- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
What Brian said. I’m not into quote contests – but I do like to know that there have been quotes on both sides of many questions, and, in some cases, I actually like to know the quote and the source. For example, I quote Elder Wirthlin’s orchestra analogy frequently when talking about diversity of opinion – largely because it’s quite recent and it is very effective. Also, there are some people who just won’t listen unless an apostle has said something that is relevant – so on issues that I feel are deeply important (like not perpetuating former justifications for the Priesthood ban), I learn the most powerful quotes and share them when appropriate.
Finally, knowing the quotes and their sources lends credibility when I don’t know the exact quote or source – which happens to me frequently, because I actually have a pretty bad memory for sources and the details. I’m a big picture guy, but I’ve provided sources enough that I rarely get called on it now at the local level.
It’s really, really, really important to me that leaders see LOTS of things differently– since that totally legitimizes me seeing things differently in a very important, practical way. (Much like why I love 2 Nephi 4 so much, since it shows that even a visionary prophet like Nephi struggled with feelings of self-doubt and self-criticism – and even might have been bi-polar, which would explain a lot. If even a prophet can have those feelings, regular people certainly can.) I don’t believe “The Church” demands members see anything in one exact way, largely because not even apostles have achieved that over the years. That is incredibly liberating for me. In summary: What Brian said.
Thanks for all these other quotations. I started out thinking Costa had thrown a wrench into the works, and now realize he did us a favor. If what he said conflicts with other high-ranking leaders in the Church, then we’re back to personal judgment again.
The critical thinking literature says that when you have two “expert opinions” and they conflict with each other, you can’t rely on either of them. You have to use other methods of arriving at the truth.
Therefore, we’re right back to personal revelation as the ultimate driver of truth for each of us personally, in my view.
So, keep those non-correlated, general conference talk opinions coming — it grants me freedom of thought!
Very good point SD, thanks for that. It serves as a reminder to me that I’m still human and am not perfectly comfortable being confornted with thoughts that differ from my own. …Room for growth. cwald wrote: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 wouldn’t say you’re totally wrong…I’m not sure I totally agree 100% though. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle. I guess what I hear you saying is there is a very hard-line stance in the church that there is NO WIGGLE ROOM for personal revelation if it is out of whack with the priesthood line, because members take GC as scripture and Truth, and so you cannot question things said as bad or false doctrine. That argument to me is on the other end of the extreme from the hard-liners in the church that suggest if you question anything said over the pulpit then you are apostate, are sinning, or are not worthy to hold callings. I don’t believe in either of those extreme arguments, and I don’t think I’m screwed or getting in trouble for believing things my way (and I don’t think I’m a fool for believing that…I honestly feel my ward is fine with me where I’m at right now and many others believe similarly, but just aren’t vocal about it).
Most people I hang out with or have deep discussions with (my brother, the bishop, friends), really don’t profess one hard line or the other…they back off of that a little and recognize there is wiggle room for different personality types to co-exist in the church, but some are more comfortable with wiggling than others…yet they agree with me in principle when I talk about differing opinions to the same thing and the need for personal revelation. They don’t always agree with my interpretation, but they respect it after given enough time to try to understand me.
My point is that nobody ever agrees that blind obedience is God’s way or is what the church preaches. Never. So if I characterize Elder Costa’s talk as evidence of blind obedience…nobody will agree with me.
I don’t think you’re screwed if you handle yourself respectfully. I do think you are screwed if you quote-bash and get confrontational and start sounding like you are tearing down the church leaders with what they are saying, or trying to convince others the church is wrong. Perhaps it is all in the approach in how you share differing opinions, not that there isn’t room in the church for differing opinions.
If I am soft, gentle, calm, and sincere in sharing my views sparingly (I have to be careful not to spend too much social capital at once with others in my ward), but sharing small and well-thought out opposing views in Sunday School or Priesthood (like Elder Uchtdorf’s quotes), those are often appreciated in helping the discussion become more meaningful. Lessons are boring when we all have to only have one view or one answer, they are rich with meaning when the orchestra plays.
But when you play in the orchestra, you still have to be playing the same piece of work to compliment each other, you can’t play a different song than everyone else without disrupting the harmony of the music.Play the same song (preaching the gospel of Christ), but just use your own instrument to play it your way (my interpretations of scriptures or GA talks, complimented with other GA talks or scriptures to back up my personal revelations). Playing a different song (the church is false and church leaders are wrong) will not harmonize…and then, yes, you’re screwed. To me, its not about “Can I question things” but more about “How and when and where I should question things”, I think.
Heber13 wrote:But when you play in the orchestra, you still have to be playing the same piece of work to compliment each other, you can’t play a different song than everyone else without disrupting the harmony of the music.
That’s true, unless you play in one of Ornette Coleman’s jazz bands.
On a more serious note though, I like what you said Heber13.
Speak of the devil … Today’s EQ, it was the week the EQ Presidency gives their lesson (which is free to not be from the manual). The EQ President picked the controversial BKP talk.
We watched the talk on the EQ Pres’s laptop, and followed along with the printed version. I was really going to hold off and be tame, but the teacher was the one who brought up the fact the talk had caused quite a stir in the news. So there I was, waiting for others to start the discussion off. Two guys gave sort of decent but vanilla comments, and then there was this awkwardness and silence. Nobody really seemed to want to say anything. So that was my que
😈 I said “Well … I’ll leap in then and provide some conversational tension to get the discussion going. One of the big controversies was his statement that God doesn’t create anyone with a homosexual inclination. It is a conscious choice to sin and rebel against God. That we have no innate predisposition to these problems. The controversy comes from a great many people who ‘struggle’ with issues in their life like homosexuality, both in and outside the Church, and who became aware of it at a very young age, before they were making moral decisions about righteousness. So his statement are at odds with the experiences of people who struggle with these issues in their life.”
That got people involved in the lesson real quick.
The other point later on that brought up was that Priesthood power can cure all problems and addictions. I did not disagree that having the Gospel in our life, and filling our life with positive spirituality and positive experiences helps a great deal to fill our minds and hearts with goodness … that is often not enough, not for people who are doing serious damage to their health and family relationships through addictive behaviors.
This part of the class turned out really nice. We talked at length about getting help, getting therapy and using resources we are blessed with in the “secular” world. We have an addiction recovery group that meets in our chapel once a week, hosted by a couple missionary set called for this particular service. Attendance at the group is NOT reported to the Bishop, and anyone is free to attend. It was really a cool discussion, handled very compassionately and in a realistic manner. Everyone commenting was very supportive and acknowledged that compulsive behavior and addictions are VERY common, and nothing to ignore. Just get help if you need it, not matter what it is or where “the spirit” leads you to get what you need! That was the consensus.
Nice Brian… I am realizing that there are many who are just waiting for someone like you to speak up first, so they can then then join in. I use to be one of those people waiting for someone else to speak up first, but it rarely happened. Now I am learning to be more like you! 
Sounds like you got the conversation going in the right direction Brian. A couple questions — what were some of the ensuing comments from the crowd?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.