- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I wanted to pop this talk out of the General Conference thread and talk about something that struck me uniquely about this talkElder Cook wrote:My father had a different perspective on the power pole than I did. To him that pole represented an improved life, but to me it was a stumbling block to a magnificent vista. My dad valued power, light, and cleanliness above an aesthetic view. I immediately realized that while the pole was a stumbling block for me, it had great practical, symbolic meaning to my father.
To me, this speaks of truth exactly as I believe and have been preaching to my family and friends and online. Truth can often greatly be determined by our point of view. We see things differently, like the colors of light refracted in the prism of my avatar…the same one light and truth going in to the prism can be seen differently depending on your point of view on the other side of the prism by us.
It all depends on where you are at. Where you see things,and the meaning you put on the words and symbols you use to express it. But the heart can value things and therefore see the same thing differently than others.
It is not wrong to think, however, than some value the wrong things. Selfishness and pride over love and service. There is right and wrong, not just whatever we want to call things. But it is in the meaning we place on things that sometimes we get mixed up or speak past each other without understanding.
In some ways Elder Cook’s talk can very well be taken as a slam to intellectuals. The connotation of intellectuals comes to my mind first, and is a negative thing, but is that really what he is saying? and are there other “views” of what his message is about? Can I honestly say I would agree with his message without twisting and changing the meaning through nuances that are dishonest?
Let’s discuss this. I’m not that smart. I need you all to help me think this through.
Take his definition of stumbling block:
Quote:A stumbling block is “an impediment to belief or understanding” or “an obstacle to progress.” To stumble spiritually is “to fall into sin or waywardness.” A stumbling block can be anything that distracts us from achieving righteous goals.
I agree. I want to focus on what takes me closer to God, not follow men and philosophies of men.
Now…my definition of “men and philosophies of men” is to include males and females alike, and those that are speaking their own viewpoints, as opposed to revelation from God. These are not all bad, but not all trusted as God’s teachings. So, we take them for what they are worth, and have to be careful we don’t use them to justify bad behavior or lack of searching for God and truth.
My liberal definition of this also includes men and women outside AND inside the church. Not all university professors are evil. Just because my bishop has keys of priesthood authority, doesn’t mean he won’t be sometimes sharing his own philosophies or interpretations. It doesn’t mean it is revelation, unless it is revelation.
I believe Joseph Smith delivered revelation from God. And I believe he philosophized, and some things he got wrong because they were of men.
If I keep this in mind…that priesthood authority does not equate to revelation and does not exclude philosophizing…the rest of his talk works fine for me.
To go on in this talk….
Quote:We know the Apostasy occurred in part because the philosophies of men were elevated over Christ’s basic, essential doctrine. Instead of the simplicity of the Savior’s message being taught, many plain and precious truths were changed or lost. In fact, Christianity adopted some Greek philosophical traditions to reconcile people’s beliefs with their existing culture. The historian Will Durant wrote: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life.” Historically, and in our own day, some people reject the gospel of Jesus Christ because, in their view, it doesn’t have adequate intellectual sophistication.
There is nothing in that statement I disagree with. Yet I think Elder Cook would agree with me that many things from the Greeks were truth and good. So…I shouldn’t read too much into it…only that philosophizing can take someone further from God. Or it cannot. Depends what it is.Quote:Heber C. Kimball was one of the original Twelve Apostles of this dispensation and First Counselor to President Brigham Young. He warned: “The time is coming when … it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy to the people of God. Then … look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall.” He concluded that there is “a TEST coming.”
There is nothing in that statement I disagree with. What if…the test that is here is what we are all facing. Some that call their experirence a “faith crisis” or “faith transition” is that very thing. Their test.
Perhaps even being told by church people they are fallen and lost…that is their test.
Perhaps being shunned and made uncomfortable by talks and lessons in church…that is their test.
Perhaps learning of church history…that is their test.
Perhaps god doesn’t speak to their heart…that is their test.
