- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
It becomes part of who you are, and to me that’s the greatest pain of a faith crisis.
Amen.
Quote:
Postby slowlylosingit » 2015 Mar 13, 12:38I hope to get to that place too, where I can just feel good listening to them and not have that twinge of doubt all of the time. I think what I heard in those quotes was probably that twinge.
Slowly, I hear what you’re saying. I’ve been there and felt the same self-doubt and fear. I have found two principles that helps me:First, problems are not with the prophet, but my expectations. I have yet to hear a Mormon say the Q15 are infallible. Therefore, I can differ with them without challenging or arguing with anyone. That gives me some wiggle room.
Second, a prophet’s stewardship extends to the entire Church (world???). Only I have a stewardship of myself and my family. No one else does. I listen to their council, and then must determine how that should be applied in my stewardship. The prophet’s council is limited in specificity by the fact that he is talking to approximately 15 million Mormons in 120 different countries and It translates materials in 93 languages. (or if you prefer, 7+ billion people in 193 countries.) There is no getting around the resulting logistical and related language problems that inevitably occur.
Inevitably, much will be lost in translation, especially literal translation which many TBM’ers use. But I don’t have to translate into language they accept and understand, unless of course, I am giving a talk or lesson.
slowlylosingit wrote:How do we know when [the prophets] are speaking from God and when is it man?
It’s my opinion that prophets always speak as a man. The spirit can confirm their message… but now we’re talking communication from the spirit, not the prophet.
I’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of this quote lately:
Brigham Young wrote:I do not wish any Latter Day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ,—the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves.
How often have you heard leaders ask members to take notes during GC, SC, or even WCs? The counsel I hear usually goes something like this: Write down your impressions.
You might get an impression that has nothing to do with what the speaker is talking about, but be sure to write it down, it’s revelation from the spirit. The speaker, whether it’s a prophet or a beehive, is only setting the stage to help people feel the spirit. After a connection with the spirit is made all bets are off as to what the spirit communicates to someone. Not everything a prophet says is going to help people make a connection to the spirit.
Bonus: a prophet is just “some guy” but the spirit is a part of the godhead.
Discerning the spirit is a whole other matter. Good luck with that one.
Quote:Brigham Young wrote:I do not wish any Latter Day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ,—the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves.
Nibbler,I like that quote. Do you have the source for it?
Every time I go to copy and paste it I grab it from Christofferson’s October 2014 general conference talk Free Forever, to Act for ThemselvesI just checked the talk’s reference:
Brigham Young, “Sermon,” Deseret News, Oct. 31, 1855, 267; quoted in Terryl Givens and Fiona Givens, The Crucible of Doubt: Reflections on the Quest for Faith (2014), 63.
Go figure. I’m going to have to read that book some day.
I love knowing that Christofferson has read the Given’s book. It gives me hope that someone up on top is at least interested in alternative views. Old-Timer wrote:To be fair, the same is true of MANY people in ALL religions and denominations. It’s just easier in those with much longer histories to brush aside all issues as things in the past – and end up completely ignoring things that are more recent and even still happening currently.
I think that may well be true. I’m sure the Catholics have trouble with people asking about the Inquisition, the sale of indulgences, etcetera. But for me, that doesn’t put salve on the wound. I went into this religion believing the official history, and gave a lifetime of tithing, service, and did a lot of things I otherwise would not have done — because I believed it all. Would I have done so had I known what I know now. from the outset? I think not.
For me, the argument that every religion has this problem only highlights the problem — the making of grandiose claims about the organization only makes it a target, and source of disappointment when people learn about them in detail. It’s the same problem with not disclosing all the problems with an item in a store — as soon as some people find out the truth about the item, they return it. And in the process, the organization that “sold it” takes a hit to their reputation.
And for me, the biggest problem the LDS church faces is its grandiose truth claims — the only true religion, with inspired leaders at its head, and all the other claims. The church has a lot of good things without those items at the helm,. Why jeopardize your membership’s commitment by leading them astray at the outset? Why not put your teachings on the “wall of truth” and then let the chips fall as they may? We are not a sales organization — we are in the truth business. “Do what is right and let the consequence follow” — isn’t that part of our culture and hymns? Why do we dispense with that as soon as it seems to threaten our ability to attract or retain members?
I get all of that, SD and dash – and I don’t disagree that our claims are problematic. They are. However, to use Catholicism AND Protestantism as the examples, LDS truth claims are no more grandiose than theirs – and the official LDS view of human potential relative to “salvation” is no more restrictive than theirs (and, I would say, unequivocally, much less restrictive and much more inclusive than Protestantism). Seriously, the standard Protestant view is that all who don’t agree with them regarding Jesus, EVEN those who worship Jesus differently, are damned – that Protestantism, writ large but with clear limits, is “the one true church”.
I don’t agree with everything all members mean when they say the LDS Church is the one true church – but I do believe that our official theology is, in a fundamental way, the one true theology – since it really does leave the final judgment in God’s hands and allows, explicitly, for the same reward to all, regardless of denominational / religious affiliation in this life.
What I am saying is important to understand, I think. What we claim isn’t as unique as we assume, in many ways. It is equally incorrect, I believe, in some important ways – but it IS unique in some critical ways, and those ways are vital, in my opinion.
