- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
My MP also had the rule that we couldn’t attend church without an investigator. I was totally inactive for a good chunk of my mission!
Hmmm…
:problem: …and I always thought attending weekly to take the sacrament was what was most important. I guess missionaries without investigators aren’t worthy to partake? If every member is a missionary…can I apply that rule to myself? (please?)
All I thought when Pres Packer said this was…
Quote:“Doh!…my plan to go into as much debt as possible before it all gets wiped away may not work out after all!”
The second thought I had was…
Quote:“I thought as a Saturday’s Warrior, the 2nd coming was the thing that gave urgency to our work…I guess that’s not so urgent anymore? It must only be early morning Saturday with plenty of day left for future generations to work things out.”
Quote:Well, the truth is, if I live to a ripe old age-say about 80, and then I die, then I can say that I was seriously lied to as well as many who lived before me.
Or:Quote:I can say that I were told things that were wrong by people who seriously believed them.
There’s a difference, and it’s an important difference – especially since my kids can take either view of lots of things I’ve told them that undoubtedly will turn out to be wrong.
I really like the caution that “with what judgment ye judge, ye also shall be judged” – and it’s critical to remember, imo, in discussions like this (and most of the other things we discuss here).
Maybe it would be unfair to say that he was lied to by an individual. But to say that he was lied to by an organization wouldn’t be too far off. I’m not sure where the individual’s responsibility to temper things he may be encouraged to say or do by the organization kicks in. (Think MMM as a way-out-there example.) Certainly our institutionalized all-or-nothingness makes it difficult. My point simply was that “being lied to” and “being taught things that end up not being accurate” are two very different things. One is intentional; one is what every person on earth does to some extent.
Unless I am positive that someone is saying something they believe to be untrue, I try really hard not to accuse them of lying. I just know of way too many cases where I’ve said something that turned out to be inaccurate (even in more than one case where the simplest explanation would have been that I was lying), so I try to be charitable in how I talk about others in that regard.
And my point is that people don’t knowthese things, yet they present them as fact. Ray, I think you are right about the lying thing. The problem is, is Doug is absolutely right to. The church presents them as facts – coming from the prophets of god — and we are not allowed to ever question the prophet. The foundational concepts of the 14Fs are just so detrimental to reason and logic, and our church is entrenched neck deep into them.
You know guys, and gals, all this kind of problem could be solved so easy if the church really wanted to. All they need to do is come out in GC and give up the claim that the LDS church is the “ONE TRUE CHURCH ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH” with God’s true and only prophet, and that the LDS church has the exclusive priesthood rights necessary for exaltation.
Some people will say that it equivalent to gutting the church. I disagree. It would make the people search and think and grow and become more god-like, probably more than any other doctrine taught in the church today. It could do so much to help the people. But yes, it would certainly hurt the corporation.
But no, they will not do that – because they don’t believe it. They truly feel they are the Kingdom of God on earth, and no amount of logic, rational discussion or cog-dis will make any difference to the core traditional believer —- which will forever give sites like StayLDS plenty of church problems and topics to talk about, frustrate the hell out the ulta-skeptics like myself, Spock, the DA and perhaps others here, and continue to give headaches to church apologists, and our resident parsers. Thanks for taking one for the team Ray, Orson, Hawk and Heber.
🙂 I’m not sure where you fit in SD.
🙂 doug, I get that – and, as cwald says, you’re right about the presentation. However, it’s not lying. It really isn’t – and it clouds the issue too much for me to accept that wording. That’s all. Ray wrote: Quote:My point simply was that “being lied to” and “being taught things that end up not being accurate” are two very different things.
I think this is really the crux. I don’t really feel lied to (I have just been under a lot of depression lately). I think it goes to feeling very strongly about something and at times the spirit and emotion get jumbled up. I think believing that the second coming will happen in one’s lifetime instills a type of duty, sense of urgency, and feeling good about oneself. I think most of us would welcome an experience similar to the one experience by the folks in 3 Nephi. I guess the second coming brings out hope for a better world without corrupt politicians, inequality, death, destruction, famine, disease, and sickness just to name a few highlights.
I don’t want to speak ill of the Lord’s anointed, I don’t want that on my conscience. I think members in general think very strongly about the second coming. No one can say when it will happen, but yet we always have this sense that it is near. As for me I want it to happen in my lifetime. Failure after failure, it would actually be great to see something succeed with some degree of certainty that I could witness and be a part of without feeling any degree or remorse. Almost every secular school, job, or organization I have been a part of has failed in some degree, or failed to live up to its expectations/mission statement. Change isn’t always good. It seems the only change that would be is Christ’s reign upon the Earth.
To be fair, I think the church doctrine would side with the scriptures that state nobody but God knows when the time will be, all the other statements would be opinions and conjecture, even by church leaders. The problem cwald raises is that it seems we are taught that if prophets conjecture, we are supposed to obey (per 14 fundamentals).
Personal experience has made that difficult for me to do. Additional thought and study has made me think that is not right. We are to study things out and go by personal revelation, because while the church may not be lying intentionally, they may be wrong as history has proven. I will have less CogDis if I don’t give that blanket power to church leaders and their statements.
People in Gospel Doctrine often share comments attempting for faith promoting stories that “If the prophet or GAs said something, it is good enough for me to accept as the word of God without question”. I allow others the right to think that way. But it doesn’t seem I can do that 100% of the time no matter what. I just can’t.
