that... that is when it will all be "in front of me and I can see it" so to speak.

Does that make sense?

No it does not make sense. If I don't believe in an afterlife and then I suddenly find myself living one that particular belief is going to change pronto.

 

[Stoked]

I have no preference as to the diversity of the next apostle. It doesn't matter to me.

If I were to guess, I would say that every year the odds seem to increase that there will be one as there are more and more members and more and more leaders as general authorities in the other quorums that are "minorities". I'm not sure they can be considered minorities though. There may be more members of the LDS church that are not white than are white, so I guess I'm not sure what a minority would be considered if you look at total church membership. But if you go by the ratio in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, I guess there is still an argument.

You may very well be correct. More mormons out side the U.S. than in it. But in many places the LDS church is seen as a white church. Having an apostle that is not white would go a long ways towards changing that. Since one can argue that since only white men have ever lead it that it is a white church. I one day hope to see a Quorum of the 12 with no more than 4-5 white members.

Not to mention that any apostle that is not white would more than likely have a very different up bringing and some new blood is always good.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You may very well be correct. More mormons out side the U.S. than in it. But in many places the LDS church is seen as a white church. Having an apostle that is not white would go a long ways towards changing that. Since one can argue that since only white men have ever lead it that it is a white church. I one day hope to see a Quorum of the 12 with no more than 4-5 white members.

Not to mention that any apostle that is not white would more than likely have a very different up bringing and some new blood is always good.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I guess my main thought is just the hope/desire to get the right person no matter the heritage, as opposed to pulling for someone that is not white just for the sake of getting someone not white in the position. It would from a world point of view be viewed as a positive, but that shouldn't ever be the reason for something to happen.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

No it does not make sense. If I don't believe in an afterlife and then I suddenly find myself living one that particular belief is going to change pronto.

Even if that changes, does that mean you from there will choose the LDS view of the afterlife, or some other view of life after death?
There will certainly be other groups that believe in the afterlife that continue with their beliefs after they die.

That would just be one fork in the road, so yes I agree that would be a sudden change but is so far toward the beginning of the road it is only a beginning.

 

[Stoked]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I guess my main thought is just the hope/desire to get the right person no matter the heritage, as opposed to pulling for someone that is not white just for the sake of getting someone not white in the position. It would from a world point of view be viewed as a positive, but that shouldn't ever be the reason for something to happen.

I disagree. The Lord knows us better than we know ourselves. Perhaps choosing an apostle from say Kenya would open up the hearts and doors to the Church in Africa at an expanded rate from goodwill.

Either way we mostly agree. Always get the right man for the job. I just hope the right man isn't white this time (or next time either for that matter).

 

[colton]

According to LDS doctrine, when we die we live in a spirit world for a time before we are eventually resurrected. The judgment occurs at resurrection... all people are resurrected, but the "degree of glory" that we receive as our eternal dwelling place will vary. Thus there are two distinct parts to the afterlife: the immediate afterlife, and the kingdoms of glory.

The immediate afterlife is what I was speaking of above, in talking about how the gospel continues to be taught to people who didn't receive it on the earth. From what we know about it, it seems that life continues there in much the same way as we live here. Our knowledge/understanding will continue to be limited, and we will continue to need to exercise faith. So I imagine that some people will continue to disbelieve in God/Jesus there. I can totally see responses like this occurring as people there are being taught the gospel: "Yes, apparently I didn't cease to exist when I died, but that doesn't mean that accepting Jesus is the path to salvation. Why should I believe that?"

So from my perspective, an equally valid question might be, why *would* you accept the gospel there, if you wouldn't here?

But, as mentioned, most LDS assume that the truly good people of the world will all accept the gospel prior to their resurrection and judgment.

Sorry for the delayed response.

