- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:
I like Brian’s interpretation that the quote from THIS conference is for the major commandments
I like Brian’s interpretation too, but it just doesn’t feel like what Oaks was saying. He didn’t just refer to “Commandments from God” but also to “Counsel from Priesthood leaders” This opens it up for a very broad potential meaning.
Quote:He didn’t just refer to “Commandments from God” but also to “Counsel from Priesthood leaders” This opens it up for a very broad potential meaning.
If we did that all the time, we’d end up like Hal 9000, completely confused and demented.
I agree with flowerdrops. While I am totally on board with what Brian says about the major commandments and how going against those might be following inspiration from an evil source, I didn’t hear that at all as I listened to Elder Oaks. I felt that his words were condemning of my need to create my own path in this church. When he said that those who reject organized religion reject the master I felt angst. (well more than angst actually) and then my hubby and I had a strong disagreement over it. He agrees with Oaks on that statement and I disagree. And all of this just before we were to leave on a romantic getaway. sigh… We got over it quickly but I still don’t know what to do with these talks by Packer and Oaks. So while I am in a beautiful mountain landscape with time to myself while my husband attends a conference I’m going to try and seek guidance from the spirit. My heart tells me reject these two talks and move forward continuing on the path I had started. We’ll see if the spirit confirms that or not.
canadiangirl wrote:I agree with flowerdrops. While I am totally on board with what Brian says about the major commandments and how going against those might be following inspiration from an evil source, I didn’t hear that at all as I listened to Elder Oaks. I felt that his words were condemning of my need to create my own path in this church. When he said that those who reject organized religion reject the master I felt angst. .
Exactly.
I AGREE with Brian. I think Brian is CORRECT. But that IS NOT what Oaks he said. That is what someone who is trying to find a middle way within the church and willing to use their brain interpreted. You and I know that is not going to be the case with 85% of the membership. Here is a comment a posted on another thread – but really should be posted here.
Quote:Old-Timer wrote:President Packer’s talk was not in line with the actual published stance of the Church itself.
Is that what you are going to say next week when someone in Elder’s/HP Quorum starts quoting from it?
Seriously. We can make all the excuses and apologies we want here – but that doesn’t change the fact that the church just took a huge step backwards. And I actually like what is being said on this board. I think Brain said something like, “If you don’t think it is right,you don’t have to believe it.” That’s true, I don’t. All this is just fine and dandy, but l hope we don’t decide just to beat around the bush and start talking and apoligizing for happened within our organization this weekend, and saying that what was said actually wasn’t said or wasn’t meant to say. You and I, and EVERY other LDS member is going to have to live with the consequences EVERY Sunday for at LEAST the next six months. And don’t forget folks, Pres. Monson came out said as clearly as you can say — “there is no middle way.”
Anybody want to apologize for that one? What gets said from the podium at GC affects millions of people. What was said, IMO, was wrong. It will affect you and me, and it will make our membership all the more harder to endure — because I am NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT!
Brian – just a suggestion. Perhaps we should lock some of these threads since we have the same conversation going on in about 4 – finding it hard to follow my logic sometimes having to skip all over the place. Just a thought.
The part from Elder Oaks’ talk to which I was referring said that if we privilege the personal line over the priesthood line, “individualism erases divine authority.” If we privilege the priesthood line over the personal line, “individual growth suffers.”I have no problem with an interpretation that says those who constantly disobey accepted commandments by claiming they are exceptions (which is the actual wording Elder Oaks used, if I remember correctly) and constantly ignore their leaders’ counsel simply because they don’t want to accept “the Priesthood line” (which I think is what Elder Oaks was addressing) need to re-evaluate the source of their decisions. I wouldn’t attribute it to Satan, but I would attribute it to pride – and Elder Uchtdorf’s talk on pride addressed the basic point very well. Perhaps that’s me being overly optimistic, but it fits better, imo, the entire message of his talk than a statement that the Priesthood line trumps the personal line if there ever is a conflict. The rest of the talk simply doesn’t support that conclusion. So, I think he was addressing an extreme – one that happens OFTEN, frankly – of people who refuse to accept the existence and importance of a communal Priesthood line and insist on following ONLY their own personal line.
