- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
josephkr wrote:
I’m new to this forum and recognize I’m pretty late in this discussion but I was hoping to get some feedback from the other people here. I probably fall into Mackay11’s category #3, but here’s where I get very frustrated:
President Benson taught that the prophet will never lead the church astray. I’ve heard it taught that if the prophet were to lead the church astray he would die. I guess President Benson could have been teaching false doctrine when he said that, and wouldn’t that be ironic? However, if the LDS church is lead by Prophets, Seers, and Revelators why did it take 120 years and 10 prophets to change this false practice?
Secondly, if policies like this are enacted by prophets without revelation, and can be disregarded as mistakes, what about all of the other changes made by prophets without citing revelation. Namely, prohibiting tea, coffee, alcohol, and tobacco, or paying 10% of our income as tithing. If it’s up to us to personally decide what teaching by the prophets are revelation and what is misguided policy, what is the purpose of being lead by a prophet?
Since this announcement about race and the priesthood I’ve started drinking coffee because I feel good when I drink it (don’t worry I drink iced coffee so I’m not drinking “hot drinks”). I’ve stopped paying tithing because my family needs the money to stay out of debt.
I’m worried because I might be on a slippery slope, feeling like there isn’t a lot that is inspired going on in the church. Despite all this I can’t deny my testimony of Christ and I really do believe Joseph Smith was a prophet who restored Christ’s church. Generally when I have doubts like this I can place them on the shelf, keep going about my business, and eventually an answer comes up. On this issue I’ve found nothing that resolves my concerns.
Good questions, Joseph. for your first question, that’s why I picked Mac’s #3 but could go with #4. Frankly, I don’t think God is going to strike anyone with lightning, even the prophet. I don’t think God operates that way. I do think men who are prophets, especially the likes of Pres. Benson (he is far from my favorite), do want us to follow them unquestioningly and I dislike that they invoke divine right in doing so – I think they actually have no divine right.To your second question, I have asked that here publicly as well. I do believe the WoW is what it says it is, wise words but not a commandment. I do keep the WoW (as much as most do, I do love meat and eat it almost every day) but have no problem with those that do not. I see no evidence that it is a commandment and I often wonder what else that is not clearly in the scriptures (and generally speaking the Bible)is not doctrine. The prophet clearly has a role in administration of the church and I do sustain Pres. Monson. I love that he teaches almost nothing but “love thy neighbor.” Beyond that, I also wonder what the purpose is if we have to go to great pains to figure out what is doctrine, when he is moved upon by the Holy Ghost, etc. We are all capable individually of receiving the same type of revelation he receives – so why doesn’t God just reveal it to us individually?
Part of the problem is that I think too often the membership and the leadership themselves stray too far from teaching the true gospel – which is contained in your testimony above – love God, love your neighbor, Jesus is the Christ. The rest, IMO, matters little. If there are sentinel angels standing at the pearly gates, I don’t think their check lists include “Does the person have more than one set of earrings?” (FWIW, Pres. Hinckley was one of my favorites.)
josephkr, please don’t take this as dismissive in any way, since it is meant as exactly the opposite, but I often suggest new people here search through our archives for threads that deal with their primary concerns. (The “Search” function is at the top, right of each page.) There are really good resources here on just about every topic imaginable, and your questions are addressed in quite a few older posts – some of which have dozens of comments from lots of differing perspectives. My short answer is to go slowly and not dive into the deep end before you can swim there. Too many people do that and end up in situations that put them in difficult situations.
My only other input is that the idea that “prophets will never lead the membership astray” was said first by Pres. Woodruff at a time when lots of members were leaving the Church over the rescinding of polygamy. I see it as sincere hyperbole – meaning he meant it but not as so many people interpret it now (that they won’t make big mistakes – or even that they are practically infallible). I don’t believe our leadership will lead us to Hell, but that leaves a lot of room for mistakes and mis-steps that need minor or even major correction. All of us, including all of our leaders, are human and prone to mistakes – and it was good to hear Pres. Uchtdorf say that explicitly in General Conference recently.
Old-Timer wrote:josephkr, please don’t take this as dismissive in any way, since it is meant as exactly the opposite, but I often suggest new people here search through our archives for threads that deal with their primary concerns. (The “Search” function is at the top, right of each page.) There are really good resources here on just about every topic imaginable, and your questions are addressed in quite a few older posts – some of which have dozens of comments from lots of differing perspectives.
Can I ask a sincere question here Ray? I’ve seen this come up a lot in other discussion forums particularly, and the moderation is so good here that I rarely see it on StayLDS.
But I want to comment — I don’t see the problem with rediscussing topics that have been given a lot of attention in the past. There are new people coming all the time, and even old timers might like to participate in the topic again as their understanding evolves. Further, there are two benefits to asking questions (even old ones). One, is the answers, and two is the interaction and community that builds when someone asks a question, and the community answers it. People come to these sites not only for information, but also for interaction. So, directing people to past discussions on the topic doesn’t meet that second need for interaction.
Also, if the topic is a dud (and you must know I’ve started a ton of duds, even new ones), then the OP gets the message that the topic isn’t one that is going to attract a lot of interest. Consicentious people can post links to the previous threads if no one is interested, or spontaneously as you and others do now and then to help the person feel part of the community and welcome.
I don’t mean this as criticism in any way, or anything untoward (I like how you gave commentary after inviting a search, abive) — I think you moderate well, but I wanted to share this as its something that has occurred to me regularly as I started blogging on various forums (only about 5 in my lifetime, and only 1-2 at a time) over the last 10 years or so.
Absolutely, SD, there is value in discussing the same things multiple times at a forum like this. It’s why we do it all the time – and why I went ahead and commented after suggesting a search of the archives. 
I just think it’s important sometimes to emphasize that there are some really good threads in our archives about lots of topics – especially since they provide input from people who have moved on and can’t respond to new posts. So, I think the ideal is to combine the two: search older posts but also comment on all threads that address any topics, no matter how often those topics have been addressed in the past.
(The only exception to that is when two posts address the same topic concurrently – when there is an active post on a subject about which someone asks. In those cases, having two simultaneous posts about the exact same topic is counterproductive – so I will close one and direct everyone to the first one.)
Old-Timer wrote:Absolutely, SD, there is value in discussing the same things multiple times at a forum like this. It’s why we do it all the time – and why I went ahead and commented after suggesting a search of the archives.
I just think it’s important sometimes to emphasize that there are some really good threads in our archives about lots of topics – especially since they provide input from people who have moved on and can’t respond to new posts. So, I think the ideal is to combine the two: search older posts but also comment on all threads that address any topics, no matter how often those topics have been addressed in the past.
(The only exception to that is when two posts address the same topic concurrently – when there is an active post on a subject about which someone asks. In those cases, having two simultaneous posts about the exact same topic is counterproductive – so I will close one and direct everyone to the first one.)
Got it — I know that it’s also work to look up old threads and you do it all the time for us. Thanks Ray.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.