Perhaps obeying blindly leaders without ever questioning things like polygamy, but voting no for gay marriage because they wanted to obey church leaders…that is their test.
Perhaps having a child or brother or cousin or friend be gay and seeing how the church passes policies…that is their test.
Perhaps having a sheltered mormon life gives no opportunities to develop empathy for others…that is their test.
I won’t go on….only to say that the tests can come in so many numerous ways…we can’t list them all. THey are as unique and you and me.
How will this be handled? Will it be love and unselfishness and service like CHrist taught? Or anger and contention?
I think inside or outside the church doesn’t matter for this test. But how we live the gospel.
Let me go on…
Quote:Unfortunately, this also happens with some members of the Church who lose their bearings and become influenced by the cause of the moment—many of which are clearly not righteous.
That can apply to people inside or outside the church. THose that stay and attend church or those that go inactive. That is not only talking about those that are actively attending and paying tithing and holding a temple recommend.
Quote:In line with Heber C. Kimball’s prophecy, Elder Neal A. Maxwell said in 1982: “Much sifting will occur because of lapses in righteous behavior which go unrepented of. A few will give up instead of holding out to the end. A few will be deceived by defectors. Likewise, others will be offended, for sufficient unto each dispensation are the stumbling blocks thereof!”
So…defectors could be the key term in that. Are all people who go inactive “defectors”? Why does that have to be?Have you ever met an inactive person of the church who is a gem and pure loving successful person who does not fight against the church, but has their reasons why they choose not to attend…with no hate for the church? I have. Are they defectors?
I will stop my thoughts now to get some reactions. But the rest of the talk could look very different from this perspective if we start to see that what Elder Cook could be meaning is a warning about losing the testimony towards goodness, and being overcome with hate and fear.
Sometimes we jump to the definition that stumbling blocks are active vs inactive. But just like his father saw that power pole differently than he did, and had a very different measure of value…so can we see individuals with very different values…and yet…still be true followers of CHrists’ teachings.
What do you all think about this?
What other parts of this talk make you think I cannot suggest this talk is anything but another call to dismiss intellectual approaches?
Can you challenge my interpretations of Elder Cook and his message?
Because for me….his talk says exactly what I hope everyone at church would see….that we see things differently, and should discuss that at church…not jump to one view and start judging others by that one view of things.
Have I started philosophizing too much that puts me in danger of my interpretations?
Interesting that you select this talk. I felt it was one of the two or three most unappealing talks from this most recent conference, I’d even call it personally offensive to me. Following your initial comments I suppose it’s a reflection of where I’m at. 
When I listen to a talk like this the gold nugget that I attempt to extract from it (via heavy nuancing) gets buried under the rubble of how I imagine the talk will be interpreted and used by my community (church members). My fears were well founded in this case, as soon as the session was over I saw several posts in my social media feeds that highlighted this particular talk and used the talk as a tool to attack members whose beliefs didn’t align perfectly with the brethren, the exact opposite of your takeaway from the story at the beginning of the talk. As a side note, I hate it when my cynical side gets validated.
I love the contradiction created by his story about the power pole obstructing his view. He laments how the power pole obstructs his view but his father sees something completely different. Cook realizes that the pole was a stumbling block to his happiness… then he goes on to explain things that are stumbling blocks to having a valiant testimony in Jesus. Hold on a second, what would Cook’s father say about his son’s new list of complaints? You know what, let’s go ahead and make a substitution, Cook’s father… so like god or something? God might have a good chuckle over this talk, point out all the benefits to the things Cook mentions as being stumbling blocks for the saints.
One more point about the story, you can have your power pole and your view; it’s not an either or thing if you plan ahead, maybe build the house at a different angle, put the “view window” on a different side of the house, or change the location of the pole to be on a different side of the house. Maybe it only becomes an issue if someone in the house wants an unspoiled view and someone else in the house really wants a view of the power pole. That may be the point, making those compromises when there are direct conflicts. Not every conflict has a resolution that makes everyone happy.
