Spencer W. Kimball Lessons

[All-American]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

You and fus. Nothing is ever literal, is it?

What, a prophet being ironic? Naaaaaah.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

You and fus. Nothing is ever literal, is it?

What does literal mean? Do I take all statements for face value, or do I look at them in context?

Let's take the out of context quote of SWK. Anybody having lived 90 years as a member of the Church who proclaims as a statement of fact that he has never been to a boring sacrament meeting is either misinforming you or trying to make a point. I get SWK's point, but apparently you don't.

His point is the participant has a duty to come prepared, participate and make the best out of whatever is occurring. If you bring the spirit, then you will be refreshed no matter how bad the speakers or teachers.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

There is no condescension. I was very non-confrontationally suggesting that a change of approach might be in order. If what Arch says is true, it is impressive, is it not, that President Kimball could remain "stimulated" week in and week out?

. . .

SoCal, may I suggest to you that you're looking for offense in my posts where none is intended? I'm beginning to think you'd call me "condescending" even were I to warn you that your fly is open.

Well, it seems Cougarguarders disagree with you by a 2-1 margin.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8345

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

His point is the participant has a duty to come prepared, participate and make the best out of whatever is occurring. If you bring the spirit, then you will be refreshed no matter how bad the speakers or teachers.

Yep, that's how I read it as well. See? It's not that hard to get something out of "Primary-level" lessons!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yep, that's how I read it as well. See? It's not that hard to get something out of "Primary-level" lessons!

He was not stating there are no bad lessons or bad teachers. And as leader of the Church, he could not, and we will probably not hear any leader ever say, "Yeah we have boring meetings." As a leader, you would never, ever say that publicly.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yep, that's how I read it as well. See? It's not that hard to get something out of "Primary-level" lessons!

"Get" something or "learn" something?

Any time you feel the spirit, you are edified or "refreshed" as Archaea put it.

However, do you necessarily learn something? Is it wrong to also want to learn something you previously didn't know? Is it wrong to want to help others learn something they previously didn't know?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

There is no condescension. I was very non-confrontationally suggesting that a change of approach might be in order. If what Arch says is true, it is impressive, is it not, that President Kimball could remain "stimulated" week in and week out?

Per General Sunday School President, Roger Merrill:

Someone once asked President Spencer W. Kimball, "What do you do if you find yourself caught in a boring sacrament meeting?" President Kimball thought a moment, then replied, "I don't know; I've never been in one" (in Gene R. Cook, Teaching by the Spirit [2000], 140).

http://www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,5950-1,00.html

I mean no disrespect, Arch, but if Kimball can remain intellectually interested, so can just about anybody.

Here is an example of condescension as if you have the high horse, "I have found 'God' speaking for me, you little imbecile."

First, SWK is not saying he's never been bored literally, he made a different point and he never stated he's been stimiluated intellectually. Nowhere in that secondary source, a quote within a quote, does it state anything about intellectual stimulation. That whole approach is condescending, pulling the authority card, when you believe we're morons incapable in exaning the actual substance, reading into the circumstances and past a superficial reading.

Originally Posted by Tex

I see no need to expand beyond that in an effort to excite the sense of people who mistakenly believe they've already mastered the topics. Startling, is it not, that someone could return to the temple week over week, or month over month, for decades ... partaking of the same ordinances and still come away saying they learned something new? I don't have the quote handy, but I believe that's an accurate paraphrasal of something Joseph Fielding Smith once said.

Every use of authority is one of condescension by you. The reason is you are not looking at the possible applications or alternative interpretations of the authority, believing a superficial rendering of the authority makes your point. Well as many of us are attorneys, engineers or academics, nothing is as it seems. If you wish a better interaction, a cite to authority together with a triumphant, arrogant declaration: "How could the President find the temple ceremony stimulating?" is not the way to accomplish that.

Let's be truthful here for those of us who have been through hundreds if not thousands of times, it does get boring at times, especially when tired or when having performed multiple sessions. And if they didn't make us wake up in the middle of a dimly lit theatre, it would be much better. The peace, study of temple liturgy in advance, of Near Eastern culture and symbols, couple with 19th Century rituals, make it interesting. However, the reason it can be interesting on a repetitive basis is the escape from the world to contemplate the eternities or one's own problems. Let's not make more out of those quotes than is intended.

You use them to show your own moral superiority, yet again another mark of condescension.

