NOM

nibbler wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:15 am This isn't going to be a good answer, it's kinda cynical, but here goes.

Rather than try to get into the official doctrine I wanted to take the approach of how I've heard OaCotP used in the past; the OaCotP in practice, not principle. I've only heard references to the OaCotP in a small number of circumstances.

• Shortly before being ordained to the MP. It was only referenced, not explained fully. The SP was trying to convey just how seriously I should be taking the responsibility of receiving the MP and he used the OaCotP to instill a little fear. Hey kid, this is serious business!
• People name dropping the OaCotP and mentioning D&C 84. That's usually the end of it, the name and the reference, nothing else. I don't know what that's about, maybe it's someone trying to advertise that they study scripture or know where things are in the scriptures?
• It will come up during lessons where the EQP or a visiting member from the SP gives an all too familiar "you suck at home teaching and you should feel bad" lesson. Usually the OaCotP is explained as PH holders having a "priesthood obligation" to do HTing.
• Unfortunately this is another overly-cynical me bullet point. We'll have a lesson where OaCotP is the subject and the person giving the lesson (usually someone in a high profile leadership position) will grill people about what OaCotP means, usually with the implication that there's a right answer and that the person giving the lesson knows it and has a much deeper knowledge of what that answer is than any of the participants of the class. The leader giving the lesson almost always takes on a demanding, authoritative tone.
  
  (asked loud enough to be heard through three partitions in the carpeted basketball court) WHAT'S THE OATH AND COVENANT OF THE PRIESTHOOD? ELDER!?!? [points to the most nervous looking person in the room]
  
  The "elder" sheepishly answers and the authority giving the lesson asks the exact same question again, even louder this time. Doing this both implies that the person that already answered didn't give a good enough answer and that the authority giving the lesson is privy to special knowledge. This repeats itself a few times until the authority giving the lesson clues everyone in with the answer they were looking for. THE answer... and it's usually something generic.
  
  That's only the slightest of exaggerations of what I've seen. Maybe this experience is atypical but I've seen it play out often.
  
  Same deal with priesthood keys. Everyone likes to pretend they are possessors of secret knowledge when it comes to certain subjects but truth be told keys and oaths really don't matter. It all boils down to respecting the chain of authority and doing what you're told.

Haha, this is so spot on! It's like every ward conference when the High Council rep comes to give the combined lesson.

nibbler wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:15 am This isn't going to be a good answer, it's kinda cynical, but here goes.

Rather than try to get into the official doctrine I wanted to take the approach of how I've heard OaCotP used in the past; the OaCotP in practice, not principle. I've only heard references to the OaCotP in a small number of circumstances.

• Shortly before being ordained to the MP. It was only referenced, not explained fully. The SP was trying to convey just how seriously I should be taking the responsibility of receiving the MP and he used the OaCotP to instill a little fear. Hey kid, this is serious business!
• People name dropping the OaCotP and mentioning D&C 84. That's usually the end of it, the name and the reference, nothing else. I don't know what that's about, maybe it's someone trying to advertise that they study scripture or know where things are in the scriptures?
• It will come up during lessons where the EQP or a visiting member from the SP gives an all too familiar "you suck at home teaching and you should feel bad" lesson. Usually the OaCotP is explained as PH holders having a "priesthood obligation" to do HTing.
• Unfortunately this is another overly-cynical me bullet point. We'll have a lesson where OaCotP is the subject and the person giving the lesson (usually someone in a high profile leadership position) will grill people about what OaCotP means, usually with the implication that there's a right answer and that the person giving the lesson knows it and has a much deeper knowledge of what that answer is than any of the participants of the class. The leader giving the lesson almost always takes on a demanding, authoritative tone.
  
  (asked loud enough to be heard through three partitions in the carpeted basketball court) WHAT'S THE OATH AND COVENANT OF THE PRIESTHOOD? ELDER!?!? [points to the most nervous looking person in the room]
  
  The "elder" sheepishly answers and the authority giving the lesson asks the exact same question again, even louder this time. Doing this both implies that the person that already answered didn't give a good enough answer and that the authority giving the lesson is privy to special knowledge. This repeats itself a few times until the authority giving the lesson clues everyone in with the answer they were looking for. THE answer... and it's usually something generic.
  
  That's only the slightest of exaggerations of what I've seen. Maybe this experience is atypical but I've seen it play out often.
  
  Same deal with priesthood keys. Everyone likes to pretend they are possessors of secret knowledge when it comes to certain subjects but truth be told keys and oaths really don't matter. It all boils down to respecting the chain of authority and doing what you're told.

I really liked your summation. I think it's right and I think of can be expressed correlatively. The rest of your post...I can see that happening, very easily and it explains a lot.