Quote:Heber C. Kimball was one of the original Twelve Apostles of this dispensation and First Counselor to President Brigham Young. He warned: “The time is coming when …
it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy to the people of God. Then … look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall.” He concluded that there is “a TEST coming.” In our day, the influence of Christianity in many countries, including the United States, is significantly reduced. Without religious beliefs, there is no feeling of accountability to God. Accordingly, it is hard to establish universal values about how to live. Philosophies which are deeply held often conflict with each other.
Unfortunately, this also happens with some members of the Church who lose their bearings and become influenced by the cause of the moment—many of which are clearly not righteous.
In line with Heber C. Kimball’s prophecy, Elder Neal A. Maxwell said in 1982: “Much sifting will occur because of lapses in righteous behavior which go unrepented of. A few will give up instead of holding out to the end.
A few will be deceived by defectors. Likewise, others will be offended, for sufficient unto each dispensation are the stumbling blocks thereof!” Emphasis added. I see you quoted some of the same passages, my take was different. I see the underlined portions as creating mistrust among the saints, as something that drives the behavior where members of the church feel like they’ve got to be completely homogeneous in belief and people that do not agree with the brethren on all points are the enemy. Why do I mention not agreeing with the brethren specifically?
Quote:Gospel extremism is when one elevates any gospel principle above other equally important principles and takes a position that is beyond or contrary to the teachings of Church leaders.
Quote:Speaking of important doctrine, the Lord has declared, “Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me.” When we elevate any principle in a way that lessens our commitment to other equally important principles or take a position contrary to or which exceeds teachings of Church leaders, we are looking beyond the mark.
Why does he make the focus “church leaders” why not Christ himself? I see it as another example of how we tend to conflate god, the church, Christ, and church leaders. We use these words interchangeably but we should take more care about which words are used and when. Sometimes looking beyond the mark places our gaze directly at church leaders.
I think people will misinterpret Cook’s meaning, which I guess is “personal interpretations are fine, just don’t preach your personal interpretations as if they are god’s will for all people.” Does this same concept apply to apostles as well? Or does it cease to be a personal revelation and become revelation for everyone once the Q15 are all in agreement? Or does that mean that it’s still a personal revelation but now it applies to a group of 15? Does it only apply to the church as a whole once common consent has been invoked?
Why church leaders? That “mark” sounds like a very low bar. Can we look to god instead (personal revelation that is not in agreement with the brethren – the scenario where someone wants to see the power pole and someone else does not) or is that looking beyond the mark?
Quote:In addition, some members elevate causes, many of which are good, to a status superior to basic gospel doctrine. They substitute their devotion to the cause as their first commitment and relegate their commitment to the Savior and His teachings to a secondary position. If we elevate anything above our devotion to the Savior, if our conduct recognizes Him as just another teacher and not the divine Son of God, then we are looking beyond the mark. Jesus Christ is the mark!
Yes, Jesus is the mark. Why wasn’t that said earlier in place of the “contrary to church leaders” stuff.
And no. Are we not the body of Christ? The foot can specialize in being a foot. The eye can focus (pun) on being an eye. The brain can concentrate (another pun) on being the brain. If we were all equally good at everything there would be no need for a community at all. Is it possible to play to our strengths IN Christ, then come together to meet the needs of the community. Perhaps dedicating our lives to a cause
is the very way we show devotion to the Savior. I’m sorry if that ain’t always the church or whatever the theme of the year is being pushed at the time (hasten the work, sabbath day observance, etc.) . Ugh.
I suppose church leaders are the brain, the people that direct the body to ensure that it is functioning in harmony, and the issue is that the brain gets upset when cells that are destined to be feet start acting like the brain? Help me out here.
I could say more about this talk but I’m already halfway into writing a novel. I’ll shut up now.
