- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Yes, SD, I think the church does let most of it go unchecked, at least openly. The only example I know where something was “censored” (for lack of a better word) was Elder Poelman in 1984 where his talk was edited for print and re-recorded. I wonder if they don’t sometimes privately say things like “Elder Evans, please don’t say that again” to avoid public embarrassment, yet I have no evidence that this does happen. For the most part it does appear that GAs are permitted to say what they want. Now for the research on the 18 month mission. It was not announced formally in GC, apparently, but at a leadership meeting the day before. I have not come up with a transcript, but there are news stories about which do quote GBH. No reference in those to it being inspired. Likewise, reverting back to 2 year missions was not announced in GC, and was apparently announced in a letter. Still researching that part. I do recall my own MP (I did have the opportunity to stay 1-6 more months if I chose) saying it was because they felt they were losing missionaries at their peaks – which I can’t argue. I’ll also throw in here that I may not have served a mission had it not been an 18 month deal – I joined the church while in the army, I had just turned 24 at the beginning of my mission, and I still had college plans.
I think the legend of the Seaguls or the story of the fine china in the walls of the Kirtland temple make perfect examples. The further the story gets from the immediate occurance the more impressive it gets. DarkJedi wrote:Yes, SD, I think the church does let most of it go unchecked, at least openly. The only example I know where something was “censored” (for lack of a better word) was Elder Poelman in 1984 where his talk was edited for print and re-recorded. I wonder if they don’t sometimes privately say things like “Elder Evans, please don’t say that again” to avoid public embarrassment, yet I have no evidence that this does happen. For the most part it does appear that GAs are permitted to say what they want.
I do believe that GA’s are heavily influenced by the leadership. BRM went rogue to publish Mormon Doctrine and I’m sure he heard much about it. He wasn’t publicly chastised to preserve the reputation of the office of Apostle. I imagine that GA’s are very vigilent in their comments. Avoid sharing personal opinion that might then get repeated as doctine and revelation. We even read reports, transcripts, recollections, and diary entries about what GA’s supposedly said in closed door meetings. I have heard that at some point in church leadership you are advised NOT to keep a journal. I speculate that this would be to prevent personal conflicts, thoughts, and doubts from later being used to hurt the church organization. I do not envy their task at all.
mackay11 wrote:My mission president always said “a part of inspiration is information.”
One definition of “Inspired” means: Of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse.
Next time someone says they say they are “inspired” I’ll accept that the “external creative impulse” might be an “earthly” one and not a “supernatural” one. Earthly information can still be a source of inspiration to act.
Webster makes it even less ‘extraordinary’: something having a particular cause or influence. So getting information can have an influence on someone’s perspectives and inspires them to do something. Oxford says ‘inspiration’ is: “the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something.”
Just to reiterate – ideas garnered from focus groups, consulting firms, and/or suggestion boxes all qualify as inspiration under these definitions.
In one sense, I really love this. JS told the HC to record their meeting minutes and hold on to them as revelations. It is amazing to think of the discussion, conflict, and decisions of a group of people as revelation.
I also love that this kind of messes with the top down expectation of revelation/inspiration. I wonder what was the “inspiration” for having a woman pray in GC? I’m speculating that it was grass roots inspiration!
My response, albeit late, is going to go beyond just the Elder Evans quote to my own experience in my own ward and stake. On multiple occasions, in multiple forums, members of my ward and stake leadership have described the age change as “revelation,” “doctrine” and an example of “the Lord hastening His work” (their words, not my interpretation). That leads me to believe that they don’t view this change as a simple policy announcement, but more like a revelation. So with due respect to Ray, I do think a decent number of Mormons would believe that President Monson took this to the SL temple and had a chat with The Lord about it. If this is an example of The Lord hastening His work, then The Lord must have directed it through his servant, the prophet. And Dark Jedi, I agree – this is how policies and principles like the WoW, blacks and the priesthood, women praying in church, only partaking of the sacrament with your right hand, no TV on Sunday, white shirts, no tattoos and multiple earrings become The Mind and Will of The Lord. We do this to ourselves – the prophet makes a statement that’s not intended to be doctrine, but we take it, deify it, wrap it in mystery, tie it to the temple, and abracadabra! Doctrine!
