What's new
By:

LDS General Conference - Apr 2015

I think it's cool how there is a twitter account that posts all the best quotes from GC. It's a good way to let the people who follow you get some of the church by just a simple RT.
 
Qman said:
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.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, there have been callings into the Quorum of the Twelve from educational professions, from colleges, where it's pretty clear there were considerations other than financial ability. Pres. Monson, as well, never did "succeed" financially in private life. He was a tradesman printer, but was called to be a bishop in his twenties and was promoted exclusively on the basis of his commitment to the Church, primarily being known for his service to people in need.

When I was growing up, it was common knowledge in my family that he knew us and liked us, and had high regard for some of my family, enough that some of his faith promoting talks included stories about my family we knew were true, and when once I walked up to shake his hand and told him who I was, he gave me a big smile. His wife was a relative of my wife, but then so is half the LDS population.

If they called me, some people might claim I'm a millionaire too, and that's why or whatever. The bottom line is the opportunity cost. Every decision you make in life costs you all the other possibilities you might have had. Being called into the LDS leadership costs these "millionaires" many more millions, I'm sure. I don't question the sincerity of any LDS leader I know, and I know quite a few. I do question their ideas some. Hell, I question my own ideas more than the whole lot of them.
 
On a random note, Pharrell (the singer/producer) recently tweeted a quote and gave credit to Uchtdorf "Sometimes we become so focused on the finish line, that we fail to find joy in the journey"

LL Cool J once quoted Gordon B Hinckley in a tweet "Wittout hard work, nothing grows but weeds."
 
LogGrad98 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I served my mission in Honduras. At that time, there were three missions in the country. If I remember correctly, mine was the only mission with a gringo president. The other two were Latinos. I don't know the specifics of them, but I would highly doubt they were "successful business men". I know my president had done okay in life, but I wouldn't have qualified him as "wealthy", unless he was hiding a lot of stuff. He got released while I was still there and he went back to Texas and went back to work.
We have a long time family friend who was president of the Marshall Islands mission. He got released last July. His full time job was with the Civil Service, and he was in the Air Guard as a Lt. Col. He had retired before he was called. He had a good pension from all that, but was certainly not wealthy, or even "well off". The president of that mission travels more than any other Church official, including all the GA's. They literally had to go from one island to Hawaii and then to another island. There was virtually no inter island travel without going to Hawaii. No way in hell that guy, or just about anybody, could afford that.
 
Thanks for all of your responses. Just goes to show that perceptions can be very different than reality. I still hope the next Apostle is one that somewhat breaks the mold of that position.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Thanks for all of your responses. Just goes to show that perceptions can be very different than reality. I still hope the next Apostle is one that somewhat breaks the mold of that position.
Click to expand...
I agree. Would love to see a Latino or African Apostle.
 
bigb said:
In the hereafter, we only add to what we've done in this life. For example, in the hereafter, a high school dropout only has that education to build upon. Same goes with our relationship, knowledge, and understanding of God. Why handicap ourselves in the hereafter with limited knowledge and understanding?
Click to expand...

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but here goes.

IF after this life we are truly facing an eternity, then what incremental advantage we gain in this life by 'living the gospel' can easily be made up over over the eternities. I've not met THAT many Mormons whose understanding of things divine is so far advanced beyond all others that someone else could not, given reasonable time and reasonable intelligence and effort, catch up pretty quickly, with all of eternity to do so.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, IF we do take the knowledge we've done in this life to the hereafter, what about all the people who died in infancy or otherwise young, or who were mentally challenged etc.? I mean, how does someone with literally NO knowledge (e.g., died at birth) then ever catch up if we accept your reasoning?

So living one's life within a structure that places (IMO very narrow) parameters on what one can believe and learn in this life (at least with regards to 'soft' stuff like spiritual knowledge), who since birth or a young age believes as taught by parents and other authority figures and who has never seriously questioned his/her belief, because, by golly, he/she just KNOWS it's true, gives them an advantage in the hereafter over others because they are just so much more intellectually and spiritually advanced??

Really?
 
To me it is more about attitude than actual learning. If we leave here with biases toward doing good or doing evil, that kind of thing.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
I'm a bit late to this discussion, but here goes.

