- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
It lies in the fact that every single time a seemingly true doctrine or belief that the church once espoused is proved wrong or proved to have been misunderstood or what not, there is always some justification for it, some way of making it right. After awhile, these justifications just stretch the limits of credulity. As I have stated elsewhere I just find it difficult to believe that God would put us through such an incredible test if in fact the church is true. I mean accepting it as true goes beyond even accepting Christ as one’s savior. There seems to be all these hurdles one has to jump over in order to believe. It just gets tiring.
I agree. It does get fatiguing to always, always be exercising faith with nothing every really certain. And yet, in my own opinion, that seems to be part of the process. I get inspiration from weird sources at times. I was watching an episode of “Futurama” where one of the characters becomes a godlike entity for a race of small beings. He initially tries to help the beings and it ends badly. He then does absolutely nothing for the beings and it ends badly. This character comes across the real God and they have a conversation about his “god” experience. The “God” character says the following:
Quote:Being God isn’t easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch…when you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.
Is this truth? I don’t know for sure but it might explain the constant uncertainty that we always feel. We have an experience and we say, “God was involved with this…Yes, His hand was definitely there” and the time passes and we think about it and we ponder the event and we say to ourselves, “well maybe He wasn’t there. Was I imagining things? Gee, I’m not sure. I THINK He was involved but…”
Maybe it’s the same for our G.A’s. They do the best that they can with the some level of uncertainty always present. I’ll quote Hawkgirl:
Quote:Either way, I think people ultimately have to figure out for themselves. Everyone should find that balance between their own conscience and questioning the assumptions of their own thinking by giving credence to alternate ways of looking at things from church leaders. My biggest disappointment was that the 14 Fundamentals talk that was given twice in one GC was not refuted openly since it has been refuted elsewhere. Both extremes are dangerous, IMO – unquestioned authority and unquestioned personal assumptions. It’s the unquestioning part that’s a problem.
Ambiguity is simply a part of our existence. Some of us ignore it and assume that all the answers are black and white. Some of us struggle with it and wish for the answers to be black and white. Finally, some of us embrace ambiguity and are grateful that the answers we receive are not black and white. Where I fit depends on the day!
Thanks for the clarification, curt. I appreciate it and understand much better now. Also, thanks, everyone, for your comments. I can’t add more right now than what all of you said – except that I agree with cwald and have seen many leaders at the top prctically begging members to understand and embrace what cwald said. For example, some people complain that the apostles don’t want letters with questions sent directly to them – but I see it as them saying:
Quote:“We can’t answer most of your questions. They have to be answered ‘closer to home’ – ideally in your own heart and mind but with a local leader if you need leadership input. Local leaders, be in tune and help, if necessary! Be your own prophets in your own spheres and let us be prophets in our own spheres. Stop trying to mix and merge different spheres.”
hawkgrrrl wrote:Anyway, I think it’s a Catch-22 scenario. If we talk about prophets being fallible (which they obviously are and admit to) then it’s a slippery slope to say we don’t have to listen to what they say and we can do whatever we want (according to the dictates of our own conscience), and then there is no Mormon identity and no benefit from being in the church. The value prop goes away. Or we can pretend prophets are perfect and that we can never go astray if we do what they say because their advice is time-tested. Either way, I think people ultimately have to figure out for themselves. Everyone should find that balance between their own conscience and questioning the assumptions of their own thinking by giving credence to alternate ways of looking at things from church leaders.
I think you’ve expressed the issue well, HG.It feels like to me, that the individual must think for themselves, and decide with personal revelation what makes sense and what they can believe with integrity. But then publicly, sometimes we need to make concessions to allow the group to move in unity, believing there is a greater good, believing if it was left to everyone equally having a say, it would be chaos and nothing would get done, or there would be no Mormon identity. This means sustaining a leader that you may not agree with 100%, but not disagree with so much that you can’t sustain them…having faith God will make things right despite imperfect leaders, and acting so that you can stand before God with a clear conscience.
I hear Elder Christofferson saying, you will be blessed by doing what the prophet says, having faith they are
right enough(as much as we know at the time) to make it beneficial to follow them as a church group, but realize there will be times that they will be talking as a man and be wrong, and afterwards, we will tell you when they were wrong through continuous revelation of knowing more than we knew in the past. But it is still better to follow them when the teachings are given than to not follow them because they aren’t perfect or the teachings don’t hold up over time. Because it is paradoxical (they may not be 100% right, but it can be right to obey), I need to navigate carefully, not blindly. I need to decide to obey, but hold reservations of having my own opinions about it. I may publicly sustain them, while privately adapt what they say to what I can do with a good conscience. I need to be able to set my boundaries of what I won’t do, yet still sustain and be willing to focus on what I can do…and then do what I can do with great fervor and energy.