Kumahito wrote:And Dark Jedi, I agree – this is how policies and principles like the WoW, blacks and the priesthood, women praying in church, only partaking of the sacrament with your right hand, no TV on Sunday, white shirts, no tattoos and multiple earrings become The Mind and Will of The Lord. We do this to ourselves – the prophet makes a statement that’s not intended to be doctrine, but we take it, deify it, wrap it in mystery, tie it to the temple, and abracadabra! Doctrine!
You forgot caffeine by drinking cola. Evil, evil, evil cola. …
mackay11 wrote:One definition of “Inspired” means: Of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse.
Next time someone says they say they are “inspired” I’ll accept that the “external creative impulse” might be an “earthly” one and not a “supernatural” one. Earthly information can still be a source of inspiration to act.
Webster makes it even less ‘extraordinary’: something having a particular cause or influence. So getting information can have an influence on someone’s perspectives and inspires them to do something. Oxford says ‘inspiration’ is: “the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something.”
Roy wrote:Just to reiterate – ideas garnered from focus groups, consulting firms, and/or suggestion boxes all qualify as inspiration under these definitions.
I agree with both these statements, but remember, EE didn’t simply use the term ‘inspired’ or ‘inspiration’. He used the term ‘inspired of the Lord’. And he didn’t confine his remarks to ‘inspiration’. He used the R-word:
Quote:“The Lord has promised that revelation would come line upon line and precept upon precept,” Elder Evans said. “The implication is that when one revelation is given, the next revelation is needed.
“So you have this dramatic announcement by the president of the church, which he describes as having been prayerfully considered and inspired of the Lord,” he continued. “With that, then the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have the important obligation of facing each of the issues and finding out how the Lord would deal with them.”
Later in the article, referring to the announcement, he called it “something from the Lord.”
Reading the article (
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865587616/One-year-later-Looking-back-at-the-worldwide-impact-of-a-prophets-announcement.html?pg=all Why do I care? Because if it comes from God, it is doctrine. If it comes from Man, even inspired men, it is policy. Blurring the two for its own advantage is a super-power that the Church possesses and has used at the expense of its members (see the Priesthood/Temple Ban and many others). I believe that a church that purports to be able to speak for God must be absolutely spotless when it comes to clearly differentiating between doctrine and practice/policy/culture. Our church does a poor job of that, as evidenced by Elder Evans’ remarks. EE isn’t simply Brother Jones, who goes off on literalist comments in Sunday School. EE is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy and holds the prominent position of Executive Director of the Missionary Department.
Quote:I believe that a church that purports to be able to speak for God must be absolutely spotless when it comes to clearly differentiating between doctrine and practice/policy/culture.
I think it needs to be very good at it (not spotless), but I don’t expect every leader at every level to reach that level.
Quote:Our church does a poor job of that, as evidenced by Elder Evans’ remarks.
Yes, I agree with that completely. I see a change occurring in that regard, but it’s a very limited change at the moment. We are nowhere close to where we need to be, imo.
On Own Now wrote:Why do I care? Because if it comes from God, it is doctrine. If it comes from Man, even inspired men, it is policy.Blurring the two for its own advantage is a super-power that the Church possesses and has used at the expense of its members (see the Priesthood/Temple Ban and many others). I believe that a church that purports to be able to speak for God must be absolutely spotless when it comes to clearly differentiating between doctrine and practice/policy/culture. Our church does a poor job of that, as evidenced by Elder Evans’ remarks. EE isn’t simply Brother Jones, who goes off on literalist comments in Sunday School. EE is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy and holds the prominent position of Executive Director of the Missionary Department. That is precisely why I care as well, and echoing Kumahito, this is how white shirts, etc., became what they are. It’s where the myths begin.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.