I expected push-back because of my statement regarding responsibility (and thus guilt) is pushed equally to priesthood and women. Priesthood session is one giant "you-suck-you-horrible-pornography-watching-masturbators" session. I thought that perhaps they were more positive when it came to women's session, as though they are putting kid gloves on in comparison to the priesthood.

Reading through an ex-Mormon board today, I found several posts where women and men talked about their experiences with women's conference and priesthood conference. It turns out they are very much the same, placing guilt upon the individual for not being good enough.

For the men, they just tell them directly they suck.
For the women, they hold up impossibly difficult situations in which the woman not only does everything she is asked to and more, but she does it with pure joy.

For both, they walk out feeling guilty and horrible about themselves. So....I guess they are treated with the same end-goal in mind.

document wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:26 am I expected push-back because of my statement regarding responsibility (and thus guilt) is pushed equally to priesthood and women. Priesthood session is one giant "you-suck-you-horrible-pornography-watching-masturbators" session. I thought that perhaps they were more positive when it came to women's session, as though they are putting kid gloves on in comparison to the priesthood.

Reading through an ex-Mormon board today, I found several posts where women and men talked about their experiences with women's conference and priesthood conference. It turns out they are very much the same, placing guilt upon the individual for not being good enough.

For the men, they just tell them directly they suck.
For the women, they hold up impossibly difficult situations in which the woman not only does everything she is asked to and more, but she does it with pure joy.

For both, they walk out feeling guilty and horrible about themselves. So....I guess they are treated with the same end-goal in mind.

Looks like there has been some research going on at headquarters about how to push buttons in various demographics. Another reason to stick with gender roles. They wouldn't know how to guilt trip us for about twenty years while they gather data and the old tactics used in the old talks would become useless.

Here is another video summation of the O&C:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8U04Jr0mqI

In this short clip, young Elder Gump clearly and concisely answers this same query to the satisfaction of his quorum president.

Love it!

If it ever comes around again, just say it goes as follows:

"I must not fear. Fear is the Mind Killer. Fear is the Little Death that brings total obliteration. I must face my fear. I must permit it to pass over and through me. When the fear has gone past, I must turn the Inner Eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

The disciplinary council will be the most entertaining thing about your entire church experience.

Mad Jax wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:17 pm If it ever comes around again, just say it goes as follows:

"I must not fear. Fear is the Mind Killer. Fear is the Little Death that brings total obliteration. I must face my fear. I must permit it to pass over and through me. When the fear has gone past, I must turn the Inner Eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

The disciplinary council will be the most entertaining thing about your entire church experience.

I'm not sure that most high councils will catch a "Dune" reference quite that easily. But the litany against fear at least has the virtue of being more understandable and practical than the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood.

You guys are killing me. Loud laughter. Evil speaking. All the good stuff.

Two things. I did my visiting teaching, this month. Know what I did? Something for Easter! Imagine! How blasphemous! I saw that Easter was coming up and I wondered to myself why we were having this stupid, controlling lesson. Don't know. Don't care. Easter is much more important, should really be our most important observance, so I observed it. Glad I'm NOM.

Second, I had this lesson. My VT apparently really enjoyed the thought food. I actually ended up enjoying this lesson. Here is the nourishment I took from this lesson. There are those in my ward who think I'm the covenant breaker. I'm sure I get called to repentance in the gossip about me. Doesn't matter.

I try to be kind to my sons, no matter what. I try to treat them with respect, no matter what. Hard day? I'm​ kind to them. They're annoying me? I'm kind to them. Making choices I don't like? I speak to them kindly and respectfully about it. Their father was otherwise. Know where my sons are? Not with him. Know which parent they chose? Me.

I honored my covenants. I honored them to the point of kicking their covenant breaking father out of the house. Now, my ex and I are divorced. We won't choose each other in the eternities. My older son doesn't have a testimony, neither do I. At present, my younger son does. My eternal family is a shambles. Yet, both my sons have shown me from their behavior, recently, that they have my back. I may not have them in the eternities (according to our doctrine), but I do have their loyalty. I have their loyalty, because I honored my covenants.

This all sounds incredibly hubristic. I'd better go do ten Hail Mary's and four Our Father's.

Corsair wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:13 amI'm not sure that most high councils will catch a "Dune" reference quite that easily.

Question then: You think that would diminish, or enhance the experience?

Imagine if one of the sisters that month bore her testimony about the "Oath and Covenant" and how much it's helped her self control.

OMG I so want to go active now and get my own home teaching route again.

My first lesson will be on the book of Rico: "All morality- all correct moral action - is derived from survival instinct. Morality is survival instinct above the individual level."