- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
First, they DID take a wrong turn on that, and given a couple more decades, they will admit it like they did with blacks & the PH and polygamy (sorta). The problem is you can’t be out in front of the church on social issues. You have to be patient, and by patient I mean you have to ignore things because you might be dead before they catch up.
HawkGrl….I use to think that your position was utter heresy and apostate. That was my stage 3 stuff. I have since met several gay friends, all male (in my case), who feel utterly forsaken and lost. One feels he was born the way he is–he does not have a single memory of being heterosexual–not one; and he feels alone and trapped. He wants very much to have a legitimate relationship with someone who he can love and who will love him.
Now, I use to think such feelings were utterly repulsive to me–guy and guy stuff. But, over the years and through being a little more kind and sensitive, I have seen his pain. His wounds run deep….REAL deep. I no longer am so sure that what he feels is any different than what I might feel. Of course it is biologically impossible for him to pro-create, but how does this idea of “sin next to murder” really fit all this?
I do not understand, for example, how a person who spends an evening embraced with a consenting adult has committed a more serious sin then, for example, beating and emotionally scaring a child. This whole ranking of sin is utterly beyond my reach it seems.
I would like to understand all of this better.
I think we are held accountable for our choices. Perhaps we are blessed by the Lord if we obey leaders blindly. We may be blessed for being obedient.
But the consequences for doing something wrong are not taken from us. So…we still have the live with negative consequence of doing something that is wrong.
In the end…we just have to accept the balance of blessings and consequences are ours to live with…no matter if a church leader said to do it or not.
So…I would respond to someone quoting Heber J Grant by saying, “Maybe he’s right and I’d be blessed, but that’s still not worth it to me in all circumstances. There is a limit to what I’d do, based on the situation and my conscience.”
We really need to use “AND” in our thought processes for paradoxes and conundrums. We may be blessed for obeying AND we’ll be responsible for doing something wrong. Heber J Grant may not be wrong, but that doesn’t remove our responsibility to choose wisely.
Quote:“you can’t pick up one end of a stick without picking up the other.”
I have come to look at it this way. When I am being judged, I am going to be asked about MY actions. I am not going to be judged for my bishops actions. Some will take that as cover and just do what you are told, but I really fear giving that defense will be followed by a question by Christ of, “Did you ask ME?”, “Did you follow ME?” I have to be prepared that sometimes (this hurts to say) like ETB said, “the prophet can be telling you hard things.” But I have come to feel that this is MY moral responsibility – one of the main reasons I exist – to learn and grow.
I once shared this concept of blind obedience to my Bishop. First, he’d never heard it, and second, he said he didn’t agree with it. It smacks of the Milgram experiments where they told subjects, who acted as experimenters, to give ever increasing levels of shock to a confederate (an actor) who eventually stopped screaming, apparently dead.
People gave into authority even when it hurt others.
No way would I agree the opening statement.
Also, there is a principle I have applied that has helped me StayLDS, and this story is at the heart of it — elevate nothing above your conscience — not doctrine, not the church, not its leaders. I find I am much more at peace when I am the captain of my soul — not some church leader that doesn’t know my situation, my life, my trials, and my capabilities, or my own sense of morality.
I hope that if I was a Mormon at the MMM, I would have objected to the massacre order and refused to kill the person I was assigned to.
I was out of town last week, so able to attend 2nd and 3rd hour. When this quote was read, nobody batted an eye. What very little was communicated was done with tone of voice. Kind of, So there you have it, theyreallymean follow the prophet! I was a visitor, so didn’t say anything.
Whenare they rewriting the curriculum? OK….bad example but possibly relevant. Didn’t some of the Nazi war criminals say: “We were just following orders”….and weren’t they summarily convicted regardless? (Yes,…I KNOW this is a harsh and bad example,….but at what point does the principle apply where the line is drawn?)
Another point,…we are to follow the prophet–we are all taught that. But isn’t the prophet required to use persuasion, long suffering, meekness and love unfeigned? Doesn’t the statement that “NO POWER OF INFLUENCE CAN …. ” apply to the prophet as well?
Is this an example of God being a respecter of person?…the commandments don’t apply to the prophet in this case?
And—Ok…on a role here
I would really like to hear the prophet say: “I have asked God about <
> and have not obtained a response”….or “God has not chosen to respond to my request at this point, so the policy as it exists is still in affect.” I have no idea how others feel, but it feels like the prophet stands apart from the membership. I don’t like that. I remember hearing GBH say in a talk: “We are all in this together”…and my immediate reaction was: “What?….no we aren’t. You are the prophet. You are saved and have nothing to fear. Not me.”
And, for that matter, what in the world was Paul saying when he likened the church to the Body of Christ,…and the head can’t say to the fingers, I have no need of thee? The head says to the fingers, do what I say and don’t push back, or I will have you cut off.
Sorry…rant over.