Can we disagree about some things and not be prideful? Absolutely. Can we disagree with and ignore everything (or even the majority of things) and not be prideful? In most cases, I think not. In some cases, with some leaders’ counsel, I think so (like some of the stuff cwald has shared) – but I think the combination of commandments AND counsel is hard to reject and ignore the majority of the time without pride being the fundamental issue.
cwald wrote:I AGREE with Brian. I think Brian is CORRECT. But that IS NOT what Oaks he said. That is what someone who is trying to find a middle way within the church and willing to use their brain interpreted.
Just to be clear. I was explaining how I process statements like those that Elder Oaks said, in as positive and charitable a way as I can, which is a stretch sometimes.
I think he meant what he said, the way he said it, which will be interpreted by a lot of people the way you guys describe.
I can control how I process it. I can’t control Elder Oaks (or those expressing similar viewpoints). I also can’t control how everyone else will use the ideas. I can influence people with my own perspective, if I choose, to a limited extent. That’s about it.
Several thousand people a month read what we write here, so it’s not like nobody else is thinking about these alternative perspectives.
The more I look at this… if we were to take every single thing to heart, it would be impossible to follow it all. I think some members have no issue with this, simply because they can’t remember all the contradictions. I think this conflict is awesome! I remember having this conflict often when I was in your situation and it turned into a big turning point in my life. It’s the time when you have to choose between The Church, or God. Who are you going to put your faith in and is it the same thing? My advice to you would be that if you know that the spirit that you’re feeling is truly God speaking, then believe Him. After all, the purpose of the church is to lead us to Christ, not replace Him.
I had the problem where, because of certain sins I was grappling with, I had certain members telling me that I couldn’t feel the spirit with me, and even that I needed to hearken to my wife’s opinion because she did have the spirit in her life. It wasn’t until a wise and knowing LDS counselor told me that I have every right to feel the spirit and receive inspiration and that I should follow that inspiration and not dismiss it. Once I started listening to that voice first, and making all other voices secondary, my closeness to God grew and so did my understanding. It was a HUGE step in the right direction. And guess what! It didn’t lead me away from the church. At first it created a lot of animosity for me towards the church, especially towards lessons based on following the Prophet no matter what. But with time and a lot of struggle and study and listening to the spirit and prayer, I finally was able to understand that lesson in a way that I never would have figured out earlier.
The truth is that, if you know that voice is God’s, then you need to follow it else you are in danger of losing it. Right? BUT, don’t jump to conclusions about what that voice is insinuating. I would be willing to bet that you heard something very different in those talks that I heard. I would be willing to bet that the feelings, ideas and messages that you heard from the talks were wrong, and that the spiritual confirmation that you felt about it being wrong was regarding the message that you felt.
I’ve had a number of times where I read something in a talk or in general conference that I have had a spiritual witness that is contrary to it. Of course that creates frustration at first. But in each time, It’s lead me to further study and realized that what I thought the leader was saying at first, was not actually what he was saying. Also, in many instances, it changed slightly the answer that I had previously gotten and improved it. The only reason i was able to get to those perspectives of higher understanding was because I did not jump to mere belief, but instead relied first on the spirit and then continued to ask for further inspiration.
You can know your source is true if the feelings lead you to more love and true inner peace. A calming. I have no problem at times with saying, well, I just don’t believe that right now. So I leave it at that. It has served me well. You do not know all things, and neither does Elder Packer nor President Monson or any prophet. They never teach their messages in a perfect manner, and to simply rely on the words they say is nothing less than relying on the arm of flesh! You must listen with the spirit.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.