- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Yeah, I do think that is what she would have to do in addition to not teaching any of her ideas about ordination again. I don’t see that happening. And I do think these things will be sorted out with great love, mercy, and grace in the after life. Given how far she went, and given that it seems she believes she did nothing wrong, I don’t have any faith in her decision being overturned. I don’t think she would have to renounce everything she has said, but I do think she would have to disassociate with Ordain Women and the pseudo-missionary lessons they created, as well as commit not to protest at General Conference again. I don’t think she is willing to do that. Of course, that is total supposition on my part. I could be totally wrong on either or both counts.
I also believe God looks at most of these things far differently than we generally do.
You know,..I am going to say something parenthetically here…. I’ve been open I am an X-ed member. I had some underlying “seething” anger and frustration that fueled rebellion. The most fundamental part of that was having unanswered questiones that would not be answered. They were “oh,…you dont’ need to know that…you just need to have faith”. I was stuck into stage 3 thinking up to the hairs of my head…and when I was ripped out of that hole, what a mess.
But, this overarching position of ignoring questions that many raise, refusing to make doctrinal corrections to others, and the overall inability to apologize when mistakes have been made, is something that hurts the church imho.
I will be OK. Why?…because I am through the infallibility stuff. But it is still being taught.
And, I was astonished when I realized the first time that my whole life when I heard the message “follow the prophet, he knows the way”, what I was also hearing is “you don’t need to follow Jesus,..you have the prophet”. WOW!
I know of nobody in the LDS Church who says or believes following the prophet means not following Jesus – or that any prophet was or is more important than Jesus – or that Jesus is unnecessary in any way. I am certain that such a message is not what was intended by anyone saying we need to follow the prophet. We have a serious issue in the Church with prophet adulation and near worship, but it doesn’t go that far and never has.
Practical infallibility is taught by many people, including some leaders at all levels. It is wrong. Period. It does not replace Jesus, however, in the heart of any member I have ever met – or read – or heard speak.
Old-Timer wrote:I know of nobody in the LDS Church who says or believes following the prophet means not following Jesus – or that any prophet was or is more important than Jesus – or that Jesus is unnecessary in any way. I am certain that such a message is not what was intended by anyone saying we need to follow the prophet.
We have a serious issue in the Church with prophet adulation and near worship, but it doesn’t go that far and never has.
Practical infallibility is taught by many people, including some leaders at all levels. It is wrong. Period. It does not replace Jesus, however, in the heart of any member I have ever met – or read – or heard speak.
It is tricky, however, to shift faith from someone you can see and hear with your eyes and ears, to someone who is more difficult to see and hear (through the veil).
The Israelites told Moses that they wanted him to be the mouth of God because they were afraid to turn to God,..the prophet was enough for them in that situation. That trend might play a role more than we care to admit. As least I see it as possibly doing that…..in our time.
I agree with that completely, Rob4Hope. Well said.
Rob4Hope wrote:The Israelites told Moses that they wanted him to be the mouth of God because they were afraid to turn to God,..the prophet was enough for them in that situation. That trend might play a role more than we care to admit. As least I see it as possibly doing that…..in our time.
That could explain a lot of things in our church today, including why God doesn’t correct prophets and make them perfect.I wonder on judgment day, what God will think is worse….apostate honestly striving to do what that person thinks is right…or the automaton obedient who doesn’t care to think about what is right.
Heber13 wrote:
That could explain a lot of things in our church today, including why God doesn’t correct prophets and make them perfect.
The fact that God doesn’t correct His prophets has been extremely disturbing. I never considered until a few years ago that the doctrine that the prophet will never lead the church astray was ITSELF a false doctrine.
Because of this “doctrine”….for a long time, I wrestled with blacks and salvation before 1978. I felt, for example, that perhaps black babies who died before 8 years old must somehow not be “valiant” (as I was taught), and therefore were cast off. But, if that was the case, what other doctrines didn’t apply?
Well, prophets never made mistakes, and those racial statements were doctrine, so there it was. But,…how DARE the church come along and disavow those?!
Oh,…they disavowed those “other” statements,..but those made before 1978,…well, those were correct because God makes no mistakes with doctrine…or does He?
This particular FC issue didn’t shake my faith in prophets, it shook my faith in God himself. Pretty frightening when an idea has been ingrained so heavily.
I feel like I have been driven to choose between infallibility, and calling into question everything I have ever been taught.
Question now is how, when I am hopefully in a position in my future to be asked this, will I answer the temple recommend question about the prophet of God being the only spokesman for the Lord on the earth?