Prophets have said they prayed about things and didn’t receive an answer – and in the case of Pres. McKay and ending the Priesthood ban, he said his answer was to wait and not act yet. Some leaders rely on their authority (“it is the nature and disposition of almost all men”), but others don’t. Also, lots of things don’t happen specifically because the FP and Q12 aren’t blind followers and yes-men. They don’t change policy unless they are united about doing so. That is frustrating in many cases, since it maintains the status quo longer than we feel ought to be, but it also is wonderful in others.
Yes, there should be one standard for everyone, but the areas where there are double standards tend to be local much more often than global. The global leadership has been preaching the council model of decision-making, for example, for a long, long time.
Ray, you are right about this MacKay example of the priesthood ban. I wish I was more privy to similar things of a more contemporary nature. I am not aware of anything like this happening for a while.
I think more modern apostles and prophets have seen the backlash when someone speaks as an individual and gotten more and more committed to speaking policy as a group. They hash things out privately (sometimes in a very animated way, due to disagreements) and don’t share details of those discussions publicly very much. Someone recently talked about how they make decisions (I forget who), but it didn’t include examples of details. Also, there absolutely is more tolerance and/or acceptance of differing views now than back in the McConkie, Smith, Kimball days – and it is instructive that most of the more hardline apostles now became apostles in that general era. Elder Bednar is an exception, but there almost always is an exception or two in any situation – like Elder Wirthlin on the other side of the issue.
Old-Timer wrote:I think more modern apostles and prophets have seen the backlash when someone speaks as an individual and gotten more and more committed to speaking policy as a group. They hash things out privately (sometimes Ina very animated way, due to disagreements) and don’t share details of those discussions publicly very much. Someone recently talked about how they make decisions (I forget who), but it didn’t include examples of details.
Also, there absolutely is more tolerance and/or acceptance of differing views now than back in the McConkie, Smith, Kimball days – and it is instructive that most of the more hardline apostles now became apostles in that general era. Elder Bednar is an exception, but there almost always is an exception or two in any situation – like Elder Wirthlin on the other side of the issue.
Ray, do you have any examples or “for instance” you can illustrate this with? I’m not picking,…but I confess, I am quite curious. I know so little about this …
I have some personal understanding of the general issue, since my mother was one of Pres. McKay’s secretaries for a while. She didn’t break confidence and share details, but she was aware of the nature of their “lively discussions”. I think it is Edward Kimball’s book that talks about it, as well. (the one in which he says Pres. Kimball expressed regret at how Miracle of Forgiveness was interpreted and used by so many members and leaders – that he wished he could rewrite it to soften the tone to match what he had intended) I’m not positive about that, but it’s a good read, regardless.
Old-Timer wrote:I have some personal understanding of the general issue, since my mother was one of Pres. McKay’s secretaries for a while. She didn’t break confidence and share details, but she was aware of the nature of their “lively discussions”.
I think it is Edward Kimball’s book that talks about it, as well. (the one in which he says Pres. Kimball expressed regret at how Miracle of Forgiveness was interpreted and used by so many members and leaders – that he wished he could rewrite it to soften the tone to match what he had intended) I’m not positive about that, but it’s a good read, regardless.
I’ve heard reference to that SWK thing as well. From what I recollect, my information came from a podcast?…or maybe a discussion I overheard a GA who was vising the stake?…I don’t recall.
But, it seems that SWK was bombarded with people coming forward confessing sins that were decades old. He didn’t know quite how to handle that, and so he asked Tom (Monson) to help with some of the harder interviews. When TSM asked “what do you want me to do?”…SWK said: “Just forgive them…just forgive them.”
Don’t know how accurate this source is, but the retelling here is VERY accurate from what I heard.
For a long time, I had a very hard spot for SWK in my heart,…perhaps even a hatred. That story is difficult to understand in the context of that book. But, like I said in another post,…only positive thing left for me is to forgive them myself.
I guess my ward is a week behind because we just had this lesson. My teacher went straight from the manual which drove me crazy and even more frustrating, OW and the any opposed group were mentioned and criticised during the lesson which I think took the spirit away from the meeting. When this quote is brought up (because it has been brought up 3 times in the last 2 weeks in my ward) what do you say? I wanted to say something so badly but I didn’t know what. It think it’s because I still haven’t figured out a comfortable balance between following the prophet and personal revelation. Or is it best just not to say anything at all? I have the social capital to say I think we need to be careful about that kind of quote – and cite Lucifer’s plan and D&C 121 to explain why Insay that – but lots of people don’t have that kind of leeway. Sometimes, responding is appropriate; sometimes, silence is the better form of valor. I only can make that call for myself in my situations.
Old-Timer wrote:I have the social capital to say I think we need to be careful about that kind of quote – and cite Lucifer’s plan and D&C 121 to explain why Insay that – but lots of people don’t have that kind of leeway.
Sometimes, responding is appropriate; sometimes, silence is the better form of valor. I only can make that call for myself in my situations.
I just have a big mouth. If I open it…I always get into trouble.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.