Heber13 wrote:It feels like to me, that the individual must think for themselves, and decide with personal revelation what makes sense and what they can believe with integrity. But then publicly, sometimes we need to make concessions to allow the group to move in unity, believing there is a greater good, believing if it was left to everyone equally having a say,
I hear Elder Christofferson saying, you will be blessed by doing what the prophet says, having faith they are
right enough(as much as we know at the time) to make it beneficial to follow them as a church group, but realize there will be times that they will be talking as a man and be wrong, and afterwards, we will tell you when they were wrong through continuous revelation of knowing more than we knew in the past. But it is still better to follow them when the teachings are given than to not follow them because they aren’t perfect or the teachings don’t hold up over time…… I need to decide to obey, but hold reservations of having my own opinions about it. I may publicly sustain them, … I would like to like this, to an extent…but it all falls apart. I still think this is what the follows of Warren Jeffs are doing. And to some extent, JS, when he was telling young ladies they needed to marry him or their exaltation was in jeopardy. BY taught that only those who lived polygamy would inherent the CK. etc etc.
(IN MY OPINION)The way polygamy was practiced was wrong
The priesthood ban was wrong
The ant-evolution stance was wrong
The Women and the priesthood doctrine is wrong
Adam-god was wrong
The doctrine about homosexuals is wrong
The anti feminists teachings were wrong
The current church Pharisaical practices and legalism is wrong.
The sexual immorality sin next to murder is wrong
I’m not following a prophet when they are wrong…period…just so the group can move in unity and so I can say I sustain them in their calling.
cwald wrote:Adam-god was wrong
Just to be a stick in the mud…What about the Adam-God doctrine makes it wrong? I honestly don’t think my life would be any different if the modern church believed this doctrine completely. I don’t think it is any more “knowable” than other speculation about the pre-mortal and post-mortal realms. Don’t get me wrong – I do not believe the Adam-God. I’m just not sure that my beliefs are any “better” than this one. I’m not sure how anyone gets hurt with this belief.
PS – Cwald, I’m good with the rest of your list.
Roy wrote:cwald wrote:Adam-god was wrong
Just to be a stick in the mud…What about the Adam-God doctrine makes it wrong? I honestly don’t think my life would be any different if the modern church believed this doctrine completely. I don’t think it is any more “knowable” than other speculation about the pre-mortal and post-mortal realms. Don’t get me wrong – I do not believe the Adam-God. I’m just not sure that my beliefs are any “better” than this one. I’m not sure how anyone gets hurt with this belief.
PS – Cwald, I’m good with the rest of your list.
Okay. I rescind the Adam god part of my quote, as I don’t want this to be a debate about that topic. I only included it because the prophets themselves have admitted adamantly that BY was wrong.
Cwald, your opinions of things are things of the past, things the church has already moved away from. So while I am with you that it can be problematic to see how prophets goofed in the past, if I take what was said in conference, they know they can’t explain those things, so it doesn’t seem to create a problem to say what you said (although publicly it will need tact and timing). For you to believe polygamy was wrong is no problem with current prophet messages. No one at church will discipline you or kick you out…most Mormons reject it. So, no problem.
It is ok to say they messed up with blacks and the priesthood. It has been changed, so many would agree.
What I’m trying to point out, is the conference talks are trying to open that door that they agree prophets are fallible, that things are not understood, that we don’t have to always and forever support everything a prophet says. So, for me, privately, I take that to heart and everything they say, I weigh against my conscience. Publicly, I can filter my comments and give on some things. Some I can’t budge on and that is where my boundaries have to be set.
Sometimes I see a fat guy whose suit jacket is busting buttons and it doesn’t look good. My personal opinion is he shouldn’t wear that jacket, my public opinion is I don’t need to voice that, so I keep it to myself.
We all have to use filters for our thoughts all the time.
Including when my personal opinions don’t match up with prophets’.
And I was glad to hear them acknowledge that prophets and churchleaders sometimes speak their personal opinions. The door is opened slightly for me to use it in my reconciliation strategies, so I agree with ALL of your opinions, and I don’t see a conflict with my ability to sustain the prophet.
The fact of the matter is that part of President Monson’s job is to put himself forward as the one person on earth who is the final arbiter of God’s will for all mankind, and the rest of the GA’s as final-arbiters-in-waiting. That’s the party line, and one that has served to keep the church in line, more or less, for a lot of years. And when the missionaries are trying to get someone to see the need to join the LDS church, one of the reasons they put forward is that we have a Prophet … the implication being that it’s someone who speaks for and with God, not someone who occupies the job in the church whose title happens to be “prophet”. So what’s it to be? “The Prophet speaks for God”, or “the prophet sometimes says things that are inspired, and sometimes he kind of shoots from the hip”? I know that there are plenty of statements out there that can be thought of as supporting the latter statement, such as the GC talk in question, but there are probably more that teach the former. The distinction is profound, and for me the foundational claims of the church hang in the balance of the outcome of such questions …which is primarily why I am where I’m at now.
