- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Here is an exerpt I read this morning in History of the Church Joseph Smith, History of the Church, V6, page 340 wrote:
Elder Pelatia Brown, one of the wisest old heads we have among us, and whom I now see before me, has been preaching [some false doctrine], and for this he was hauled up for trial before the High Council.I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church.
I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man be not a good man because he errs in doctrine.
Personally, I think it’s extremely important to my survival in the church that I establishmy own beliefsI take comfort in the idea that Joseph Smith was on the right track — heading toward a more humanist definition of god, and toward a materialist/existentialist worldview that seriously departs from creedal christianity. Was he all the way there? not in this life, but the trajectory toward a more truth/fact-based understanding of divine things was in the right direction.
I further take comfort in the idea that Joseph welcomed, at least in part, the idea that we are free to believe and think for ourselves, and not have to adopt the quasi-fundamentalist doctrines being taught most often as part of ‘correlation’. I take comfort in Henry B Eyring’s grandfather’s words to his father in 1919, when the same wanted to go to Univ of Arizona to study science: ““…
in this church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true. You go over to the University of Arizona and learn everything you can, and whatever is true is part of the gospel.” These are the anchors of my faith today — the freedom to believe that all truth is the gospel.
As I’ve said here in other threads, I absolutely love the grandeur of pure Mormonism. Thanks for this post. Very interesting indeed. I have found that I get really frustrated with JS and then I read this and a little faith is restored. With my expanded way of thinking and the freedom I have felt lately to express a few of these ideas has been a real balm to my spirit. I have found that if I discuss ideas with respect and openness and also with the thought that these ideas work for me and that they don’t have to work for others, most people kind of agree with me. It is post like this that makes me able to StayLDS. Good job Wayfarer. I really like both quotes you have here. I also really like your summary: Quote:These are the anchors of my faith today — the freedom to believe that all truth is the gospel.
I’m glad that some leaders say these kinds of things. I wish it was acceptable for “regular” members to say them as well.
Fwiw, I say those types of things regularly. Local leaders vary radically, but most wouldn’t argue with me at all when I say those things. -Like- Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
wayfarer wrote:Here is an exerpt I read this morning in History of the Church
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, V6, page 340 wrote:
Elder Pelatia Brown, one of the wisest old heads we have among us, and whom I now see before me, has been preaching [some false doctrine], and for this he was hauled up for trial before the High Council.I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church.
I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man be not a good man because he errs in doctrine.
Personally, I think it’s extremely important to my survival in the church that I establishmy own beliefsI take comfort in the idea that Joseph Smith was on the right track — heading toward a more humanist definition of god, and toward a materialist/existentialist worldview that seriously departs from creedal christianity. Was he all the way there? not in this life, but the trajectory toward a more truth/fact-based understanding of divine things was in the right direction.
I further take comfort in the idea that Joseph welcomed, at least in part, the idea that we are free to believe and think for ourselves, and not have to adopt the quasi-fundamentalist doctrines being taught most often as part of ‘correlation’. I take comfort in Henry B Eyring’s grandfather’s words to his father in 1919, when the same wanted to go to Univ of Arizona to study science: ““…
in this church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true. You go over to the University of Arizona and learn everything you can, and whatever is true is part of the gospel.” These are the anchors of my faith today — the freedom to believe that all truth is the gospel.
I have always loved “whatever is true is part of the gospel” because it’s horizon-expanding.
Somewhere else doesn’t Joseph Smith say that he never erred in doctrine?
You’re right, Ray, it depends on where you are probably. But it sounds like wayfarer has encountered several of those who don’t think it is okay. So I should have said “I wish it was widely accepted to say these kinds of things without worry of others attacking us.” 🙂 wayfarer wrote:Here is an exerpt I read this morning in History of the Church
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, V6, page 340 wrote:
Elder Pelatia Brown, one of the wisest old heads we have among us, and whom I now see before me, has been preaching [some false doctrine], and for this he was hauled up for trial before the High Council.I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church.I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man be not a good man because he errs in doctrine.
I have had many in some of the more ‘believing’ forums tell me that I am an apostate, and should not receive a temple recommend because my beliefs do not uphold the standard definition of things…I further take comfort in the idea that Joseph welcomed, at least in part, the idea that we are free to believe and think for ourselves, and not have to adopt the quasi-fundamentalist doctrines being taught most often as part of ‘correlation’.The main thing I think Church leaders could learn from this quote if they are aware of it is that sometimes being “wrong” is not nearly as serious as they typically act like it is. Basically it looks like the Church has become almost exactly what Joseph Smith was originally rebelling against because it is now an ultra-orthodox church mostly geared around upholding tradition and the written word with a long list of required beliefs that all its members are expected to accept and if not then they are likely to feel compelled to stay away altogether. Personally I think attaching so much importance to so many different doctrines at the same time is actually a worse problem overall than the questionable truth claims that many of these doctrines are based on. So replacing one set of outdated beliefs with an updated set of beliefs that is more accurate or at least harder to discredit will not necessarily help counteract the general problem of intolerant attitudes that everyone should supposedly believe the same thing.
journeygirl wrote:I really like both quotes you have here. I also really like your summary:
Quote:These are the anchors of my faith today — the freedom to believe that all truth is the gospel.
I’m glad that some leaders say these kinds of things. I wish it was acceptable for “regular” members to say them as well.
