- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
Fatherof4husbandof1 wrote:
GBH said something like, “This church is exactly what it claims to be or it is the biggest fraud ever” My answer, “this church is far from what it claims to be! Therefore …..
Quote:Tom Haws wrote:
Therefore Brother Hinckley spoke out of turn when he said that, just like Joseph Smith spoke out of turn when he said, “I told those guys that the Book of Mormon was the best book on earth, and the hub of our religion, and that no other book would get you as close to God as it would.”
Hyperbole is human nature. Cheering for our team and our hero is human nature.
Would GBH, JS, BY, ETB, DOM, JFS, BKP …. all agree that they were speaking out of turn? What if I went to SS tomarrow and stated that all these Prophets, Seers and Revelators “Spoke out of turn”?
I’m sure someone would direct me to “repent” and read D&C 1:38
38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
okay, now what? Is perhaps God speaking out of turn? (not to worry, I have a lightening rod in place)
:lolno: Obviously I am haveing a really hard time with this!
f4h1
It all makes sense if you stop trying to apply the divine to it. It was just some guys making comments that have no basis in facts. I’m going to link again to something that posted on my personal blog yesterday, but first I want to make two points that I believe are important. 1) “This church is exactly what it claims to be or it is the biggest fraud ever.” That simply isn’t what Pres. Hinckley said. It’s really, really important in cases like this to parse the actual words and avoid having a distorted, extreme message replace the actual statement. That happens all the time, and it eventually becomes “TRUTH” in some people’s minds.
2) Much of how we view things can be seen in how we phrase things. Frankly, I much prefer the idea of “speaking with limited light and knowledge” over “speaking out of turn”. The former is how Elder McConkie explained the incorrect justifications for the Priesthood ban after it was lifted – and I really like the way he worded it. “Speaking out of turn” carries a negative connotation that has a judgmental edge to it; “speaking with limited light and knowledge” is much more charitable – and it applies to me just as much as it does to prophets and apostles.
With that introduction, here is the link to the post – and the comments, which are interesting and in which I clarified what I was trying to say. Please read both the post and the comments:
“Exactly What Must Be 100% True or 100% False” (
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/03/exactly-what-must-be-100-true-or-100.html I liked your blog post Ray. You made good points. My husband just sent me this poem today that helped me understand something we all do in relationship to God, the church, and other things. What was said in the beginning and the end are the biggest points to me:
The Blind Men and the Elephant
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me!-but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried: “Ho!-what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “Even the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Fatherof4husbandof1 wrote:Would GBH, JS, BY, ETB, DOM, JFS, BKP …. all agree that they were speaking out of turn? What if I went to SS tomarrow and stated that all these Prophets, Seers and Revelators “Spoke out of turn”?
I’m sure someone would direct me to “repent” and read D&C 1:38
38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same…..
Obviously I am haveing a really hard time with this!
f4h1
f4h1 – if you said something like this at church, you would be severely castigated. No question about it. This is the kind of thing that I encounter so often, and, I even had a member of the Stake presidency comment to me that the “church might not be big enough for people like you…” and “it’s dangerous to start picking and choosing which comments from the prophet you believe and follow…”
Look, I like Ray comments in the blog. However, they don’t work for me personally and I don’t think I can just justify and explain it all away like that. I’m glad Ray can do that. But that kind explanation is not going to work for me and you, and most members of the church. Why? because he said what he said. In our language, he said it’s all white or it;s all black… whether he meant that or not is debatable. i think the (somehow) comments in Ray’s blog are correct – but our people are not going to see it that way, which is evident, because Ray go called out on that point in the VERY first comment to his post) We heard so much “follow the prophet” rhetoric at last conference, and the last 30 years, that what you say f4h1, is exactly correct. And from the general membership stand point, the prophet told us “that it is either all true or it’s all false.” We are a BLACK AND WHITE tribe. It is a HUGE problem for me, and if you have read any of the threads immediately after conference, you’d know just how “pissed” and upset I was. We really took a step backwards 20 years at least in church evolution. I couldn’t even go to church for a month after conference, and at one time decided I couldn’t even participate on this board because I would just drag folks down.
I don’t know what to tell you. You CANNOT question the prophets, you CANNOT come out in SS and say that GBH was out of line, you CANNOT say you think that the words you heard at GC were wrong and false doctrine. You can’t do that, because of our cultural indoctrination of always listening and following the prophet regardless (see the 14 fundamentals) because in Mormondom, they are always “right” and even if they aren’t, you should follow them anyway.
