- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think you are spot on SD. I hope stayLDS doesn’t become a place where we try to solve every thread and every dilemma people have at with a rebuttal of “you need to have a personal visit from God yourself like I’ve I.”
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Tobin wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:and then led his people to practice a sanitized form of sexual promiscuity is definitely leading the people astray.
I find that unlikely. People are completely capable of making their own decisions and saying ‘no’. I certainly feel no need to be a polygamist because JS was one.
It’s completely different for us now. JS used his position to accomplish spiritual coercion. Some did separate themselves from JS over polygamy, but most gave in, thinking that it must be from God, no matter how awful. Like SD said, that’s leading astray.My own belief is that JS’s motives were not as sex-based as often asserted. While we will never fully understand his motives, I think we can agree that the results were terrible in the extreme, and I think it is unfortunate that then and now, the Church’s dogma is that following the prophet is what God wants regardless of where the prophet leads. I agree with Ray that this is not the doctrine of the Church, but the Church does nothing to stop this common belief.
On Own Now wrote:It’s completely different for us now. JS used his position to accomplish spiritual coercion. Some did separate themselves from JS over polygamy, but most gave in, thinking that it must be from God, no matter how awful. Like SD said, that’s leading astray.
What I draw from that is that we should use this to learn about the perils of blindly following any man and merely assuming they know better or speak for God or whatever the misconception may be.
On Own Now wrote:My own belief is that JS’s motives were not as sex-based as often asserted. While we will never fully understand his motives, I think we can agree that the results were terrible in the extreme, and I think it is unfortunate that then and now, the Church’s dogma is that following the prophet is what God wants regardless of where the prophet leads. I agree with Ray that this is not the doctrine of the Church, but the Church does nothing to stop this common belief.
Of course the Church should do a better job and not teach that we should blindly follow any man, no matter his title including prophet. In fact, it my view that It would do a world of good for Mormons to carefully consider any teaching and make our decisions based on good reasons or if we still can’t decide, ultimately speak with God about it ourselves.
SilentDawning wrote:
I have to be a bit frank here. These kinds of statements disturb me….we DO make huge claims about prophets, about the need to live our lives clean, Moses shut out of the promised land because he didn’t follow basic instructions. That prophets will “never lead us astray”. To have a prophet that had sexual urges he could not control, and then led his people to practice a sanitized form of sexual promiscuity as a form of “covering his sines” is definitely leading the people astray.I agree with SD here – we (as in the Church) DO make claims about prophets. Don’t believe us? Take a gander at this (CES fireside May 5, 2013):
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/our-prophet-thomas-s-monson?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/our-prophet-thomas-s-monson?lang=eng DarkJedi wrote:SilentDawning wrote:
I have to be a bit frank here. These kinds of statements disturb me….we DO make huge claims about prophets, about the need to live our lives clean, Moses shut out of the promised land because he didn’t follow basic instructions. That prophets will “never lead us astray”. To have a prophet that had sexual urges he could not control, and then led his people to practice a sanitized form of sexual promiscuity as a form of “covering his sines” is definitely leading the people astray.I agree with SD here – we (as in the Church) DO make claims about prophets. Don’t believe us? Take a gander at this (CES fireside May 5, 2013):
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/our-prophet-thomas-s-monson?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/our-prophet-thomas-s-monson?lang=eng Yes. I agree with the premise Tobin is saying. We should not follow ANYONE, including a prophet, who says to do something that goes against our conscience…but that is NOT the culture we live in.
That is not the church we belong to today. Sorry.
Until the church publicly repudiates the 14 Fs as false doctrine, and stops preaching the blanket statement “obedience as the first principle in heaven” than the church has no one to blame for these misconceptions but themselves.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Quote:I hope stayLDS doesn’t become a place where we try to solve every thread and every dilemma people have at with a rebuttal of “you need to have a personal visit from God yourself like I’ve had.”
Never have been; aren’t; won’t become. That is the exact opposite of our mission.