One reason the two or three ‘quotes’ threads on here are useful is it’s really helpful to ‘attribute’ correctly and to an authority they trust. Saying “I think…” might cause nerves for TBMs. Saying “Elder Holland, quoting Joseph Smith, said in conference last year…”
It’s in volume 5: https://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/5/18.html 🙂 Shawn wrote:It’s in volume 5:
https://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/5/18.html 🙂 This bit:
Quote:
I will endeavor to instruct you in relation to the meaning of the beasts and figures spoken of. I should not have called up the subject had it not been for this circumstance. Elder Pelatiah Brown, one of the wisest old heads we have among us, and whom I now see before me, has been preaching concerning the beast which was fall of eyes before and behind; and for this he was hauled up for trial before the High Council.I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.
The High Council undertook to censure and correct Elder Brown, because of his teachings in relation to the beasts. Whether they actually corrected him or not, I am a little doubtful, but don’t care. Father Brown came to me to know what he should do about it. The subject particularly referred to was the four beasts and four-and-twenty elders mentioned in Rev. 5:8—”And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four-and-twenty elders fell down before the Lamb having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of saints.”
[Page 341]
Father Brown has been to work and confounded all Christendom by making out that the four beasts represented the different kingdoms of God on the earth. The wise men of the day could not do anything with him, and why should we find fault? Anything to whip sectarianism, to put down priestcraft, and bring the human family to a knowledge of the truth. A club is better than no weapon for a poor man to fight with.
Father Brown did whip sectarianism, and so far so good; but I could not help laughing at the idea of God making use of the figure of a beast to represent His kingdom on the earth, consisting of men, when He could as well have used a far more noble and consistent figure. What! the Lord make use of the figure of a creature of the brute creation to represent that which is much more noble, glorious, and important—the glories and majesty of His kingdom? By taking a lesser figure to represent a greater, you missed it that time, old gentleman; but the sectarians did not know enough to detect you.
When God made use of the figure of a beast in visions to the prophets He did it to represent those kingdoms which had degenerated and become corrupt, savage and beast-like in their dispositions, even the degenerate kingdoms of the wicked world; but He never made use of the figure of a beast nor any of the brute kind to represent His kingdom.
Daniel says (ch. 7, 5. 16) when he saw the vision of the four beasts, “I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this,” the angel interpreted the vision to Daniel; but we find, by the interpretation that the figures of beasts had no allusion to the kingdom of God. You there see that the beasts are spoken of to represent the kingdoms of the world, the inhabitants whereof were beastly and abominable characters; they were murderers, corrupt, carnivorous, and brutal in their dispositions. The lion, the bear, the leopard, and the ten-horned beast represented the kingdoms of the world, says Daniel; for I refer to the prophets to qualify my observations which I make, so that the young elders who know so much, may not rise up like a flock of hornets and sting me. I want to keep out of such a wasp-nest.
Hmm…
DevilsAdvocate wrote:The main thing I think Church leaders could learn from this quote if they are aware of it is that sometimes being “wrong” is not nearly as serious as they typically act like it is. Basically it looks like the Church has become almost exactly what Joseph Smith was originally rebelling against because it is now an ultra-orthodox church mostly geared around upholding tradition and the written word with a long list of required beliefs that all its members are expected to accept and if not then they are likely to feel compelled to stay away altogether.
I think you’re right on here, DA. Both Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith spared no opportunity to rail against pharisaicalism and hypocrisy. And besides hyprocrisy, what was the Pharisees’ major problem? They were one dispensation behind the times. They so dogmatically clung to their traditions and the words of dead prophets they wouldn’t accept the truths of the Gospel when they were taught. There are certainly elements within our Church who cling too strenuously to tradition and history rather than seeing the truths in front of them.
Kumahito wrote:DevilsAdvocate wrote:The main thing I think Church leaders could learn from this quote if they are aware of it is that sometimes being “wrong” is not nearly as serious as they typically act like it is. Basically it looks like the Church has become almost exactly what Joseph Smith was originally rebelling against because it is now an ultra-orthodox church mostly geared around upholding tradition and the written word with a long list of required beliefs that all its members are expected to accept and if not then they are likely to feel compelled to stay away altogether.
I think you’re right on here, DA. Both Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith spared no opportunity to rail against pharisaicalism and hypocrisy. And besides hyprocrisy,
what was the Pharisees’ major problem? They were one dispensation behind the times. They so dogmatically clung to their traditions and the words of dead prophets they wouldn’t accept the truths of the Gospel when they were taught. There are certainly elements within our Church who cling too strenuously to tradition and historyrather than seeing the truths in front of them. It looks to me like there is a fairly common tendency for many groups to drift toward excessive rules and regulations, bureaucracy, intolerance, and self-righteousness not only in religion but in politics and business as well. It reminds me of the “TPS reports” in the movie Office Space. Also, groups of people quite often get caught up in the mindset of, “We know what’s best for you” or even the idea that the agenda of the group is so much more important than the interests of individual members of the group that they can easily be sacrificed for sake of the cause.
Unless enough of the leaders have the awareness and understanding to resist this tendency and honestly reevaluate some of the rules and routines that have already been established it can quickly get out of hand. At least in business and politics you can expect some resistance and there’s a good chance you will lose to the competition if you try to push it too far with some of this but in the Church it seems like it is almost impossible for anyone that thinks this way to rise to the level of apostle. Maybe there have been a few that have sensed some of the problems with trying to defend the existing traditions at all costs like Hugh B. Brown and President Uchtdorf but they have always been outnumbered by hardliners like Packer and Oaks.
Quote:“Preserve, then, the freedom of your mind in education and in religion, and be unafraid to express your thoughts and to insist upon your right to examine every proposition. We are not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts.”
This was quoted to me the first week of my bioethics class at BYU, and you can find the entire talk at the BYU President’s Page.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.