I think f4h1, that if you want to remain in the tribe – you just have to own it on your own terms. I no longer have a TR. I no longer try to live the commandments that don’t make sense to me. I no longer believe everything I was taught in primary and SS – I don’t think we are have all the answers and that the prophets are getting direct communication from god. I don’t think the LDS church is god’s kingdom on earth. I think the LDS church is one pathway, among many, that is good and helps folks find peace in this life, and prepares them for the spiritual journey in the next. IMO, the prophets are just some good men doing the best they can for 85% of the membership. f4h1, you are in the 15%, with the rest of us here, who the church knows about, cares about, but really they can’t do much for us really, because if they do and address many of these paradoxes and sticking historical issues, there will be massive casualties of the faithful orthodox membership who make up the bulk of the church.
I just had another thought. I just got done listening to Ted Lyons Mormon stories podcast last night, and the
Gregory Prince, Rise of Modern Mormonismpodcast. Both Prince and Dr. Lyons makes a point, that until the 1970’s, the prophets and Q12 differed on opinion openly and publicly. This is important to understand, because it shows that the apostles are not in direct contact with god — they are just men, spiritual men, contemplating and debating the issues. That means, THEY WILL MAKE MISTAKES. They will, and god allows them to do it. So if the prophet or the apostles say, or have said, such as GBH statement you reference, there is a chance that it is just their opinion, and not gods words. I know the church membership will not agree with that, and call me a heretic, but…. DOM and Hugh Brown both wanted to end the priesthood ban as early as 1955. Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B Lee, and (another guy in the first presidency – can’t remember his name) were dead set against it. It was quite the issue and caused a lot of contention. So much so, that when Harold B Lee took over in 1970, Hugh B. Brown was not retained as a member of the First Presidency. HBB was the first, and the last member of a First Presidency that did not get reinstated with the change of the Prophet.
So who was right and who was wrong? Was JFS and HBL getting revalation from God? Or was DOM and HBB?
Now of course, the general membership do not know these facts, nor do they care. It hurts too much to think about. They would just rather get their instructions at GC and go about their lives without ever knowing or having to deal with these sticky issues. f4h1 – you are in the 15% of the church membership who have chosen to find your own path. it’s dangerous. It’s scary at times. It’s frustrating. It’s aggravating, and can cause pain to those we love —- and I don’t know where I will end up in the long run. but I know the whole “hold to the rod” orthodox Mormon pathway that most of our tribe ascribes to, just isn’t going to work for me.
cwald wrote:– you are in the 15% of the church membership who have chosen to find your own path. it’s dangerous. It’s scary at times. It’s frustrating. It’s aggravating, and can cause pain to those we love —- and I don’t know where I will end up in the long run. but I know the whole “hold to the rod” orthodox Mormon pathway that most of our tribe ascribes to, just isn’t going to work for me.
Hey Cwald.. I did not know some of that information on the differing opnions about the priesthood ban. I learn alot on this group. When you mention the 15 %, it reminded me of a fine young man I met while I while in Denmark two years ago. He was gay and had served a mission in Salt Lake City. He loved his mission and the church. He told me, “the church is good for alot of people but it isn’t good for gays and so I had to leave.” When you look at the apostles Chist chose to be his 12 they were each uniquely different. I often related to ‘doubting Thomas’. But, this also showed me that Christ choose these 12 to represent that we can all be different in the church and still fit in. That really helped me because I often did not feel like I fit in with most of the women in the church.
I agree that my perspective won’t work for the majority of members of the Church – and that’s fine. What’s important to me is finding what works for each person – what constitutes “according to the dictates of (our) own conscience”. Oh, and the “other” First Presidency member who adamantly opposed lifting the Priesthood ban was Mark E. Peterson. Those who opposed ending the ban generally were the ones who believed the ban was the product of revelation and correct scriptural interpretations; those who supported ending the ban prior to Pres. Kimball’s revelation were the ones who believed it was policy and not supported by scriptures. Ending the ban also started the movement away from such public disagreement, and I’m not sad that happened in some ways. (The earliest days (in the 1800’s) were . . . intriguing . . . in that regard, with some epic debates and heated arguments in our records.) I’m sad it swung so far the other way for a while, but I’m glad it’s starting to swing back toward a more middle ground now – and I really do see it swinging back toward a middle ground now.
Tangent warning!!! This is off-topic, but interesting (at least to me.) 
