- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Interesting piece. I don’t have time for the full review and all the details that I have a thought on, so I will focus on the chart and the main point/s. The way I currently view things virtually all revelation is personal and spiritual. I would not have stated an assumption that there is an absolute truth and there is only one “true” spiritual answer. I don’t see the “problem” as authority vs. contradiction, I see the challenge – that we are here on earth to learn from, as: how do we reconcile that different people will obtain different answers when asking the same question? From this position many points of the chart simply don’t fit. True revelations can contradict, stewardship is relevant but not absolute, future revelations may vindicate present misunderstanding, all revelation (as it exists in the human condition) is fallible, there is no unchanging map, distrusting our own answers is a paradox: on one hand it is the same thing as distrusting God, on the other we are human and fallible so it is good to constantly re-evaluate our present interpretations.
A key take-away from this perspective is laziness works against spiritual growth. If we sit back on the comfort of our “answers” we fail to continue searching and learning. I suppose the same could be said of fear, if we fear a contradiction to our perceived truth that fear may keep us from searching and learning. This is a challenge to everyone, no matter their current paradigm. It is related to inertia.
Quote:The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know.
– Albert Einstein
While my words would be different, I would say exactly what Orson said. Also, in light of Elder Oaks’ latest talk on the Priesthood, “priesthood authority” is available to every member of the Church – so interpersonal reasoning, in a very real way, is multiple people exercising their collective priesthood authority to try to understand. I see no conflict between the two; rather, I see the “vs” as a “traditional” and “manufactured” construct that is not in harmony with the new framing of the priesthood represented in his talk – as a great example of how people can listen to someone speak (Elder Oaks, in this case) and hear the words without understanding the message.
This shows that, in the end, we all hear what we want and/or are able to hear – that we all are “cafeteria Mormons” that way, either intentionally or simply naturally.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.