- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
*slaps head* Maybe there had to be a fundamental for the Nursery.
Going back to the idea that obedience can be the “first” law of heaven but not be the “highest” law of heaven, the FP absolutely is the highest quorum in the Church – but I believe it’s not always the most relevant or important.
This one, to me, is a set-up for the last one – so I am going to post them together. (Actually, I think this is the point that Elder Benson wanted to make all along – and that he just had to find 13 ways to hint at and lead up to it.)
Quote:The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the first presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.
This one actually is the most flawed of them all, imo – for multiple reasons, among which, just to get the conversation started, are:
1) I don’t see ANY substantive difference between the FP and the Q12 when it comes to prophetic responsibility – and I read the injunction about the Lord speaking when the prophets speak as a collective speaking (the “voice” [singular] of the “prophets” [plural throughout time]), so placing the voice of only three people at any given time above the other living and deceased prophets just doesn’t do it for me.
2) I don’t think it’s as easy or simple as “follow” or “reject”. I think we can do both simultaneously and not leave the strait [narrow] and narrow path. (and most people don’t realize the meaning of “strait” in that phrasing – that it’s a reiteration for emphasis, not two different meanings) I really do think there is more following than rejecting in the “communal path”, but it’s not a strict either/or for me.
3) I don’t think it’s as easy or simple as “be blessed” or “suffer”.
If this fundamental said the following (and if the others led up to it), I would agree completely: Quote:Prophecy (God’s word to you) – If you believe you hear it, follow it and be blessed; reject it and suffer.
In summary, this is why I don’t like the 14 Fundamentals – not because they all are crap in and of themselves, when parsed ONLY for what they say, but because of the foundational message to which they point in #14 with which I just don’t agree as worded. I think they should be focused on prophecy, not on “the prophet”.
Old-Timer wrote:
In summary, this is why I don’t like the 14 Fundamentals – not because they all are crap in and of themselves, when parsed ONLY for what they say, but because of the foundational message to which they point in #14 with which I just don’t agree as worded. I think they should be focused on prophecy, not on “the prophet”.
Excellent thoughts! Especially this last paragraph. So true.HiJolly
I’ve said elsewhere that I’m not a fan of GC talks that sound like someone is sucking up to TPTB (e.g. a 70 who seems to be aspiring upward) – these 14 Fundamentals talks are exactly what I am talking about. We’re scraping the bottom of the barrel with these last two. Good call in combining them into one thread. The main problem I have with this empty promise and idle threat in the last “fundamental” is that so far my experience has always been almost the exact opposite of the scenario he describes. When I was trying my best to do everything the Church said I should that’s when I actually suffered the most and when I didn’t bother to listen to the Church’s advice that’s when I actually felt blessed more than when I did listen to them. Of course, if Ezra Taft Benson had been paying much attention to the actual results in practice over the entire history of the Church then he probably wouldn’t have been making all these outrageous assertions to begin with. Personally, I think they could use a few fundamentals of their own such as: show, don’t tell. Simply saying this is the way it is because I said so is not going to cut it once people start checking things out in detail. DevilsAdvocate wrote:The main problem I have with this empty promise and idle threat in the last “fundamental” is that so far my experience has always been almost the exact opposite of the scenario he describes. When I was trying my best to do everything the Church said I should that’s when I actually suffered the most and when I didn’t bother to listen to the Church’s advice that’s when I actually felt blessed more than when I did listen to them.
I agree with this — within limits. I too have made decisions to avoid certain of the lesser commandments and find it has actually made my life better — easier, greater peace etcetera. However, I want to emphasize that it’s only within certain limits. On some of the major commandments like faithfulness to spouse, chastity, honesty, and other such core Christian values, I don’t think disobeying them would make my life any better. In fact, I’m pretty sure it would make them worse.
Throughout history, people have suffered when the prophets have warned them in the throes of wickedness. Under those circumstances, I think the general message of obey and be blessed, disobey and suffer apply. But when it comes to keeping a garden, or flooding the world with the Book of Mormon, I don’t see the consequences to be nearly as severe as these fundamentals imply.