Now that I think about it some more… One takeaway could be: how does this talk apply to me, not how does this talk apply to other people, and I fell right into that trap didn’t I ? I should focus on how to remove this talk as a personal stumbling block for me instead of worrying how to remove this talk as a stumbling block for other church members. It’s the same coin and different sided it.
😳 I think the beginnings is recognizing that other people, like Cook’s father, hold different views. Some people truly need church leaders to form a connection with god. That isn’t a bad thing or even a lesser alternative. How could something that connects us to the divine be bad or lesser?
Carry on.
:thumbup: Nibbler…great comments. I don’t think it was a trap, but you are helping make my point exactly.
I can be taken both ways because the point he makes at the beginning is exactly that….the power pole to one person is a stumbling block, to another is a symbolic representation of good things.
I have no doubts how you were offended by it was because the obvious and straight forward interpretation which most church members will take from the talk, and likely even the intent of Elder Cook.
But when I parse the words, and use the story of the power pole … I do see the things he is saying to be fine with my views.
When I focus on Christ and not putting approval of others or church leaders, it helps me find common ground on the teachings.
I love the idea that stumbling blocks are there for everyone.
I do not know if I can successfully communicate it to others who start with a sure belief they are right, and I am philosophizing as warned in the talk.
But I think that is their stumbling block.
I can embrace gospel truth as I see it.
Let me go back to this thought again:
Quote:A stumbling block is “an impediment to belief or understanding” or “an obstacle to progress.” To stumble spiritually is “to fall into sin or waywardness.” A stumbling block can be anything that distracts us from achieving righteous goals.
He goes on to ask “What are some of the stumbling blocks?”
Quote:Historically, and in our own day, some people reject the gospel of Jesus Christ because, in their view, it doesn’t have adequate intellectual sophistication.
In my opinion, the stumbling block that keeps the church from progressing is how they shun groups of people, and make some feel unwelcome in our church.They over emphasized message to cling to the past and the past leaders and prophets words, and not adapt quick enough in our time. It took too long for the blacks and the priesthood to get corrected. They are now struggling with homosexual definitions and families. They are excommunicating intellectuals like the september six. They have placed stumbling blocks in front of women in the church so they are not on equal ground.
Those are stumbling blocks from the church being better than it should be.
My hope is that it will course correct sooner rather than later. But change it will. It has to.
I believe the true message of Jesus Christ is that all are welcome, come as you are. Making some feel unwelcome to be a part of the group is a stumbling block to that.
When I try to come up with what’s at the heart of my problem with this talk I come up with: We’re so busy trying to point out ways that other people stumble that we fail to notice the stumbling blocks in our own path.
Yes, I’m fully aware of the hypocritical nature of my statement.
:crazy: After your “eyes have been opened”, you realize truth is very personal and may encompass only parts of our religion. So, in a way, are there any stumblingblocks if you open the meaning of truth to ideas that are outside of the LDS religion? Or as truth representing a subset of our religion, but not all of it? I think my intellectualism and intelligence has confirmed to me that not all of our religion is truth. Did prophets, you are never to lead us astray, pan blacks from the priesthood for decades thinking it was doctrine, only to disavow it in the new millenium? Yes!!! That means that all part of our religion are up for scrutiny. And when you take the article of faith that all men have the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience, you realize that the GA’s are famous for saying you have to believe it all, that your beliefs can’t conflict with the priesthood intepretation, etcetera. It comes off as narrow minded.
The fact that they constantly poo poo academics and intellectuals is also a problem. We are not always right, but we do have truth I believe the church does not — or will not accept. Even simple, non-doctrinal truths about the best way to run an organization, or to solve practical matters that affect people in the church. We are not allowed, officially, to bring all this into our lessons.
But if we share something that supports the party-line, then no one will objective. It is very closed-minded in my view. And I am no longer offended by pot shots at intellectuals and academics. To me, it only confirms that we have deficiencies in the way we interpret the meaning of truth, where we get our truth from, and the top-down nature of our organization on many matters that are simply not verifiable.