I guess, I'm thinking about this situation in a more pragmatic sense. Meaning, you have belief in your Mormon religion because of faith not because of anything that is verifiable. I don't believe in religion or the afterlife or a supreme being because none of it is verifiable. Now, unless, you're saying that my consciousness changes once I am in "the immediate afterlife" I would accept the gospel, because, well, it's in front of me. Everything I have ever known, the reality, my reality, will have been changed. If it's in front of me and I can see it, why would I not accept it?

Hopefully that makes sense.

You'd presumably believe in an afterlife, then, but I think my previous statement is still valid: "I can totally see responses like this occurring as people there are being taught the gospel: "Yes, apparently I didn't cease to exist when I died, but that doesn't mean that accepting Jesus is the path to salvation. Why should I believe that?"" Why would you convert to Christianity/Mormonism just because you continue to exist? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't.

And, for what it's worth, the way I see it is that to some extent religions are verifiable. You can live the tenets of the religion and see the impact on your life. In the LDS case, you can read the Book of Mormon & Bible, pray, refrain from smoking/drinking/etc., attend church services, and so forth. That's basically how the LDS missionary program is set up--the missionaries teach people these principles and invite them to live accordingly to see how it impacts their lives. My anecdotal experience has been that of the people who do attempt to verify the religion in this manner, a very large percentage (more than 90%) become believers. Granted that's not 100% like you would have in a true scientific experiment, but it's not to be scoffed at.

 

[LogGrad98]

You'd presumably believe in an afterlife, then, but I think my previous statement is still valid: "I can totally see responses like this occurring as people there are being taught the gospel: "Yes, apparently I didn't cease to exist when I died, but that doesn't mean that accepting Jesus is the path to salvation. Why should I believe that?"" Why would you convert to Christianity/Mormonism just because you continue to exist? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't.

And, for what it's worth, the way I see it is that to some extent religions are verifiable. You can live the tenets of the religion and see the impact on your life. In the LDS case, you can read the Book of Mormon & Bible, pray, refrain from smoking/drinking/etc., attend church services, and so forth. That's basically how the LDS missionary program is set up--the missionaries teach people these principles and invite them to live accordingly to see how it impacts their lives. My anecdotal experience has been that of the people who do attempt to verify the religion in this manner, a very large percentage (more than 90%) become believers. Granted that's not 100% like you would have in a true scientific experiment, but it's not to be scoffed at.

I agree with you colton, and I don't want to play devil's advocate when it might affect my eternal salvation =), but wouldn't that be true anytime someone undertakes a positive change in their life? From my experience, it was seldom the truly happy and content people that wanted to hear our message as missionaries. We met plenty of them, and the response we often got was "kein bedarf", or no need. If there is a gap to be filled, and someone makes a positive change to fill that gap won't it have the same effect?

I keep going back to the example of my sister-in-law who got a firm answer from prayer, exactly as we describe it, that the LDS church is 100% false, and other people I have known (atheists, agnostics, religious folks) who I have seen make a positive change in their lives and describe those changes all in very similar ways. Maybe it is the making of the change itself that prompts this, and not the vehicle (religion). Eckhart Tolle would probably point out that these vehicles, such as religion, help us to better live in the now rather than dwelling in the past or future, and that ultimately peace comes in the now, no matter what method you use to get there.

 

[babe]

No it does not make sense. If I don't believe in an afterlife and then I suddenly find myself living one that particular belief is going to change pronto.

Not necessarily. . . . you might start saying. . . "so, what next?. . . . how long is this going to last? there still might be some kind of end to this bad dream."

It's our nature to revise our thinking every day according to new information, sometimes whole new vistas of understanding. We do it literally every time we wake up, somehow. But we like to keep a large chunk of stuff the same, too. I think you can sustain any basic world view even if a whole new life opens up for you. You'll always have that sort of choice, that kind of will.

 

[babe]

I hope that a minority apostle is chosen. Add some diversity o the church. Plenty of 70s that are Hispanic for example.

I hope a hobo is chosen, a man off the street, who knows the folks who serve the soup at the homeless shelter. Successful business executives are all the same.

 

[fishonjazz]

I hope a hobo is chosen, a man off the street, who knows the folks who serve the soup at the homeless shelter. Successful business executives are all the same.

