Major Confusion from Claudio Costa

The entire list of 14 fundamentals is full of problems. There’s been a LOT of talk about the controversy of resurrecting this 1980’s talk from former Pres. Benson. It was bad then. I was a little baffled by it being brought up more than once in the same conference. The original talk was from a devotional at BYU.

I am personally preparing for the strong chance this is brought up in my local ward when I am there, probably chosen as the conference talks for the “teachings of our times” week in EQ. I will not sit still and quiet if I am in a class where this talk is brought up. I give a pass to some things. I don’t want to be disruptive all the time, but this topic is VERY important to me. It needs to be actively corrected.

I was reading over the conference talks, and keyed in on the following statements from Claudio Costa: Some of his comments seem to be pointing to blind obedience again….here they are:

Second fundamental: “The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works” (“Fourteen Fundamentals,” 26).

We have invested a lot of time talking about the process for doctrine in the Church — this passage seems to supercede any scripture, which flies in the face of the doctrinal process the Church has quietly followed all these years. We also know that certain things prophets have said have never made it into doctrine, such as Adam-God theory, blood atonement etcetera — so, how do you reconcile this one?…Comments?

I reconcile this simply by assuming that this is just his personal opinion and I don’t believe most of this original Ezra Taft Benson talk was inspired because as far as I’m concerned there is nothing fundamental about these 14 outrageous assertions and I honestly don’t know why they wanted to try to revive this controversial talk from 1980 at this point rather than just forget about it and pretend it didn’t ever exist. Aren’t the apologists’ jobs already hard enough without these dogmatic claims out of nowhere? For example, here are a few “fundamentals” that require some serious mental gymnastics to try to defend:

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Really, what about the racial discrimination as an official policy until 1978? Why didn’t any of these prophets foresee all the problems and embarrassment this would cause and try to correct this earlier?

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Does that mean that the Adam-God theory and Joseph Fielding Smith’s prophecy that men would never go to the moon should be considered scripture?

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency…follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

What if my own experience so far has been almost the exact opposite of this not-so-subtle threat? Does that prove you are a liar?

Ray and Brian, that is all fine and dandy here, but your personal line of revelation doesn’t matter. It is not the same as your priesthood leadership line, therefore it must be from a “difference” source than god. Costa is a GA and what is said from the podium at GC is “scripture” and you and I are obligated to head it if we want to be in full fellowship and good standing in the church. “..follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.”

You know this is what I, and many others, maybe yourselves, will told if we question, or scoff at this message, and speak out about it in church.

Ray and Brian, that is all fine and dandy here, but your personal line of revelation doesn’t matter. It is not the same as your priesthood leadership line, therefore it must be from a “difference” source than god. Costa is a GA and what is said from the podium at GC is “scripture” and you and I are obligated to head it if we want to be in full fellowship and good standing in the church. “..follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.”

cwald… your sarcasm is cracking me up a bit, but at the same time I am totally feeling your pain and frustration. I really am. I have no answers, but I do empathize.

What I do or think really won’t make a big difference, but maybe it will make a small difference… for me, my family and maybe a few others. It is exhausting to live in a state of frustration, so I am trying my best to focus on how I can be a better person… by MY definition.

so, how do you reconcile this one?

Comments?

I dont!!! How do you reconcile something so bizare.

Seriously. What can you say in church to dispute the talk? Oak’s talk pretty well gives every TBM on the planet and arguement not to listen to reason or different opinions on ANYTHING that is spoken from the poduim. Am I wrong? Can I doubt or question ANYTHING that was said in GC without a faithful TBM calling me out of line because my personal line is different than the priesthood line? We have really put ourselves in a heck of bind.

I can explain the history of the talk, that it was given at a BYU devotional, and the THEN prophet of the Church, President Kimball, was so upset about the negative potential of the talk that he called in Elder Benson and made him explain his talk to the Quorum of the 12. THEY were then so upset and worried that the talk would create a bad precedent and misunderstanding that a week later Elder Benson was required to explain himself to a gathering of ALL General Authorities, in order to downplay the impact. President Benson seemed to have had a change of heart about this topic after he became the prophet, and never mentioned it again once he had the responsibility laid at his feet to be infallible and perfect (probably a mighty “oh crap!” moment).

It was a bad talk then, full of substantial doctrinal errors and great potential for misunderstanding. It was a bad idea to resurrect it from the dead now that all the people who straightened out the original mess aren’t around to remind everyone why the talk was buried in the first place.

So … the loud-mouthed, ultra-conservative, pro-blind obedience TBM or two in the room can call me whatever they want (and be wrong doctrinally). But everyone else is gonna hear it. And the quiet, moderate majority in the room will hear someone speak up and take a stand. It only takes a few simple words to break the spell.