No offence taken by the talk, even the GA’s are growing in their understanding, as am I. And in the end, when we have more information about the state of the soul after death, and the experience of life at that time, perhaps both myself, and the GA’s will have revised our paradigm of truth…
SD
One of the things that puzzles me in the Church is how certain aspects of Church History are taught, contrary to what is found in old church documents, journals, letters, and even what is written in The History of the Church/Journal of Discourses. One of my favorite Church movies was “Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration”, until I realized how historically altered that movie was, in order to invite a greater measure of the “spirit”. I’m also not a fan of Church leaders and members hushing up anything that disagrees with them. My wife did this to me once, holding up “Joseph Smith: A Rough Stone Rolling”, and said, “You trust THIS over what is taught by Church leaders?” I told her I do. It is backed up by hard, thorough, factual research into Joseph Smith. I can look up any of the sources. I also know I am capeable of being decieved by “good feelings”, into believing something is right, when it turns out to be wrong. I told her I would happy revise my position, as soon as new, adequate information presented itself. I believe any honest seeker of truth and peace, deserves to be heard. By pondering things through, by studying, and by prayer, it is the ONLY way to determine what is truth.
SilentDawning wrote:you realize truth is very personal and may encompass only parts of our religion.
I agree with you SD. Do you find if you say that too harshly, or too critical of the church…that is where the TBM crowd would tell you it is YOUR stumbling block?
There seems to be this ground that is difficult to negotiate with others telling me I am using philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.
Perhaps the best visual is the Venn Diagram…and when there is overlap we agree on…I see truth outside, and I see some things inside their circle I don’t think are truth. And those are the sticky areas to discuss with others.
But…boiling it down to Christ and his teachings…as Elder Cook was talking about…I whole-heartedly agree that there becomes a personal nature to the truth…and it become a matter of how one applies it and lives it.
dande48 wrote:One of the things that puzzles me in the Church is how certain aspects of Church History are taught, contrary to what is found in old church documents, journals, letters, and even what is written in The History of the Church/Journal of Discourses.
I agree, dande48. And the more in depth I study things, the less certainty I think there is. I guess I just go back to the church crowd and think that they are trying to express something. Perhaps all facts aren’t known or details correct, but they are are trying to make a point about a teaching. And I focus on that, not the details. The certainty they have, that they express, and want to hear…is certainty of faith and interpretation and meaning over and above details and facts.
Quote:I’m also not a fan of Church leaders and members hushing up anything that disagrees with them.
To me, that is immature, nothing against church leaders or your wife or anyone else…just simply that approach to an extreme is authoritative. A more healthy and mature approach is being transparent and open, and let things take their course based on truth.
Quote:I believe any honest seeker of truth and peace, deserves to be heard. By pondering things through, by studying, and by prayer, it is the ONLY way to determine what is truth.
I agree. However, I have learned that my study and prayer and personal revelation can be sacred and difficult to express to others. Again, I look for common ground to stand on, the gospel principles of love and service and acceptance.
It gets messy when you get into specific detailed circumstances like divorce, homosexuality, and what is sin and what is not. We need charity to know how to talk to others and share our opinions and process theirs. It takes wisdom to know how to apply teachings to circumstances. I don’t have the answers. I just don’t think Elder Cook’s talk only means one thing…especially when it starts with the analogy of his father and the power pole. It is open to perspectives.
The struggle between my view and others is exactly what church is for…to practice the religion by discussing things we cannot know for sure…we only have faith and hope, and then have to act charitably in the mists of darkness we live in.
Quote:We’re so busy trying to point out ways that other people stumble that we fail to notice the stumbling blocks in our own path.
This is spot-on, profound, and critical to anyone trying to work through a faith crisis/transition/development.
Motes and beams and all that jazz.
Old Timer wrote:Motes and beams and all that jazz.
:thumbup:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.