For some reason the thought never occurred to me before, but at this GC it struck me that this is a singular claim to make … to be the spokesman for God. How would it feel to say that as if I really meant it? It must be a difficult thing to do … at least I hope it is. Do they mean it in the literal sense, the one taught in primary, by the missionaries, and in most instances in the church manuals? Or do they themselves have nuanced views of their roles as spokesmen for God, like the ones many of us have experienced when pronouncing priesthood blessings, for instance? Certainly some of the things that GBH said in public lead me to believe that this is the case.
Well Heber, I think we agree on many points. But not all Heber13 wrote:Cwald, your opinions of things are things of the past, things the church has already moved away from. …..
Hmmmm? The gay issue is not in the past. The feminist issue is not in the past. The Pharisaical and legalism is not in the past. Women and the priesthood is not in the past, abstaining from tea is not in the past….
I don’t think it’s ethical to follow the prophets teachings when they don’t feel right.
I think I can still “sustain” them and support them…but I’m not going to risk ruining my life by live “proverbial polygamy,” just because a prophet says it is the only way to get into the CK and tells me I have to it because he is the authority and leader of the church.
cwald, agreed, I meant to say “some of your opinions” are things of the past…not all, thanks for correcting that. cwald wrote:I don’t think it’s ethical to follow the prophets teachings when they don’t feel right.
+1
I also don’t think that because there are some things that don’t feel right, then none of the things prophets teach should be followed.
It seems like we may have to listen to a lot of opinions in order to periodically find
divine revelation. Quote:i assume from your language that you are in the latter category. some questions:
1. does the church have to be infallible in order to be “of god”?
2. what scriptural or historical precedent is there of an infallible church?
3. did peter, paul, and james agree on doctrine?
4. after the jerusalem accord, did peter, james, and paul stick to the accord in their teaching and practice?
5. what did paul say was the authority and doctrinal basis of the gospel he preached?
6. is divine revelation a precise process, resulting in an explicit and complete statement of doctrine?
7. is the process of seeking and receiving divine revelation any different for the prophet than any other person?
None of these questions matter except insofar as what the church has said about them. The church has claimed infallibility for its prophets and though perhaps that is changing it is not clear that it has. Further, if receiving divine revelation is not different for the prophet than for any other person, or more to the point, the prophet’s domain alone, what need is there for a prophet? I know one can come up with all kinds of reasoning as to why but so what? The church is led by a prophet or it is not. The church is true or it is not. The church placed itself in this trap, however led by divine revelation at one time or another it claims to have been.
curt wrote:wayfarer wrote:i assume from your language that you are in the latter category. some questions:
1. does the church have to be infallible in order to be “of god”?
2. what scriptural or historical precedent is there of an infallible church?
3. did peter, paul, and james agree on doctrine?
4. after the jerusalem accord, did peter, james, and paul stick to the accord in their teaching and practice?
5. what did paul say was the authority and doctrinal basis of the gospel he preached?
6. is divine revelation a precise process, resulting in an explicit and complete statement of doctrine?
7. is the process of seeking and receiving divine revelation any different for the prophet than any other person?
None of these questions matter except insofar as what the church has said about them. The church has claimed infallibility for its prophets and though perhaps that is changing it is not clear that it has. Further, if receiving divine revelation is not different for the prophet than for any other person, or more to the point, the prophet’s domain alone, what need is there for a prophet? I know one can come up with all kinds of reasoning as to why but so what? The church is led by a prophet or it is not. The church is true or it is not. The church placed itself in this trap, however led by divine revelation at one time or another it claims to have been.
as i see it, each person in their respective calling has the ‘keys’ of receiving revelation respective to their stewardship. For me, my stewardship is as a parent and husband, and as such I am entitled to receive revelation relevant to my family. If I am in a calling, such as a teacher or a counselor, then I receive revelation for that calling as well. A bishop for a ward, and so forth, to the prophet for the church. This is what ‘priesthood’ means, in a way: hierarchy. So, if I have a ‘revelation’ about something, the applicability of that revelation only applies to my stewardship. I cannot declare my revelation to the church, ward, or even another person unless that person is in my stewardship.In a very direct sense, the concept of consecration — that I am willing to make holy my time, talents, and everything the lord has blessed me with to supporting our community of saints, has to be coupled with a model of leadership, hierarchal as it were, but more as stewards than as dictators. Our leaders must be both servants and capable of revelation for their calling. the key to living a zion society is this fundamental principle of consecration and stewardship.
