- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I hope you’re right Brian, but if the Quote:the loud-mouthed, ultra-conservative, pro-blind obedience TBM or two in the room
happens to be a bishop or stake president – you’re screwed.
cwald wrote:I hope you’re right Brian, but if the
Quote:the loud-mouthed, ultra-conservative, pro-blind obedience TBM or two in the room
happens to be a bishop or stake president – you’re screwed.
Only if, first of all, you let them and second it you decide it really matters. For me I won’t and don’t.
cwald wrote:happens to be a bishop or stake president – you’re screwed.
I might be screwed, but I am heeding the words of a prophet of God, and these words are confirmed to me by the Holy Spirit and through my own first hand experiences. My faith and trust are in God, which has born “good fruit” for me.
“
Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, anApostle, or a President; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place
; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean
on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God
alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest
in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He [God] is just and
true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to
Him.
Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appearin high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not
in any man or men.
Therefore, my brethren and sisters, seek after the Holy Spirit and the unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the
earth. Rest not until you know for yourselves that God has set His hand
to redeem Israel, and prepare a people for His coming.”
-President George Q. Cannon, Millennial Star, No. 43, Vol LIII, Page 674
Excellent Brian. Good stuff. I’m printing it off and putting it in my briefcase — in case of a moment of weakness at church I decide to give a damn again – I will be prepared WHEN this comes up. Powerful quote, Brian. Here are a couple more I found as a result. Disclaimer: these are unresearched and copied willy-nilly off the ‘net.
“President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus saith the Lord’, comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.” (Millennial Star 54:191) –Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to Joseph F. Smith
“And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God… would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves.” (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95) — I have heard this attributed to Joseph Smith, though it appears in an 1852 edition of the Millenial Star … requires further research.
Your quotes are accurate doug. I have copies of those pages from the Millennial Star. BYU has an excellent online library of scanned documents. If you want to look up Millennial Star references, you can get photographic images of the real deal here:
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=/MStar In particular, I wanted to quote the full paragraph from one of those quotes, expanding the text because not only does it further support my opposition to misunderstanding the “14 fundamentals,” but I find it truly inspiring as an expression of Mormonism and Mormon thought:
Quote:The Saints believe in divine revelation to-day. At the head of this Church stands a man who is a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, sustained in that position by the vote of the whole body of its members. When the Lord wishes to speak to His Church, as a body, He does so through that individual, His servant. President Wilford Woodruf is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect and venerate him;
but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when “Thus saith the Lord” comes from him, the Saints investigate it; they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.When he brings forth light they want to comprehend it. Light, truth, intelligence, wisdom, progress, growth all the time — that is “Mormonism”— to grown in grace and the knowledge of the truth. When the Lord desires to speak to the whole Church He does so through its head, not through half a dozen different channels; because in such an event there would be confusion. The Latter-day Saints are not blindly led by leaders or blindly directed by priests; but every man can receive the divine testimony in his own heart and be a priest in his own house.Elder Penrose was glad to have the opportunity of bearing his testimony to these great truths.
A few more quotes to throw on the pile. I harvested these from the two part Sunstone series in 1980 called “Reflections on the Role of the Prophet” and “More Reflections on the Role of the Prophet”. The second part has one article about the 14 fundamentals talk and is worth reading Brigham Young: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way (Journal of Discourses 9:150).”
J. Reuben Clark: “There are many places where the scriptures are not too clear, and where different interpretations may be given to them; there are many doctrines, tenets as the Lord called them, that have not been officially defined and declared. It is in the consideration and discussion of these scriptures and doctrines that opportunities arise for differences of views as to meanings and extent. In view of the fundamental principle just announced as to the position of the President of the Church, other bearers of the Priesthood, those with the special endowment [other General Authorities] and those without it, should be cautious in their expressions about and interpretations of scriptures and doctrines. They must act and teach subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. It would be most unfortunate were this not always strictly observed by the bearers of this special spiritual endowment, other than the President. Sometimes in the past they have spoken “out of turn,” so to speak ….When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not “moved upon by the Holy Ghost,” unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President. Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling. (“When are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” Talk given at Brigham Young University, July 7, 1954, pp. 10, 17.)”
Harold B. Lee: “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they read or write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator–please note that one exception–you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea.” (The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, p. 14.)”
So, I can understand why an organization as large and far-flung as the church would end up with a bureaucratic corporate structure, similar to what we see today. Is it somehow a corollary that these ideas of personal responsibility as it relates to revelation that we see embodied in these quotes by BY, JS, Elder Penrose and others would be replaced by the thing they all seemed to dread, as embodied in Elder Costa’s talk? Costa’s talk was quoted in sections from our bishop over the pulpit this past Sunday. Do I feel screwed that my bishop is taking the hard line approach on this?
Nope. Like everything else I hear on Sunday, they are preaching words to make me think and decide how to apply the teachings of Christ into my life. I take from it what inspires me, and let go of the rest.