You have another choice: Become an agent unto yourself, working within the field of Mormomism / the LDS Church. Reject a black-and-white, all-or-nothing paradigm and learn to muddle in the middle with acceptance and even relish it despite how much more work it is.
That is an explicit message of the Book of Mormon, and it is central to the LDS concept of eternal progression and the Plan of Salvation.
“No pain, no gain” is considered a truism for a reason.
Rob4Hope wrote:Question now is how, when I am hopefully in a position in my future to be asked this, will I answer the temple recommend question about the prophet of God being the only spokesman for the Lord on the earth?
As you work through your stuff, remember to check your questions. Sometimes it is not if God is giving answers as much as if you are asking the right questions.It is helpful to know the real question being asked in the TR interview…which is not if the prophet is the only spokesman for the Lord on the earth. THe question is:
Quote:2. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
That is a difference in the question, which I think is important when thinking how you would answer an interviewer. That is also a different thread to discuss, or build off the temple recommend discussion threads already in the archives.
One of the reasons I try to be as precise as possible in the words I use is to avoid being misunderstood. That is the same reason I try to be as precise and accurate as possible when I talk about what other people say – to avoid misrepresenting them. It is a case of the Golden Rule: If I complain when others mis-state what I say, I ought to do my best not to mis-state what they say. Generalizations and summaries tend to be rife with misrepresentation, so, whenever possible (when quotes are readily available), I try to avoid them.
I would suggest you try to start doing the same thing, since much of what I have seen in your comments thus far is difficulty based on misrepresentations. We all do it naturally, so please don’t take that as a personally unique criticism. I still do it sometimes, even though I have been working hard at not doing it for multiple decades. I’m not saying all of this is your fault – or that the LDS Church is all sunshine and roses and rainbows – or that you are wrong or bad in any way for struggling with lots of things – or anything like that. I’m just saying you have been very imprecise and, as a result, inaccurate in quite a bit of what you have said in multiple threads and comments – and focusing more carefully on understanding what something really says and doesn’t say is a good way to begin learning to craft your own faith elements that can allow you to begin finding peace and joy with some degree of involvement with the Church.
So, going back to the title question of this post, I would say that apostate is the worst word in Mormonism –
except when it isn’t– to some people – with caveats about repentance in this life and temple work allowing changes to occur in the next life – depending on the particular definition of the word someone means – etc. There are lots of disclaimers and modifiers that impact the “badness” of the words we use, and this is a very good example. Ray, i’m not sure if your comment was directed my way…but if so, I’m not offended. I disagree with part of it…but that is not for here. Anyway,..I want to address Heber’s quote, and then I promise to take this to the proper thread where it is germane to the thread content. Heber13 wrote:Rob4Hope wrote:Question now is how, when I am hopefully in a position in my future to be asked this, will I answer the temple recommend question about the prophet of God being the only spokesman for the Lord on the earth?
As you work through your stuff, remember to check your questions. Sometimes it is not if God is giving answers as much as if you are asking the right questions.It is helpful to know the real question being asked in the TR interview…which is not if the prophet is the only spokesman for the Lord on the earth. THe question is:
Quote:2. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
That is a difference in the question, which I think is important when thinking how you would answer an interviewer. That is also a different thread to discuss, or build off the temple recommend discussion threads already in the archives.
Heber, are you saying that the #2 question you quoted actually means the prophet is NOT the only spokesman for the Lord?…that this is NOT what is said here?
I would be grateful for clarification, but I think the point was missed. The “generalization” I made, though not precise as Ray suggested would avoid problems, says exactly what I intended. It actually WAS precise.
The quote above has specific wording.
If the prophet is the
“only”authorized person to exercise all priesthood keys, and he is “the prophet, seer and revelator”… You used the word ‘the’in there Heber–singular,..this does not disqualify him as other than the only spokesman for the Lord on the earth–it establishes it. He is the ONLY person who can reveal new scripture for the church (which is a key function), and only in the church can new scripture “or revelation” be canonized. Yep…he is it. He is the only spokesman for the whole world for the Lord. Sorry this has been confusing…but I said exactly what I meant. This was not a generalization, it is the specific point I struggle with. And, it is directly included for me in the specific wording of #2. Make sense?