As an ex Catholic, and as one who has Catholic friends, the adage “The Catholic church teaches the pope is infallible but Catholics don’t believe while the LDS church teaches the prophet is not infallible but Mormons don’t believe it” has some added meaning. Literally no one I have ever talked to (including a priest) believes the pope to be infallible. They mostly believe him to be a good person and the leader of the church and the ultimate authority – but not infallible. It’s just part of who they are as a church now. Of course they also deal with dissent much differently than we do – perhaps because they are a more mature church? And if that’s the case, look at Judaism – their individual beliefs and unbeliefs run the full gamut. DarkJedi wrote:As an ex Catholic, and as one who has Catholic friends, the adage “The Catholic church teaches the pope is infallible but Catholics don’t believe while the LDS church teaches the prophet is not infallible but Mormons don’t believe it” has some added meaning. Literally no one I have ever talked to (including a priest) believes the pope to be infallible. They mostly believe him to be a good person and the leader of the church and the ultimate authority – but not infallible. It’s just part of who they are as a church now. Of course they also deal with dissent much differently than we do – perhaps because they are a more mature church? And if that’s the case, look at Judaism – their individual beliefs and unbeliefs run the full gamut.
See, that would have made it a lot easier to swallow so much of what has concerned me about the church over the years. I think I could exist in an LDS church that doesn’t claim so much about its leaders — promises that it can’t keep. I am on this model:
“The church believes the prophet is infallible, yet I don’t believe it” is the model I’m on now. Unfortunately, it puts you in the dog house with the rest of the church and sometimes your family. It makes you unorthodox. And unorthodox Mormons don’t fare well in orthodox church relationships and behavior.
We may be using a different definition of infallible than a more orthodox member. I don’t think anyone in the church would make the claim that the prophet is infallible. The definition used by orthodox members may be more focused on someone not being perfect/capable of sin whereas ours might be more focused on making mistakes even when it comes to establishing church policy/doctrine. I’ve heard several lessons that say we can’t be perfect but that doesn’t mean that we can’t be perfect with obedience to certain commandments. E.g. we can be “perfect” in paying tithing and obeying the WoW (or at least the reduced TR interpretation of the WoW). I’m guessing that the orthodox member would say that a prophet isn’t infallible in the sense that they are still capable of sin but that they have perfected establishing policies/doctrine. Further complicating matters, many also believe that the prophet talks face to face with god, so what a prophet says really isn’t coming from the prophet, the prophet is just repeating what god told him directly.
I can understand the orthodox mindset, I’ve been of that mindset for more time that I have any other. No one wants to introduce imperfections into a system that they hold to be sacred. The notion that a prophet speaks for god is a good way to protect that sanctity. Once you let that go you may be in a position to reevaluate what you hold to be sacred. Reassuring yourself that certain things are infallibility can be a survival mechanism.
nibbler wrote:I’ve heard several lessons that say we can’t be perfect but that doesn’t mean that we can’t be perfect with obedience to certain commandments. E.g. we can be “perfect” in paying tithing and obeying the WoW (or at least the reduced TR interpretation of the WoW). I’m guessing that the orthodox member would say that a prophet isn’t infallible in the sense that they are still capable of sin but that they have perfected establishing policies/doctrine. Further complicating matters,
many also believe that the prophet talks face to face with god, so what a prophet says really isn’t coming from the prophet, the prophet is just repeating what god told him directly.I agree with you Nibbler, some of this conversation does have to do with semantics. And, I agree with your assessment of the orthodox mindset. The sad part is that the above italicized portion is a false teaching or understanding. The prophets have not claimed to speak face to face with God or Jesus (other than Joseph Smith, of course), and the apostles do not claim that they have all seen Jesus. I was doing some research the other day and came across this quote by Pres. Kimball from April 1977:
Quote:In our day, as in times past, many people expect that if there be revelation it will come with awe-inspiring, earth-shaking display. For many it is hard to accept as revelation those numerous ones in Moses’ time, in Joseph’s time, and in our own year—those revelations which come to prophets as deep, unassailable impressions settling down on the prophet’s mind and heart as dew from heaven or as the dawn dissipates the darkness of night.
This is very much like what those present have described the revelation on the priesthood (OD2) being like. Yet, I am willing to bet that I could find many members in my own ward and stake who believe Pres. Kimball went to the Holy of Holies and had a sit down with the Lord.
The truth is revelation comes to Pres. Monson the same way it comes to you and me. It actually has strengthened my testimony to know that because I have experienced how I “see through a glass darkly” and how I don’t always know exactly what those feelings and impressions mean – and I have sometimes misinterpreted them. If it does indeed work the same way with Pres. Monson, and his predecessors, as it does with me, I understand how they can make mistakes. It makes them more human, and it allows me the flexibility I need to be able to sustain them.
Nibbler, :clap: :clap: :clap: Not only for the citation, but Todd Christofferson’s entire talk is magnificent. Here’s some more tidbits:
Quote:God will not live our lives for us nor control us as if we were His puppets, as Lucifer once proposed to do. Nor will His prophets accept the role of “puppet master” in God’s place.
God will not act to make us something we do not choose by our actions to become. Truly He loves us, and because He loves us, He neither compels nor abandons us. Rather He helps and guides us. Indeed, the real manifestation of God’s love is His commandments.*
God will not act to make us something we do not choose by our actions to become. Truly He loves us, and because He loves us, He neither compels nor abandons us. Rather He helps and guides us. Indeed, the real manifestation of God’s love is His commandments.
…Acting to repent is a self-willed change. So by making repentance a condition for receiving the gift of grace, God enables us to retain responsibility for ourselves. Repentance respects and sustains our moral agency: “And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice.
Here’s the link for those so interested:
* The word
“commandment”in scripture strikes me as odd. True, unrepentant sins will eventually lead to serious consequences, but commands are something an army Sargent gives and enforces immediately. What God does is closer to advise or counsel us, but he doesn’t enforce it with a sharp jerk of a chain to train us to be obedient like a well trained dog, (or a Private). God is not B.F. Skinner.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.