Look, I am not arguing that leaders and members haven’t built the type of culture that bothers everyone – but this thread is about a step in the right direction – and it’s not a tiny, inconsequential step. When you add it to all of the other things happening with the Joseph Smith Papers project and the writings of quite a few modern Mormon scholars, it’s really important to separate the church of a couple of decades ago form the current church – even as there still are things that need to be changed.
Seriously, this is not a tiny thing; it’s one manifestation of a large, good, important change in how the LDS Church is approaching its history. Recognizing and crediting that attempt to change is important in staying LDS and even letting go of some of what caused and continues to cause difficulty in staying LDS and being at peace doing so.
I agree with Ray. Perhaps we turned to criticism too quickly. I am learning, through my own efforts to change things in non-Church contexts, that people need time to adjust to ideas they have never seen before. It was easy to accept that the church whitewashed the whole polyandry thing because we see so much sticking of the head in the sand in our faith promoting Sunday lessons etcetera…. It was part of the personna we have grown to live with over the years that the church only discloses what makes it look good or builds faith. Now that they are openly admitting JS’s indiscretions, I’m not quite sure where that leaves us. It certainly must rock the foundations of what the average TBM believes. And also the foundation of the “as soon as is called becomes a great man” culture to which I’ve been exposed for decades. It’s a bit early to see whether this is part of a gradual change toward our history. And I suppose one has to resist holding the last several decades against the church by saying “I told you so” or “NOW you finally admit it”…etcetera.
I just hope it doesn’t turn to outright rationalization from the apologists, or an attitude of “can do no wrong” toward JS, justifying the behavior rather than acknowledging he made some grave mistakes (perhaps more grave than any prophet on earth) and God let him serve as prophet anyway. Or that the church isn’t taking the Amazon approach. When they have a book that is so cheap they don’t want anyone to see it (a used book), they hide it so you have to click into the product page a few times to find it. They can claim they are open about the cheap book, but in reality, they are acknowledging its presence while hoping the average person won’t find it. I hope the church isn’t doing this, or that we find it gets taken down in a couple days, like the altering of Elder Poelman’s talk years ago.
The other thing I ask — what about the Story of David — he fell with ONE WOMAN, and look what happened to him. Why did JS not receive the same treatment as a true prophet, and what message does it send to the entire membership when someone can behave as JS did, yet continue on in such a high office?
SD, with all due respect, there is no indication that Joseph sinned more than any other prophet throughout history. Assuming our scriptures are accurate, just for the sake of comparison, there are multiple murderers / death-enablers who are accepted as prophets (Moses, Nephi, Saul, etc.); Samson had incontrovertible proof that Delilah was trying to betray and get him captured (more than once), and he still allowed her to make it happen – either because he loved her or because the sex was so good; Isaiah had sex with a prostitute and got her pregnant, just to give the child a name to make a prophecy; Jonah tried to run away from the Lord, openly defying him, and then grieved when people repented; Gandhi was a deeply flawed man, with multiple serious issues; Martin Luther King, Jr. was a serial adulterer; Jesus of Nazareth was killed for blasphemy – and all we have of his life are records that were written explicitly by believers to place him in the position of the [theologically revamped] Messiah when, by all objective standards of the day, he simply was another failed Messiah figure; and the list continues. (and, it’s important to point out that David never was a prophet – but his “fall with one woman” was the result of arranging the murder of her husband) I’m not trying to hold up Joseph as a model of virtuous behavior (since I don’t see him as such), but I am saying the standard we (collectively) tend to demand of our prophets and apostles (particularly in the case of Joseph, who can be seen, I believe, more in the role of an Old Testament prophet than any other type) simply is not consistent with history and our own scriptural canon. The majority of exceedingly extraordinary people throughout history have carried baggage on the other side of their “greatness”, as well. I don’t see that disconnect as their fault (even as I see their actions as their fault); I see that disconnect as our fault, and I include leadership in that statement just as much as general membership – more so, in an important way, since the leadership has condoned and even encouraged that unrealistic view.