IF after this life we are truly facing an eternity, then what incremental advantage we gain in this life by 'living the gospel' can easily be made up over over the eternities. I've not met THAT many Mormons whose understanding of things divine is so far advanced beyond all others that someone else could not, given reasonable time and reasonable intelligence and effort, catch up pretty quickly, with all of eternity to do so.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, IF we do take the knowledge we've done in this life to the hereafter, what about all the people who died in infancy or otherwise young, or who were mentally challenged etc.? I mean, how does someone with literally NO knowledge (e.g., died at birth) then ever catch up if we accept your reasoning?

So living one's life within a structure that places (IMO very narrow) parameters on what one can believe and learn in this life (at least with regards to 'soft' stuff like spiritual knowledge), who since birth or a young age believes as taught by parents and other authority figures and who has never seriously questioned his/her belief, because, by golly, he/she just KNOWS it's true, gives them an advantage in the hereafter over others because they are just so much more intellectually and spiritually advanced??

Really?
Click to expand...

I just love slow pitch softball like this. . . .

Most games have rules, and the moves we make in "play" have consequences. Religions are about those rules, and consequences, for the "game" God is believed to have sent us here to play. People who somehow find out what the rules are have an advantage, theoretically, and if they make decisions appropriate to those rules, they "win" the game. We are, however, given the latitude to quibble about it all and do what we want, and see what happens, and maybe learn from it. Most organized religions, mostly "Christian" churches, have pretty clear "rules" they believe we're supposed to play by.

I consider it possible, if not likely, that we are all pretty much "in the dark" and don't really have a lot of basis for believing we know the rules of this game we call life in this world. But we do see consequences to our actions day by day, and we could learn something from observing and reflecting on them, especially with an eye to trying to make things better for ourselves and others.

I think that aspect alone would direct our thinking towards placing a value on the emotional or sentimental values of things like "love", and all the other putative virtues we have imagined or could imagine. It is my observation that there is a tendency to some small degree for people who believe God loves them to then love others. And if you just don't believe in anything but materialism and objective observation and rational systems of reason, it seems that "love" and a whole lot of other good human sentiment just gets neglected somehow. Believing in God might be essential to some people's systems of motivations because it focuses a sense of wonder about a God who cares about humanity or ones own self, and creates an emotional space for sentiments like love. If you haven't realized you are loved, maybe you haven't learned to love in a spiritual sort of sense different from carnal gratifications.

I would consider developing the capacity to love God and others as a sort of high aim for life here. If you achieve that, you "win" it all. And if you're one of the pedantic doubters who won't believe in "God" because you see no proof, you would do quite well if you still could learn to focus on the real people around you who are objectively and evidently real. Some religious folks have even gone so far as to say that if you love your fellow man, God will put you first on His list of who really loves Him.

Perhaps, when viewed in this perspective, it might be immaterial whether you claim to believe in "God" or not.

P.S. I looked through, and listened to Colton's link. I term this a high level intellectual approach to religion, consistent with Jesus' statements about how those who follow his precepts ultimately becoming persons of his own, and his Father's natures, and John's gospel about how "God is Love", and all that. Some might think love is one dimensional or something like that, something simple, but it is a capacity that requires full development of intellectual and physical abilities, and the coordinated comprehension of a very wide field of truths. We grow in our capacities by the exercise and the disciplined practice of them . . . . So all the other little themes of the "Gospel" could be viewed as aids or tools for that development.

So, no, please don't take it like I think "love" doesn't require any other virtues, or even knowledge, or obedience to any particular thematic aspect of religious beliefs. . . . I just meant to bring out the ultimate objective. . . . which even Dallin Oaks neglected to mention specifically in his little sermon.

People who live in this world are generally learning some things that will be helpful along the way. Most people have people they care about in their lives, and most people develop in that caring 'love" across time. Most people are learning a lot of other things, too. So JEJ's point is well-made, and well-taken, so far as I'm concerned. It's really just a question of whether a church can help you develop those characteristics or not. Whether belief in God helps that growth or not.

I like tools. I use all kinds of tools and machines to get stuff done. Maybe I even oughtta go to Church or something. . . .
 
Last edited:
babe said:
I just love slow pitch softball like this. . . .