Therefore, these kinds of quotes fall more into the camp of “they have received more light and knowledge and were wrong in the past” and less “the church lied to me”.
cwald wrote:You know guys, and gals, all this kind of problem could be solved so easy if the church really wanted to. All they need to do is come out in GC and give up the claim that the LDS church is the “ONE TRUE CHURCH ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH” with God’s true and only prophet, and that the LDS church has the exclusive priesthood rights necessary for exaltation.
I think this would essentially mean going the way of the RLDS/COC. You can judge for yourself if that would be a good thing or a bad thing. The COC has a video presentation at their visitor center in Nauvoo. One specific sentence jumped out at me. It said, “While it is during the Nauvoo period that we were at our strongest, it is also when we were arguably least Christ-like.” At any rate, I think the COC still has problems – they are just different than ours.
jamison wrote:Almost every secular school, job, or organization I have been a part of has failed in some degree, or failed to live up to its expectations/mission statement. Change isn’t always good. It seems the only change that would be is Christ’s reign upon the Earth.
I hear you buddy, but until that happens we are all stakeholders in the earth and the mankind that we have. We have an affirmative duty to plan for the future, help our neighbors, and join in our communities for positive change. That is what I believe Elder Packer to be saying and it is very wise.
cwald wrote:Ray, I think you are right about the lying thing. The problem is, is Doug is absolutely right to. The church presents them as facts – coming from the prophets of god — and we are not allowed to ever question the prophet.
The foundational concepts of the 14Fs are just so detrimental to reason and logic, and our church is entrenched neck deep into them.
You know guys, and gals, all this kind of problem could be solved so easy if the church really wanted to. All they need to do is come out in GC and give up the claim that the LDS church is the “ONE TRUE CHURCH ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH” with God’s true and only prophet, and that the LDS church has the exclusive priesthood rights necessary for exaltation.
You’re right — the church will not retract the ‘one true church’ position. But they could do a lot to clear up the mess they’ve painted themselves into.The 14 Fundamentals are categorically wrong, deceptive, and harmful — to this we agree. And I would agree that the members of the church and many GAs are neck deep in them.
In my impression, the two most important revelations of the period after BY are the Manifesto, and Blacks and the Priesthood. Both of them were deliberative, corrective, and pronounced formally to the Church. I would consider them “Official Doctrine”, if anything can be. As well, the Church formally repudiated “Adam-God”, which was also corrective, but did not get announced as a formal proclamation.
The 14F was a talk given by an apostle at BYU. It was not in general conference, although it’s been cited numerous times in GC. That same apostle, ETB, was also actively engaged in talks and positions authored by the John Birch Society. In reading the original talk, his context was in support of the divinely-inspired constitution of this country (USA). This was his codeword for preaching that which was in support of the JBS and his political position. To say the very least, the 14F is “NOT DOCTRINE” because (1) it was not given in any official church capacity, (2) it contradicts the scriptures, (3) it contradicts earlier statements by the Prophets, (4) in contradicts current statements by the church leaders, and (5) it has no policy support in any of the official publications of church policy (CHI).
Nevertheless, the church leadership has not formally repudiated the 14F, and tacitly support it by allowing conference addresses to cite the abomination. This is done conveniently, because obedience, especially to things like tithing are in the financial interests of the church. But they are making a huge mistake by not repudiating this abomination, because the hardliners are forcing a choice between the iron rod and liahona paths, and the liahonas will have no place in the church. And by making every statement made by any Prophet, Seer, or Revelator “Scripture”, it becomes quite easy to show that the church is fatally flawed. I have tried to express this same concept in a
recent blog entryMy bottom line:
The Church should explicitly repudiate the 14 Fundamentals as NOT DOCTRINE, and in place, encourage that each statement in GC and elsewhere should be tried and personally validated rather than blanketly accepted. This may be hard for the church to do, but there are numerous statements by LDS leaders supporting this position going back to JS. In SS today, this issue came up as we discussed James chapter 2 juxtaposed with “we are saved by grace after all we can do”. I spoke up, as usual, when that horrid verse comes up, and made it clear that “after all” can also means ‘no matter what’, which actually was received quite well. I went up to one of the former bishops and asked if I had apostasized yet, and he said not, because it has been the same point i have made for years… The thing that gave me hope was when the teacher quoted the
2009 October talk by Pres Dieter UchtdorfDieter Uchtdorf wrote:How Do We Become True Disciples of Jesus Christ?
The Savior Himself provided the answer with this profound declaration: “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” This is the essence of what it means to be a true disciple: those who receive Christ Jesus walk with Him.
But this may present a problem for some because there are so many “shoulds” and “should nots” that merely keeping track of them can be a challenge. Sometimes, well-meaning amplifications of divine principles—many coming from uninspired sources—complicate matters further, diluting the purity of divine truth with man-made addenda. One person’s good idea—something that may work for him or her—takes root and becomes an expectation. And gradually, eternal principles can get lost within the labyrinth of “good ideas.”
This was one of the Savior’s criticisms of the religious “experts” of His day, whom He chastised for attending to the hundreds of minor details of the law while neglecting the weightier matters.
Such talks give me a little hope. But they don’t go far enough. He softens the repudiation by saying ‘many coming from uninspired sources’, so as to not be controversial, and in my impression, avoid having to re-record the sermon.Personally, I think the millenium is already in the beginning stages. The darkening of the world is right on track and hearts are failing.
But truth and light are readily available in every area of living/life.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.