As I’ve said in other threads, I don’t see how anyone who accepts the Biblical prophets can reject Joseph as a prophet based on his weaknesses and mistakes. I can see how that person can reject him for other reasons, but to say his actions disqualify him . . . I just don’t see it.
Hey Ray, I like your thinking about the prophets (especially including Gandhi and MLK among them as I do) and JS in particular and it reflects my own views. I’m interested in prophets for the truths they can teach us. And yes, at times, it is their misbehavior that can be instructive as well. I certainly extend that view to the polyandry of JS.
Tobin wrote:Hey Ray,
I like your thinking about the prophets (especially including Gandhi and MLK among them as I do) and JS in particular and it reflects my own views. I’m interested in prophets for the truths they can teach us. And yes, at times, it is their misbehavior that can be instructive as well. I certainly extend that view to the polyandry of JS.
I hate to admit it, but I agree with you, and Ray. Good posts.
See Tobin…You and I can get along after all.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Perhaps all it takes is a moderated forum? Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Old-Timer wrote:
I’m not trying to hold up Joseph as a model of virtuous behavior (since I don’t see him as such), but I am saying the standard we (collectively) tend to demand of our prophets and apostles (particularly in the case of Joseph, who can be seen, I believe, more in the role of an Old Testament prophet than any other type) simply is not consistent with history and our own scriptural canon.The majority of exceedingly extraordinary people throughout history have carried baggage on the other side of their “greatness”, as well. I don’t see that disconnect as their fault (even as I see their actions as their fault); I see that disconnect as our fault, and I include leadership in that statement just as much as general membership – more so, in an important way, since the leadership has condoned and even encouraged that unrealistic view. As I’ve said in other threads, I don’t see how anyone who accepts the Biblical prophets can reject Joseph as a prophet based on his weaknesses and mistakes. I can see how that person can reject him for other reasons, but to say his actions disqualify him . . . I just don’t see it. Agreed, Ray. That’s why when I have heard/read things in the past about JS (and BY) it doesn’t bother me. I am far from perfect and have never met any man or woman who is near perfect. I can accept that JS experienced what he experienced in the grove and that he received other revelations and still sin like the rest of us. I really think this whole infallibility thing carries over from teachings of the first and still majority Christian church. The LDS church hasn’t ever helped itself by trying to hide it or ignore it. I have studied the histories of some of our founding fathers in some depth, and, as you point out, they are not the “saints” they are portrayed to be, either, and many stories that are taught to us in elementary schools and never later refuted are also quite false (Thanksgiving, Paul Revere, etc.). That doesn’t mean those people didn’t do great things, and the greatness of our country is based upon their good deeds. Likewise, much of what we are taught in SS, seminary, etc., isn’t doctrine and probably wouldn’t be recognized by those early church members as something the church believes – they did believe in JS, though, and undoubtedly some of them saw his warts (although admittedly, I believe that’s why many of the early leaders left the church – almost ll of the original 12, for instance).
Tobin, I judge you as a troll here…but you have been nothing but respectful so far. Thanks. Perhaps staylds is a better fit for you than MD?
All I ask is you don’t turn every thread into a “get your own personal visit from God like I have” answer to every issue and problem.
Is that okay to ask of you?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:Tobin, I judge you as a troll here…but you have been nothing but respectful so far. Thanks.
As I’ve said before, I don’t troll. I simply express my views and respond to comments. If people wish to attack me, then I don’t feel a need to stay quiet. I will respond to that as well.
cwald wrote:Perhaps staylds is a better fit for you than MD?
I like this forum. I have not experienced any personal attacks and most people here have interesting things to say about Mormonism.
cwald wrote:All I ask is you don’t turn every thread into a “get your own personal visit from God like I have” answer to every issue and problem.
I’ve never said that since I don’t believe you can force God to appear to you. Instead, my position is if you want to really know God, you need to speak with him yourself.
cwald wrote:Is that okay to ask of you?
I’m behaving the same on this forum as any other forum I participate in, so I fail to see the difference. And I fail to see what any of this has to do with the topic of this thread however?
I was extending you a peace offering. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.