Most games have rules, and the moves we make in "play" have consequences. Religions are about those rules, and consequences, for the "game" God is believed to have sent us here to play. People who somehow find out what the rules are have an advantage, theoretically, and if they make decisions appropriate to those rules, they "win" the game. We are, however, given the latitude to quibble about it all and do what we want, and see what happens, and maybe learn from it. Most organized religions, mostly "Christian" churches, have pretty clear "rules" they believe we're supposed to play by.

I consider it possible, if not likely, that we are all pretty much "in the dark" and don't really have a lot of basis for believing we know the rules of this game we call life in this world. But we do see consequences to our actions day by day, and we could learn something from observing and reflecting on them, especially with an eye to trying to make things better for ourselves and others.

I think that aspect alone would direct our thinking towards placing a value on the emotional or sentimental values of things like "love", and all the other putative virtues we have imagined or could imagine. It is my observation that there is a tendency to some small degree for people who believe God loves them to then love others. And if you just don't believe in anything but materialism and objective observation and rational systems of reason, it seems that "love" and a whole lot of other good human sentiment just gets neglected somehow. Believing in God might be essential to some people's systems of motivations because it focuses a sense of wonder about a God who cares about humanity or ones own self, and creates an emotional space for sentiments like love. If you haven't realized you are loved, maybe you haven't learned to love in a spiritual sort of sense different from carnal gratifications.

I would consider developing the capacity to love God and others as a sort of high aim for life here. If you achieve that, you "win" it all. And if you're one of the pedantic doubters who won't believe in "God" because you see no proof, you would do quite well if you still could learn to focus on the real people around you who are objectively and evidently real. Some religious folks have even gone so far as to say that if you love your fellow man, God will put you first on His list of who really loves Him.

Perhaps, when viewed in this perspective, it might be immaterial whether you claim to believe in "God" or not.

P.S. I looked through, and listened to Colton's link. I term this a high level intellectual approach to religion, consistent with Jesus' statements about how those who follow his precepts ultimately becoming persons of his own, and his Father's natures, and John's gospel about how "God is Love", and all that. Some might think love is one dimensional or something like that, something simple, but it is a capacity that requires full development of intellectual and physical abilities, and the coordinated comprehension of a very wide field of truths. We grow in our capacities by the exercise and the disciplined practice of them . . . . So all the other little themes of the "Gospel" could be viewed as aids or tools for that development.

So, no, please don't take it like I think "love" doesn't require any other virtues, or even knowledge, or obedience to any particular thematic aspect of religious beliefs. . . . I just meant to bring out the ultimate objective. . . . which even Dallin Oaks neglected to mention specifically in his little sermon.

People who live in this world are generally learning some things that will be helpful along the way. Most people have people they care about in their lives, and most people develop in that caring 'love" across time. Most people are learning a lot of other things, too. So JEJ's point is well-made, and well-taken, so far as I'm concerned. It's really just a question of whether a church can help you develop those characteristics or not. Whether belief in God helps that growth or not.

I like tools. I use all kinds of tools and machines to get stuff done. Maybe I even oughtta go to Church or something. . . .
Click to expand...

Holy hell Babe, please just give us the cliff notes version :-)
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
I'm a bit late to this discussion, but here goes.

IF after this life we are truly facing an eternity, then what incremental advantage we gain in this life by 'living the gospel' can easily be made up over over the eternities. I've not met THAT many Mormons whose understanding of things divine is so far advanced beyond all others that someone else could not, given reasonable time and reasonable intelligence and effort, catch up pretty quickly, with all of eternity to do so.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, IF we do take the knowledge we've done in this life to the hereafter, what about all the people who died in infancy or otherwise young, or who were mentally challenged etc.? I mean, how does someone with literally NO knowledge (e.g., died at birth) then ever catch up if we accept your reasoning?

So living one's life within a structure that places (IMO very narrow) parameters on what one can believe and learn in this life (at least with regards to 'soft' stuff like spiritual knowledge), who since birth or a young age believes as taught by parents and other authority figures and who has never seriously questioned his/her belief, because, by golly, he/she just KNOWS it's true, gives them an advantage in the hereafter over others because they are just so much more intellectually and spiritually advanced??

Really?
Click to expand...

I think this would make sense if everyone just had an epiphany after death, "Hey, it looks like the Mormons were right, I'm signing up!" It doesn't work that way. You will be pretty much the same person in the afterlife that you are now. Of you die before you have the opportunity to develop harmful habits and characteristics, then you won't be burdened with them in the hereafter. Most of us, however, WILL develop some bad habits. A lifetime compared to eternity would seem like a short time to set those habits in stone, but so is young adulthood, and that generally carries you through the rest of your life.