The High Sparrow!

 

[LogGrad98]

I hope a hobo is chosen, a man off the street, who knows the folks who serve the soup at the homeless shelter. Successful business executives are all the same.

This is actually a minor pet peeve of mine. Seldom is an ordinary person chosen for any of these roles. A Sister Missionary serving right now in Leipzig is a daughter of a very successful car dealership owner in Utah (not the millers) and her dad and mom are right now mission presidents in the US. They are changing mission presidents here this summer, and rumor has it the guy coming in is another executive. I get the argument that these men are being prepared for these roles, but it is a bit funny that it is always either a successful executive, or a doctor or someone who spent their lives working for the church (where I couldn't even get an interview for a job after college, only to find out the son of the group I was applying for got the job...nepotism is rampant inside the church, but that is another topic). It would be interesting to see someone like my dad get called, who has always lead a good life and has a lot of knowledge and a strong testimony, but who isn't rich and powerful economically or "connected". I would think the church would be the one place it shouldn't be who you know or how much money you have.

 

[Qman]

This is actually a minor pet peeve of mine. Seldom is an ordinary person chosen for any of these roles. A Sister Missionary serving right now in Leipzig is a daughter of a very successful car dealership owner in Utah (not the millers) and her dad and mom are right now mission presidents in the US. They are changing mission presidents here this summer, and rumor has it the guy coming in is another executive. I get the argument that these men are being prepared for these roles, but it is a bit funny that it is always either a successful executive, or a doctor or someone who spent their lives working for the church (where I couldn't even get an interview for a job after college, only to find out the son of the group I was applying for got the job...nepotism is rampant inside the church, but that is another topic). It would be interesting to see someone like my dad get called, who has always lead a good life and has a lot of knowledge and a strong testimony, but who isn't rich and powerful economically or "connected". I would think the church would be the one place it shouldn't be who you know or how much money you have.

Has your dad served as a senior missionary? And I wonder if being better off financially makes it less of burden to be a mission president.

 

[LogGrad98]

Has your dad served as a senior missionary? And I wonder if being better off financially makes it less of burden to be a mission president.

Yeah he did, and a Stake Pres and all that other Jazz. And in no way am I pining for my dad to be GA, that is not the point. It is just an example of other worthy men out, lots of them I am sure, who will apparently never be selected because they haven't hit the monetary threshold. And I am sure that being well off makes it easier. It just is kind of interesting when it is always a rich white guy that gets selected.

And if you think it is necessary since they are all "unpaid" positions, you better think again. For any "life" calling, meaning a calling that is either for their entire life or takes a significant amount of time from their lives, there is a healthy stipend for living expenses. My understanding, direct from the horse's mouth as it were, is that it is more than enough, and provides a much better living than most ordinary members. It is almost a falsehood to say we do not have paid clergy.

 

[colton]

Yeah he did, and a Stake Pres and all that other Jazz. And in no way am I pining for my dad to be GA, that is not the point. It is just an example of other worthy men out, lots of them I am sure, who will apparently never be selected because they haven't hit the monetary threshold. And I am sure that being well off makes it easier. It just is kind of interesting when it is always a rich white guy that gets selected.

For what it's worth, my father served as a mission president and he worked for the U.S. government and/or U.N. for most of his career. He made a good living, but isn't the type of rich businessman that you're describing.

And if you think it is necessary since they are all "unpaid" positions, you better think again. For any "life" calling, meaning a calling that is either for their entire life or takes a significant amount of time from their lives, there is a healthy stipend for living expenses. My understanding, direct from the horse's mouth as it were, is that it is more than enough, and provides a much better living than most ordinary members. It is almost a falsehood to say we do not have paid clergy.

My parents did receive a living allowance so that being a mission president wasn't a financial burden... but my dad did have to retire early from his career. So it's not like there are no financial repercussions.

(Also, I always tell people we don't have a paid clergy "on the local level".)