I take from it that I love having a prophet, and must consider his words deeply in my life…but how I apply them is a personal matter between me and my God that I worship…and I seek His Spirit in helping me decide that. It may sound like they are preaching blind obedience…but I’ve never heard anyone say that is God’s way…never. So I won’t put words in their mouths.
They are preaching strict obedience to the prophet, which is different than blind obedience (slightly…but it is different).
So, am I screwed in my ward with leaders that pressure me to feel bad about obedience?
GBSmith wrote:Only if, first of all, you let them and second it you decide it really matters. For me I won’t and don’t.
GB said it best.
I’m not sure the GA’s that referenced the 14FFP talk had any knowledge of the history and controversy surrounding it. I suspect most younger local leaders who pick up on it are themselves unaware. I think it is easy enough to politely point on that the talk itself was controversial when it was given and invite people to refer to various biographies of kimball and benson which make mention of it. Heber13 wrote:So, am I screwed in my ward with leaders that pressure me to feel bad about obedience?
I think you missed my point. I said.
Quote:What can you say in church to dispute the talk? Oak’s talk pretty well gives every TBM on the planet and arguement not to listen to reason or different opinions on ANYTHING that is spoken from the poduim. Am I wrong? Can I doubt or question ANYTHING that was said in GC without a faithful TBM calling me out of line because my personal line is different than the priesthood line? We have really put ourselves in a heck of bind.
I’m not saying you’re screwed if folks start preaching this at church. Of course they are going to preach it. I’m saying you’re going to get yourself in trouble if you QUESTION it and say it is false and bad doctrine — what the brethren, a GA, A “PROPHET” to most LDS members, say from the pulpit in GC — because, whether we admit it or not here on this site – for all intent and purposes, in the LDS church, what is said in GC and then published in the Ensign IS SCRIPTURE and “THE TRUTH” and if you question it, your personal line of revelation is out of wack with the priesthood line.
Am I wrong?
I like the quotes that Brian and the others came up with, great stuff, and “truth.” But so what? Only a handful of us even know they exist, and so what. Most members won’t listen to them anyway. True? I am wrong?
I agree with Cwald’s linking of Dallin H. Oak’s talk with Costa’s (and Cwald, I chuckled pretty hard when I read it above) – that if you read the two talks, it makes a case for simply accepting everything Costa said. I have read the subsequent responses from Brian and Ray and others…but frankly, these two talks represent a return to unquestioning obedience at the expense of personal conscience and inspiration. Also, when you add Oak’s comment decrying the fact that there are members who just accept their own personal beliefs and ignore the priesthood line, it makes it even worse.
Sorry to quote Ben Franklin again, but he made a comment about a Presbyterian sermon he heard that was similar to this. His conclusion was that at times he thought the religious organizations of his day were more interested in creating good Presbyterians rather than good people. I feel the Oaks/Costa talk is a similar situation.
Granted, there is lots in our body of GA talks that are focused soley on developing Christlike characteristics, so I don’t see this is the main preoccupation of the Church, but at this point, these two talks together are unsettling.
I’m going to have to come up with a reasoned and non-confrontive response to this myself. Fortunately my Ward seems to be more flexible on matters like this in general, so it may not even come up….
Check out the following thread – focused on a talk by Pres. Uchtdorf: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1019&p=11496#p11496 As I’ve said, there’s plenty of stuff that can support either position in this discussion. If someone quotes Elder Costa’s talk (or Elder Oaks’ talk) in a way you don’t like, simply quote Pres. Uchtdorf’s. Problem solved, since you can’t be accused of apostasy for quoting an apostle.
😆 I can appreciate a good quote as well as the next guy, and often find comfort that I’m not totally off the beaten path when someone important has said something that sounds pretty close to what I think. Ray, not to take what you said too seriously, since I think you were partially kidding, but is scrounging for the quote that backs up your own position really the right approach? As has been said here and in a hundred other places, if you look hard enough, you can find a quote to back up pretty much anything. And this just plays into what I refer to as our culture of quotations. “I’ll call your Boyd K Packer and raise you a Dieter Uchtdorf”. And if your opponent is particularly astute, they will simply say “it only matters what the
currentprophet says”, and then you’re sunk. Until the current prophet happens to say something that backs you up. This can only lead to frustration. What’s the real story they are trying to get across? Are we supposed to be blindly obedient as Elder Costa seems to suggest, or are we supposed to take a more personal approach, as Elder Uchtdorf suggests? Those two messages are difficult for me to reconcile.
Maybe what’s needed is a correlation program for GC
doug wrote:What’s the real story they are trying to get across? Are we supposed to be blindly obedient as Elder Costa seems to suggest, or are we supposed to take a more personal approach, as Elder Uchtdorf suggests? Those two messages are difficult for me to reconcile.
The “real story” is implied by the diversity of opinions. It is inescapable. I totally get what you are saying about a war of quotes. It really goes nowhere to prove one side or the other as absolute. But that’s important in itself. The mere fact that I can come up with quotes immediately proves there is no absolute consensus, which is exactly the point I want to make, which broadens the tent and gives me a legitimate spot.
I don’t want to prove anyone else wrong and kick them out from the tent. I just want to make space for myself.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.