The First Presidency under McKay included many people, but Mark Peterson wasn’t one of them. By 1968, the First Presidency was composed of six members, which made the body larger than it had been since the death of Brigham Young in 1877. McKay’s counselors in the First Presidency were Hugh B. Brown (First Counselor 1963–1970); N. Eldon Tanner (Second Counselor, 1963–1970); Thorpe B. Isaacson (Counselor, 1965–1970); Joseph Fielding Smith (Counselor, 1965–1970); Alvin R. Dyer (Counselor, 1968–1970). (ain’t Wikipedia great?)
Isaacson had a stroke in 1966 and really didn’t function as a member of the First Presidency after the stroke, so it is not surprising he wasn’t retained. (He was a counselor in name only.) Dyer was never an apostle, and was later called to the newly organized First Quorum of Seventy in 1976 (replacing the former title of “assistant to the Twelve” that many of the Seventies held prior to the re-organization of the Quorum).
Upon McKay’s death, Joseph Fielding Smith became the new president. The obvious choices left for counselors would have been Tanner and Brown. There were obvious concerns about Smith’s health (he was 91 when he became president), so I think it was a bit logical to include Lee in the First Presidency since Lee was next in line. That ensured a relatively orderly transition at Smith’s death 2 years later, and left Brown the odd man out.
Prince details that when McKay became president, J Reuben Clark was “demoted” from 1st counselor to 2nd counselor. Such First Presidency demotions are not without precedent.
I think I am one of the Lord’s servants. I have been given the Priesthood and asked to carry out church assignments. So whatever I say in church is on parity with statements from God? Sounds like it from that scripture. Of course I am kidding, but it seems to me that some of this scriptures – especiialy out of context – can be interpreted to many individual purposes. “Servant” is certainly a word open for interpretation. One could say the prophet is only acting as the lord’s servant when he says what the lord would have said. Of course how would any of us know when that is or isn’t happening.
Too lazy to check and see if I was correct 
Quote:I think I am one of the Lord’s servants. I have been given the Priesthood and asked to carry out church assignments. So whatever I say in church is on parity with statements from God? Sounds like it from that scripture.
Yes. Absolutely. As long as what you say actually is from God / what God would say. (quite the disclaimer, but true, imho)
Quote:Of course I am kidding, but it seems to me that some of the scriptures – especially out of context – can be interpreted to many individual purposes.
Yes. Absolutely. That’s kind of the logical justification used by Joseph Smith for his prayer and the subsequent First Vision.
Quote:“Servant” is certainly a word open for interpretation. One could say the prophet is only acting as the lord’s servant when he says what the lord would have said.
Yes. Absolutely. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young certainly taught that explicitly. (Anyone who wants to link to or provide the actual quotes – to compensate for my current laziness – please do so.)
Quote:Of course how would any of us know when that is or isn’t happening?
That, my friend, is the real question. My only answer is that we all have to make that decision continually as individual agents unto ourselves and as equal children of the same God.
To me, when these leaders say things like that, it’s a lot like the owner of a restaurant saying they make the best burger in town. They might even put a sign in the window that explicitly states that: “Best Burger in Town! Nobody makes them better!” But is that true, or is it the biggest restaurant fraud in town? It can only be one or the other…
I know we heard it differently when we were “normal” members. I know we expected it to be different. But I just don’t see it a whole lot different than my above example anymore. The Book of Mormon is a great burger! OK, I am fine with that. The Church makes the best burgers in town! Fine. I get it.
It doesn’t mean other people think so. And it doesn’t mean you can’t eat a salad some days instead.
Okay – I looked at my notes from the podcast , and it was HBL, JFS and Dyerwho was adamantly opposed to lifting the ban. I don’t know about Peterson – and don’t recall him being mentioned much in the podcast. I did find it interesting that GBH opposed it though — on the basis that it would cause problems with missionary work in the apartheid South African mission. I wonder if he ever regretted making those comments to DOM?
MH – perhaps it might look logical to include HBL in the First Presidency, but according to Prince’s research, the Brown family was quite convinced that it was because of HBL/JFS and the Brown’s disagreement about the ban – and that it did cause quite a bit of consternation and hurt feelings with HBB and his family.
Brown — I like your thoughts on this, and I agree with it – and Ray’s responses. I think we (the church culture) interpret the scripture pretty goofy at times, and, like always, try to make them absolutes, black and white – when they aren’t meant that way. Of course, JS and BY both taught that we are ALL prophets and have a right to prophecy and communication with god. This whole “14 Fundamentals of the Prophet” nonsense has really become a huge distraction in the church IMO.
As Brian said, hyperbole and fervent partisanship are human nature.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.