Now you say that either the church is true or it isn’t. What is ‘true’ in your definition; and how does a church, led as it is by flawed humans, ever approach an absolute ideal of truth and perfection? If it isn’t perfect, it’s completely ‘not true’? Does that make any sense?
I believe, firmly, that the church is led by a prophet. it’s a title. It’s a calling. More importantly, it’s a stewardship. President Monson has a responsibility to serve the entire church, to seek inspiration as to what he is to say and do in this calling. We empower him by our ‘consecration’, but our sustaining vote, and the willingness to give heed and consideration to his word. It’s how it works. I do not in any way believe that his method of receiving revelation differs in the slightest from yours or mine. He can be wrong. He can be guided by a mix of bias and inspiration. But he is the ONLY one who has the authority to exercise all priesthood keys and provide revelation for the entire church. As long as I consider myself a member of the church, that is a basic principle of my consecration, my membership.
I should note that were I a catholic, I would have the same opinion of the Pope, and would recognize him as the vicar of Christ on this earth, the only one in whom is trusted the keys of Peter as manifest in the catholic church. It’s a title, a calling, and a stewardship as well. But it’s not my tribe, not my church, so I do not consecrate my time, talents, and so forth to the catholic church, and the declarations of the pope are not part of my consideration at this point.
Your original post said something about ‘who are they kidding?’. to that post I responded with my questions, all of which you simply said didn’t matter. I believe that they do matter, because in the end, the church has power over people as long as people give the church power. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It’s both. Having a structure and hierarchy — a community with some degree of direction, is helpful to most of us as we navigate our Way through this life. I’m sure we’d agree that the church has taken that power to the bank, and now exercises ‘unrighteous dominion’ when it declares infallability of the prophets (or sort-of-kind-of). But there is a use for the hierarchy, and to reject it all just because it isn’t perfect is in my impression just as wrong-headed as the declaration of infallability by the leaders.
There is a better Way: take what I need, and leave the rest.
If they are right they are right and if they are wrong well they are wrong. There in no middle ground where the leaders get to pick and choose what is revelation and what is not. My point has always been what value are their comments if we never know for sure? Sure we can look back in time and say polygamy was wrong and many will agree. But what about my life here and now. IN 100 years are they going to say tithing was was wrong the way it was practiced and yet I would spend my whole life living the law now. NO if you are going to claim revelation you need to be willing to say you are correct 100% of the time no if or buts, and you need to be correct 100% of the time. Otherwise live with the fact that you just give advice based on thoughtful and insightful study or reflection or age or whatever, just don’t claim it is revelation and it is the will of God. That is what nut jobs and crazy people do. Quote:“if you are going to claim revelation you need to be willing to say you are correct 100% of the time no if or buts, and you need to be correct 100% of the time.”
This is where we simply disagree, Cadence – and I use myself as an example.
I have said and written many things that I believe were inspired – and I believe strongly that some of them have been revelation. I have done some things based on what I perceived at the time to be revelatory – and some of them, in hindsight, aren’t as clear as I thought at the time. However, the fact that some of them are somewhat suspect to me now doesn’t invalidate at all those about which I have no doubt. Iow, I’m not perfect by any stretch at knowing if some things are or are not revelation, but the fact that I am wrong sometimes doesn’t mean I’m wrong other times.
I know the skeptic’s response – that my certainty in some experiences still is not true knowledge. My only response is that I really have had a few experiences where there simply is no doubt that they were revelatory in nature. I have received divine revelation – at times, and I have confused others for divine revelation – at times. I would hope the percentage breakdown would be better for those we sustain as apostles and prophets, but I don’t expect the basic situation to be different fundamentally – given my belief in how God works with their children.
Cadence wrote:If they are right they are right and if they are wrong well they are wrong. There in no middle ground where the leaders get to pick and choose what is revelation and what is not. My point has always been what value are their comments if we never know for sure? Sure we can look back in time and say polygamy was wrong and many will agree. But what about my life here and now. IN 100 years are they going to say tithing was was wrong the way it was practiced and yet I would spend my whole life living the law now. NO if you are going to claim revelation you need to be willing to say you are correct 100% of the time no if or buts, and you need to be correct 100% of the time. Otherwise live with the fact that you just give advice based on thoughtful and insightful study or reflection or age or whatever, just don’t claim it is revelation and it is the will of God. That is what nut jobs and crazy people do.
how do equate the behavior of peter and paul in acts to this absolute “all right or all wrong” position? no human has ever been infallible.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.