Now,..off to the other topic thread where this is more germane…
Rob, this is good dialogue…thanks for engaging so kindly with your words and thoughts. Rob4Hope wrote:If the prophet is the
“only”authorized person to exercise all priesthood keys, I’m with you here…we are both in agreement those are the words asked in the interview…
Quote:and he is “the prophet, seer and revelator…”
Yes, yes…that is what is being asked for a temple recommend…still in agreement…
Quote:You used the word
‘the’in there Heber–singular,..this does not disqualify him as other than the only spokesman for the Lord on the earth–it establishes it. He is the ONLY person who can reveal new scripture for the church (which is a key function), and only in the church can new scripture “or revelation” be canonized. Yep…he is it. He is the only spokesman for the whole world for the Lord.
Now we part ways with some ideas. You’ve inserted spokesman into the conversation. That word was not there before, nor is it required to be in there. OK…I see what you are saying and your interpretation is valid. I would think most people in church would completely agree with you.But to clarify my point…that is NOT what is asked in the interview. You are taking what is being asked, and you are putting your meanings in addition to the words being asked based on your assumptions and your experience in the church of what you’ve been taught to believe, which may not be wrong, except for the part where you state
Quote:He is the only spokesman for the whole world for the Lord.
.
In my opinion, there is a difference between being the only one to exercise all priesthood keys vs. the only one being a spokesman for God, or revealing new scripture or revelation.
For example…is Thomas S Monson the only one to reveal to the Hindu religious world what God wants them to do (Hindus are part of the world)? Is he their spokesman? Or does God not speak at all to Hindus, only to Mormons?
That is different than if Thomas S Monson has the priesthood keys to reveal changes to the temple ceremony, or add new D&C scripture, or change the priesthood to be given to women from now on, or change the Word of Wisdom.
Also…remember it is not necessarily singular as “the” prophet…because all the Q15 are sustained as that…aren’t they? There is some meaning to that also…perhaps the Q12 work as a quorum to exercise them, and the prophet can exercise them all himself, but I find meaning in knowing there is more than one prophet seer and revelator even within our own church.
Do you see the difference I’m drawing? The temple recommend question is about something specific on what I am asked to sustain the prophet to be. It is NOT to ask if God is the only spokesman for the world. It just is not what is asked. You and many other church people can choose to interpret or infer that meaning if you so wish, and that may not be “wrong”, but it is not the only interpretation, it is not my interpretation because it is not accurately and exactly or intently what I believe the question asks me.
By making that distinction, you may address some of your struggles with your faith because you no longer have to have it black and white, all Pres Monson for everything, or the church is all false and I can’t get a recommend. And it is not disingenuous or tricky or crafty…it is simply growing and become more exact with faith and what God wants me to have faith in, and what God is OK with me not believing.
I don’t believe the prophet is the only spokesman for God. I can think of all kinds of examples that is not true to me. And I can still believe in Mormonism and answer “YES” to TR Question #2, as it means to me and my God (the bishop doesn’t even have to agree with me…he is just there to facilitate…this is about my faith to God).
But…am I answering in a TR interview my commitment to TSM being the only one authorized to exercise all priesthood keys…yes…that is what I can commit to, or accept I shouldn’t hold a TR. Am I an apostate if I say “no”? Not necessarily. I just have different views and won’t have a recommend.
I am an apostate when I say I hold the keys instead of TSM. Or I don’t believe TSM is a prophet and the church is fallen and I will campaign against the church. Yes…those are apostate actions and the TR interviews try to filter those people out of the temple for good reason.
But I can be an active member of the church and not hold a temple recommend and not be an apostate. There are lots of gray areas to accept in the church.
Heber13 wrote:Do you see the difference I’m drawing?
Totally get you,…AND,…I am going to think long and hard about what you are saying as well….because it is an alternative perspective that makes sense.
Thanks mate. I appreciate the thoughtful response. Your message about the Hindu thing…that is very thought provoking. BY had some things to say about others having their prophets,…so there is precedence as well.
We define revelation as the word of God to humanity. Our Bible Dictionary says that anyone who speaks through the influence of the Holy Ghost is speaking revelation.
We teach that anyone can be influenced by the Holy Ghost and receive guidance from the Holy Ghost – and can speak what they receive.
This means we teach that anyone can speak for God, within their individual spheres of influence, regardless of religious affiliation – and even the most conservative members would say that all members can speak for God in their sphere.
Thus, the President of the Church cannot be the only spokesperson for God on Earth – unless someone defines that as meaning nobody else will be given NEW revelation that applies to everyone on Earth. That is different than being the only spokesperson for God on Earth for anyone.
Also, as Heber said, the temple recommend question doesn’t ask or imply that, when only the words themselves are analyzed void of cultural interpretation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.