Letter from the office of the FP

It is interesting it wasn’t just referred back tot he SP. I can’t postulate why not. I agree that a strict interpretation of the wording of the letter does indicate personal revelation trumping that of a GA (I note he did say “any”), but when “reading between the lines” it is pretty clear he expects you will get the party line (“correct”) answer. It’s actually a great deflection from a nobody – what scriptural authority does a secretary to the FP have?

I like it – for multiple reasons, not least of which is that none of ether FP has the time to respond to generic letters of any kind (and it absolutely was a generic letter, as described).

I also like the refusal to provide “the one true answer” to any question and the implication that one’s own understanding is more fundamental than what anyone else believes.

I agree Ray, from what I understand the books “Answers to Gospel questions” where originally a section of a church magazine where persons could send their doctrinal poderings. In some cases it seems quite clear how the posed question led to a speculative answer that later evolved into accepted policy/doctrine. Sometimes the new guidance was just annoyingly overrestrictive (like the advice to avoid face cards). In the case of justifications for the priesthood ban, the church has been trying to disentangle itself from some of these speculative pontifications for decades.

I actually like the answer for a few backhanded reasons.

1. It places the onus on the individual to make their own decision about the truth claims. There is an implicit assumption in the answer that it’s all true, but ultimately, the letter underscores the idea that interpreting prayer/answers etcetera is an individual thing — and they put the answer squarely on the shoulders of the individual.

2. It shows they aren’t willing to confront these questions. They have to rely on a standard answer as there is no where to go with defensible answers.

3. It shows at least they read the letter your friend sent.

4. It doesn’t provide a threat of any kind like “I’m worried about you”..”Don’t question”..”People who question doctrine incur the wrath of God” and other threats. The letter avoids that.

5. It also shows the GA’s are human and don’t see it as their role to answer doctrinal or historical questions (“you are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people”). The letter reinforces my own perception that the Apostles don’t have any special knowledge…they simply talented, committed people who have risen in the church, and carry no special access to divine wisdom on central issues

In short, the letter confirms my own conclusions of a few years ago that our church is much like any other temporal organization.

I don’t know nibbler, I think a question can be wrong if it is taking us in a direction that we ultimately don’t want to go. We may not know we are asking the wrong questions until we get down the road a while.

I like the idea that BoM historicity or BoA literal translation is the wrong question, the real question is can I make my home in the church? Can my participation ultimately help be grow into a more complete and mature person? I agree that nobody can answer this question for me. I appreciate that they say it is not their position to answer my personal direction.

Yes, this is a different idea of the purpose of church than most members hold, but it is right for me — and as the letter says (from my POV) it is nobody’s place to say I’m wrong.

As you prayerfully and honestly consider your questions using the formula outlined in Moroni 10:3-7, you will know the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. That knowledge will then become an unshakable anchor to you.

Yes, I do feel like I have an unshakable anchor, and the philosophies of men will not sway me. I don’t expect my answers to be universal or equal other people’s answers – and that little detail is a fundamental part of my anchor.

Yes, I agree the “wrong questions” part was a bit of a put-off. It implies that one shouldn’t apply reason or personal brains to our doctrine and history. If its really the truth, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny. It implies the only question is to ask God if it is true and then based on one’s own interpretation of the answer, go ahead believing in spite of things not adding up.

I love this forum. You’re such a reasonable and balanced group of people.

Personally, I really liked the letter. I actually like the idea that you are posing the wrong questions to the wrong people. Why is it the wrong question? Because finding “proof” one way or the other about historical facts is not the same as spiritual enlightenment and becoming like a god. It’s just being right or wrong, and people want to be right. That’s actually kind of a heady answer in and of itself, like the enigmatic sayings of Buddha. Like saying, you are thinking about the wrong things, and you are expecting other human beings (church leaders) to prove your beliefs (or unbeliefs) so you can make assumptions about how you should act. Instead, have your own relationship with God and decide what you should do based on that. I think that’s really the best answer you can get, and I’d love to hear that over the pulpit in Gen Conf: that personal revelation trumps Sunday School answers. And I wouldn’t read into it that the assumption is that the person will get the “right” answer. It doesn’t say that, I think intentionally. God will answer or not.