Which Way Do You Face?

I might not have squirmed as I might have moved to the foyer.

Yep. I didn’t like the talk when it was given and it doesn’t improve with age. I think your presidency guy is right on, meaning I think his interpretation is the intended message of the talk. A further message of the talk, IMO, is that leaders are always right even when they’re wrong and either way apologies are not necessary and they represent the church to you and not the other way around.

All that said, I can’t answer your question. I put it on the shelf.

Prophets through the ages have always come under attack by the finger of scorn. Why? According to the scriptures, it is because “the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center” (1 Nephi 16:2), or as President Harold B. Lee observed, “The hit bird flutters!” Their scornful reaction is, in reality, guilt trying to reassure itself…

I assume it was meant mainly to address the SSM question, and I think it’s extremely confrontational. ‘Scorn,’ ‘apostasy,’ ‘guilt,’ etc. That doesn’t feel like me. If he were here and I told him that, I wonder what he would say. I’m just a person who can’t do it anymore, can’t label and ostracize people who want the same things I want. Would he just say, “No, that is scorn. You’re an apostate.” It’s so harsh.

I’m just thankful that even among my very orthodox friends, we rarely use his vocabulary.

I cope with stuff like this by saying what I will do, not saying what the church should do.

“Which way do you face?” President Boyd K. Packer surprised me with this puzzling question while we were traveling together on my very first assignment as a new Seventy. Without an explanation to put the question in context, I was baffled. “A Seventy,” he continued, “does not represent the people to the prophet but the prophet to the people. Never forget which way you face!” It was a powerful lesson.

This is exactly what I feel the leaders of our generation fail to realize. A seventy should represent Jesus Christ to the people. Every member of the church has taken upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ, it’s not something special that is reserved for people with specific callings. By extension, being an apostle or a seventy does not exempt one from being in a position to receive instruction. Christ leveled the playing field. No one person is above another. The seventy can represent the people to the prophet because the people are Christ. The seventy can represent the prophet to the people because the prophet is Christ. We are all fellowcitizens.

I respect that they are trying to run a worldwide organization and that requires order. Still, I don’t believe that translates to agreeing with church leaders on every point simply because of the position they hold.

Prophets through the ages have always come under attack by the finger of scorn. Why? According to the scriptures, it is because “the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center” (1 Nephi 16:2), or as President Harold B. Lee observed, “The hit bird flutters!” Their scornful reaction is, in reality, guilt trying to reassure itself…

lol Everyone through the ages have come under attack by the finger of scorn… but the prophets get a pass. The quote from scripture is taken entirely out of context. The line “the guilty taketh the truth to be hard…” is in reference to someone being chastised after having actually done something wrong. In the quote above it is being used as a dodge for when a prophet is being chastised (justly or unjustly). Someone is trying to use the scripture as a compliance tool. I see it as an abusive attempt to put someone in their place.

The hit bird flutters?!?!? lol

[smack] Look it fluttered. Proof of its guilt. [smack] [smack] That’s two for flinching.

Once, just once I’d love to see someone get into a shouting match:

Person 1: The guilty taketh the truth to be hard.

Person 2: The guilty taketh the truth to be hard.

Person 1: The guilty taketh the truth to be hard.

Person 2: The guilty taketh the truth to be hard.

Person 1: The guilty taketh the truth to be hard. Infinity. [person 1 walks off, proud of themselves]

Person 2: [muttering] The guilty taketh the truth to be hard. Infinity +1.

Just to prove a point of how meaningless the phrase actually is. Place one of the actors in the play in a position of authority and the debate ends quicker.

It is easy to raise a hand and give a differing opinion when someone is inviting a dialogue and so hard to do when someone is lecturing/monologuing.

My tolerance for the monologue is decreasing. I would be facing the exit and moving quietly that direction.

Thanks to everyone for your comments. I feel better now. Last Sunday was just a bad day overall for me at church due to all the black/white talks I heard. This was just the one that started things off and got me worked up.