I am grateful for priesthood leadership, for insights they provide, but I don't let them think for me, or don't fail to examine what they are saying or where I might disagree privately. I don't rely upon their authority in analyzing something, or in allowing, as if I could or would intervene, or any matter. I have my own brain. The scriptures, culture and learning is before me. I can draw my own conclusions. Many members use statements of leaders as a crutch for their own thinking. That could cause them not to understand what the leaders are truly saying. I do understand their authority exceeds mine in making administrative decisions for the Church. I welcome their authority because I don't wish to have it, or to exercise it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Here is an example of condescension as if you have the high horse, "I have found 'God' speaking for me, you little imbecile."
...
That whole approach is condescending, pulling the authority card, when you believe we're morons incapable in exaning the actual substance, reading into the circumstances and past a superficial reading.
...
If you wish a better interaction, a cite to authority together with a triumphant, arrogant declaration: "How could the President find the temple ceremony stimulating?" is not the way to accomplish that.
...
You use them to show your own moral superiority, yet again another mark of condescension.

I'm not going to devolve into this nonsense. I have a position I believe in and I post scriptures and prophetic quotes to support it. If you believe otherwise, feel free to do the same instead of hiding behind this parade of personal attacks.

From a group that has labelled me a racist, a bigot, an idiot, pious, illogical, and pro-slavery, your and others' complaints of "condescension" ring very hollow indeed.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

"Get" something or "learn" something?
Any time you feel the spirit, you are edified or "refreshed" as Archaea put it.
However, do you necessarily learn something? Is it wrong to also want to learn something you previously didn't know? Is it wrong to want to help others learn something they previously didn't know?

I think you're splitting hairs on "getting" and "learning" and "edifying" and "refreshing." I have no problem with wanting to learn new things or to help others to learn new things. I simply think that in the context of a church class, the learning should remain within the bounds of the church curriculum.

Originally Posted by Archaea

He was not stating there are no bad lessons or bad teachers. And as leader of the Church, he could not, and we will probably not hear any leader ever say, "Yeah we have boring meetings." As a leader, you would never, ever say that publicly.

First, SWK is not saying he's never been bored literally, he made a different point and he never stated he's been stimiluated intellectually. Nowhere in that secondary source, a quote within a quote, does it state anything about intellectual stimulation.

While that's a very clever dissection of Kimball's words, I think it really obfuscates his point, that being: you get out of church what you bring to it.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Let's be truthful here for those of us who have been through hundreds if not thousands of times, it does get boring at times, especially when tired or when having performed multiple sessions. And if they didn't make us wake up in the middle of a dimly lit theatre, it would be much better. The peace, study of temple liturgy in advance, of Near Eastern culture and symbols, couple with 19th Century rituals, make it interesting. However, the reason it can be interesting on a repetitive basis is the escape from the world to contemplate the eternities or one's own problems. Let's not make more out of those quotes than is intended.

I am grateful for priesthood leadership, for insights they provide, but I don't let them think for me, or don't fail to examine what they are saying or where I might disagree privately. I don't rely upon their authority in analyzing something, or in allowing, as if I could or would intervene, or any matter. I have my own brain. The scriptures, culture and learning is before me. I can draw my own conclusions. Many members use statements of leaders as a crutch for their own thinking. That could cause them not to understand what the leaders are truly saying. I do understand their authority exceeds mine in making administrative decisions for the Church. I welcome their authority because I don't wish to have it, or to exercise it.

Wow, no condescension there.

All I'm saying is, the material in the scriptures and in the manuals contains all the information one could ever hope to need to achieve salvation--and I'd wager to say that for the most part, not a one of us lives up to any of it 100%. If the only words someone is coming up with when participating in class is "prayer, Christ, or faith" then I suggest a change in the approach that the person is taking.

As for your personal study, I wouldn't presume to tell you how to study the gospel on your own. Feel free to expand to the pantheon of all available research on any and every topic.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

All I'm saying is, the material in the scriptures and in the manuals contains all the information one could ever hope to need to achieve salvation--and I'd wager to say that for the most part, not a one of us lives up to any of it 100%. If the only words someone is coming up with when participating in class is "prayer, Christ, or faith" then I suggest a change in the approach that the person is taking.

And here is the crux of your condenscension. You feel free to state the scriptures contain all we need. Well it may be sufficient for some, but not for others. If it is sufficient for you, good deal. It's not for me, but I won't tell you or others what is or is not sufficient. Because you pretend to know what is sufficient you are the epitome of condescension, you also ignore my other arguments with condescension. IOW, you are so full of your own self you can't even see your own blindness.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not going to devolve into this nonsense. I have a position I believe in and I post scriptures and prophetic quotes to support it. If you believe otherwise, feel free to do the same instead of hiding behind this parade of personal attacks.

You refuse to understand the way you post authority is offensive. Your use of it is offensive and condescending. It is tactless and without deftness. You are bull in a china shop. In fact, because you are so crude in your usage of authority, it discredits the authority cited.