A Tough Recipe?

[Anonymous]

He didn’t ask that question and get an answer. He said, explicitly and directly, he was sharing his own personal opinion. Members, being human and absolutists, turned it into a commandment.

“We” do that all the time. It is a “natural” tendency we are supposed to change, but is a hard one to eliminate – and it shows up in just about every aspect of life among mist people, inside and outside the church.

[Anonymous]

Agaetis wrote:

So I sat in Sunday School yesterday listening to the lesson and the teacher asked a question: what are some modern day commandments? People began to say things like, piercings, tattoos, food store, and so forth. This had me thinking… so the prophet enter into the Holy of Holies and walks out with “girls should only have one earring in each ear.” This seems like the God of Lost Keys testimony I hear every FS. Why is God finding your keys but didn’t save the life of my nephew after I prayed for his safety?

Here’s the thing. The story is JS directly translate the Book of Abraham from papyri using the power of God. Then the church used the PR department to announce that, nope, both church and non-church Egyptologists agree it’s not a true translation. Where is the prophet in all this? Why didn’t he author that essay saying he’s brought the matter before the lord and here is what the lord spoke? Then we add it to D&C right? Why is he asking the lord about women’s jewelry and not about our core doctrine of belief?

I agree with Ray here. Pres. HInckley never said one set of earrings was a commandment nor did he claim it was revelation. What it was quite obviously was his own opinion. It actually sickens me that so many members take every word said by the prophet and make them commandments, as if it were as you described (going into the Holy of Holies and having a conversation with the Lord). I have heard members claim changing the missionary age change was revelation. Really? Truth is the last major revelation the prophet received (OD2) was really received in the same way the rest of us get revelation – it was just a good feeling, nothing else. We had two car key like testimonies yesterday (one was actually car keys, the other a boat) and I ask myself the question all the time – why would he help this guy find a boat because they want to go fishing but he let the Nazis kill millions of Jews? Don’t they realize how ridiculous this sounds?

Frankly, I don’t believe the current prophet asks the Lord anything. I do like the Pres. Monson talks a lot about loving our neighbors, but I don’t think that’s really inspired, it’s just him giving a good message. We’re not going to hear him talk about any of the essays, it would shake the tree too much.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

He didn’t ask that. He said, explicitly and directly, he was sharing his own personal opinion. Members, being human and absolutists, turned it into a commandment.

“We” do that all the time. It is a “natural” tendency we are supposed to change, but is a hard one to eliminate – and it shows up in just about every aspect of life among mist people, inside and outside the church.

Sure I was being hyperbolic about entering the Holy of Holies, but it’s gods commandment for us to follow the prophet. By not following the prophets guidance and tattooing ones leg, are you not breaking the lords commandments?

I find it hard to swallow that people took is as Hinckley just doesn’t like tattoos or piercings. The prophet and the counsel of the twelve took a clear position on this. I’d suggest reading Pres. Hinckley’s 2000 talk one more time.

My real concern is no relevant revelation when so much is needed.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I agree with Ray here. Pres. HInckley never said one set of earrings was a commandment nor did he claim it was revelation. What it was quite obviously was his own opinion. It actually sickens me that so many members take every word said by the prophet and make them commandments, as if it were as you described (going into the Holy of Holies and having a conversation with the Lord).

I have to respectfully disagree. Mormon.org specifically states following the prophet is a commandment, and by re-reading Pres. Hinckley 2000 talk I do not think it’s an opinion piece. It’s a pretty brutal talk at some points.

DarkJedi wrote:

Frankly, I don’t believe the current prophet asks the Lord anything. I do like the Pres. Monson talks a lot about loving our neighbors, but I don’t think that’s really inspired, it’s just him giving a good message. We’re not going to hear him talk about any of the essays, it would shake the tree too much.

This I do agree with. I just think it’s insane that they can come out and admit some of our core doctrine isn’t true and somehow avoid the fact that our living prophet has nothing to say of the matter. For me it’s brought me to the conclusion that I can no longer sustain the leaders of the church and specifically the Pres. Monson. Which is a shame, I remember being so excited as a kid to listen to him during conference.

[Anonymous]

I once thought i couldn’t sustain the prophet, too. Then i figured out what sustain means. And is it really God’s commandment that we follow the prophet?

[Anonymous]

Agaetis wrote:

Mormon.org specifically states following the prophet is a commandment

I disagree with Mormon.org. Following that logic there would be a steady creep until everything the prophets says would be vital for the salvation of your soul. Watching every session of GC a commandment????

Agaetis wrote:

This I do agree with. I just think it’s insane that they can come out and admit some of our core doctrine isn’t true and somehow avoid the fact that our living prophet has nothing to say of the matter. For me it’s brought me to the conclusion that I can no longer sustain the leaders of the church and specifically the Pres. Monson. Which is a shame, I remember being so excited as a kid to listen to him during conference.

There are change agent leaders and there are status quo leaders. Both of which can be inspired. I believe that most of the revelation the church currently recieves follows the council method (as in a group of people collaborating for solutions). That doesn’t necessarily mean that an individual can’t sustain the leadership. Especially when “sustain” at its lowest level could mean simply to acknowledge their legitimate right to hold office and to respect the office that they hold. Prophets don’t necessarily speak the direct word of God. Maybe they never did.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I once thought i couldn’t sustain the prophet, too. Then i figured out what sustain means. And is it really God’s commandment that we follow the prophet?

According to the church, following the prophet is God’s commandment.

http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/commandments

I would also venture to guess that part of Ezra Taft Bensons # 6 of the Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet is fairly obvious.

6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.

But isn’t this part of today’s issues? A bunch of powerful men or arms of the church all claiming gospel? Benson announced those fundamentals before he was prophet and it wasn’t very well received by Kimball. McConkie and Mormon Doctrine, obviously contriversial yet still taught today. Why isn’t the hand of the prophets inserting their voice in any of it?

[Anonymous]

Agaetis, if you want my brutally frank opinion, you are arguing here with people who don’t care if the majority of members view things like you have described.

Also, it is simply incorrect to say that Pres. Hinckley framed the earring advice as anything but his opinion and that something stated as a personal opinion equals divine command. That line of thought doesn’t fly here, since it obviously is taking something and twisting it beyond recognition. Sure, lots of members do that, but I KNOW there are lots and lots of members who would laugh at the idea that the earring and tattoo advice is divine command – and they are solid, regular, “faithful”, completely active members.

Let me say this as clearly as I can:

Pres. Hinckley said it was his own, personal opinion. If someone wants to “follow the prophet” in this case, that person will accept what he said and see it as his personal opinion. Anyone who changes what he said so clearly into it being a divine command is not following the prophet – and I don’t care who they are.

Finally, arguing here that following God means not wearing more than one pair of earrings is going to get disagreement from, probably, everyone else who participates here – and everyone who participates here knows there are lots of members who agree and lots who disagree. I don’t think you believe it is divine command, obviously, and nobody else here believes it either (and believes members who do believe it are wrong) – so let’s drop it, okay?

[Author]

Posts