If you are hard hearted and ungenerous, you will still be that way in the spirit world and in many cases will segregate yourself to where you feel comfortable, especially considering that even the lowest layer of heaven is probably a better place than the standard Christian definition of Heaven. Most people like that would probably be as uninterested in improving in the afterlife as they are currently. By now, everybody knows that smoking is harmful, but a lot of people do it and even start doing it AFTER they know this. Even if someone realizes that the opportunity for improvement is there, most will say, "Nahhhh, I'm good." How many people today seek to better themselves daily?
 
framer said:
I think this would make sense if everyone just had an epiphany after death, "Hey, it looks like the Mormons were right, I'm signing up!" It doesn't work that way. You will be pretty much the same person in the afterlife that you are now. Of you die before you have the opportunity to develop harmful habits and characteristics, then you won't be burdened with them in the hereafter. Most of us, however, WILL develop some bad habits. A lifetime compared to eternity would seem like a short time to set those habits in stone, but so is young adulthood, and that generally carries you through the rest of your life.

If you are hard hearted and ungenerous, you will still be that way in the spirit world and in many cases will segregate yourself to where you feel comfortable, especially considering that even the lowest layer of heaven is probably a better place than the standard Christian definition of Heaven. Most people like that would probably be as uninterested in improving in the afterlife as they are currently. By now, everybody knows that smoking is harmful, but a lot of people do it and even start doing it AFTER they know this. Even if someone realizes that the opportunity for improvement is there, most will say, "Nahhhh, I'm good." How many people today seek to better themselves daily?
Click to expand...

This is kind of how I view the afterlife. I don't view it as punishment v glory, but rather stratified levels for people to settle in where they feel comfortable. Some will have lived lives that make them fully comfortable directly in the presence of God, others will feel comfortable there some of the time, but not all the time, and on and on down to folks that turn away from His visage, whether it be in shame or just simply discomfort. I think along with that will come a general sense of where one could have been and where one "ended up" that will come across as shame or regret or even anger and resentment. Either way we go where we can find the most happiness possible for us individually, since it is after all the plan of happiness as well as salvation, and God wants us to be happy, even knowing that many of us will not be able to find our optimal happiness in His direct presence.

So, figuratively, we will settle into nice neighborhoods with nice neighbors, and we will make friends and generally be able to be happy, and progress as prescribed by H.F. in our sphere, whatever that looks like.

I also generally believe in spirit the much-uttered saying that if you could glimpse the lowest degree of the layers of heaven you would be so overwhelmed by the glory that you would want to kill yourself just to get there as soon as you can, figuratively speaking of course.
 
LogGrad98 said:
This is kind of how I view the afterlife. I don't view it as punishment v glory, but rather stratified levels for people to settle in where they feel comfortable. Some will have lived lives that make them fully comfortable directly in the presence of God, others will feel comfortable there some of the time, but not all the time, and on and on down to folks that turn away from His visage, whether it be in shame or just simply discomfort. I think along with that will come a general sense of where one could have been and where one "ended up" that will come across as shame or regret or even anger and resentment. Either way we go where we can find the most happiness possible for us individually, since it is after all the plan of happiness as well as salvation, and God wants us to be happy, even knowing that many of us will not be able to find our optimal happiness in His direct presence.

So, figuratively, we will settle into nice neighborhoods with nice neighbors, and we will make friends and generally be able to be happy, and progress as prescribed by H.F. in our sphere, whatever that looks like.

I also generally believe in spirit the much-uttered saying that if you could glimpse the lowest degree of the layers of heaven you would be so overwhelmed by the glory that you would want to kill yourself just to get there as soon as you can, figuratively speaking of course.
Click to expand...

That just intuitively seems like how God, if he is a father who loves us, would handle things and makes much more sense than the flames and pitchfork thing. Of course the entire reality of the situation would probably be impossible to explain with limited, finite minds.
 
Also, this would make the different versions of "Heaven" as prescribed by most religions generally "true." If you think that going to Heaven is sitting on a cloud and playing a harp, you will probably be pleasantly surprised. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top