Amen to what DA said — your posts have been on steroids lately. Thanks.
What can I say. I guess I am destined to suffer. SilentDawning wrote:DevilsAdvocate wrote:The main problem I have with this empty promise and idle threat in the last “fundamental” is that so far my experience has always been almost the exact opposite of the scenario he describes. When I was trying my best to do everything the Church said I should that’s when I actually suffered the most and when I didn’t bother to listen to the Church’s advice that’s when I actually felt blessed more than when I did listen to them.
I agree with this — within limits. I too have made decisions to avoid certain of the lesser commandments and find it has actually made my life better — easier, greater peace etcetera. However,
I want to emphasize that it’s only within certain limits. On some of the major commandments like faithfulness to spouse, chastity, honesty, and other such core Christian values, I don’t think disobeying them would make my life any better. In fact, I’m pretty sure it would make them worse…Throughout history, people have suffered when the prophets have warned them in the throes of wickedness. Under those circumstances, I think the general message of obey and be blessed, disobey and suffer apply… Amen to what DA said — your posts have been on steroids lately. Thanks.I guess listening to conference talks has inspired me with renewed agitation to “kick against the pricks.” To clarify, when I say I felt blessed the most when didn’t listen to the Church’s advice, I’m not suggesting that it’s necessarily a good idea to live a life of “sin” and deliberately do the exact opposite of everything the Church says and be promiscuous and habitually drunk, lie, cheat, steal, kick puppies, etc. I just think the Church overdoes it with some of the exaggerated guilt-trips and disciplinary actions related to things that in my opinion are either not really a sin at all or not nearly as serious as the Church likes to pretend they are.
For me the blessings of being less active and out of touch with the Church for so long were not so much the increased freedom to break their rules (even though I did that too) as much as simply not having to be hassled about going home teaching, teaching lessons, giving talks in sacrament, going on splits with the missionaries, going to tithing settlement, being interviewed by the bishop, etc. Not having to deal with all that outside pressure and stress felt like an extended vacation. Another blessing in disguise of my disobedience was that it made me feel like there wasn’t as much of a reason to get married ASAP anymore and it basically disqualified me from possibly marrying a super strict TBM like my brother’s wife. That would have been a real disaster for everyone involved.
SilentDawning wrote:Throughout history, people have suffered when the prophets have warned them in the throes of wickedness.
You may want to examine your assumptions and check your sources. What do you mean by “history”, who do you mean by “the prophets”, what do you mean by “warned”, and who do you mean by “people”? I mean that in a cosmic sort of way this is a true idea, but that in any sort of historical way applied to actual people, I’m not sure it’s factual. In any case, it’s wise to be very careful about what you are meaning by “the prophets”.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:empty promise and idle threat
I agree with the core of your message, DA. The general idea of suffering vs. blessing is sound, but this hijacked application to specifically the living LDS first presidency comes up short. Don’t get me wrong. These are three wise men with wonderful life experience. Get any one of them out of their ecclesiastical/priesthood environment and he would probably make a wonderful prophet. Put all three of them together outnumbered with other good people in a totally secular or non-sectarian setting such as a charity board or a think tank, and the result might be amazingly enlightened.
Hey? Did I get moderated out of this thread? I could swore I commented already on this? Oh well. You all know how I feel.
I”m sure you didn’t, cwald. I think these start to meld into one giant memory after a while – or perhaps your dementia is increasing. 
cwald wrote:Hey? Did I get moderated out of this thread?
Nah. Probably just banned outright. It’s simpler for the admins.
Well, the banning obviously didn’t work. Back to the drawing board . . . 😆 😆 😆 and with that, we reach the end of these threads. Thanks, everyone, for your contributions.
:clap: Let’s pray we don’t have to do it again, ok?👿
- The topic ‘The 14 Fundamentals: Numbers 13 & 14’ is closed to new replies.