- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
After the latest arguments about the Churh’s (proper, imo) stance on immigration, I would take out the qualifiers and just say, “the proud”. I would add, “the learned” only when prophets say things that directly contradict established scholarship (like the former position that homosexual attraction is a choice) – since even the learned humble have difficulty with statements like that.
I don’t like at all the implication that those who have difficulty following the prophet all are proud – but that’s not actually in the wording itself. The wording itself allows those who are humble having difficulty, as well.
Benson’s explanation for this point mostly makes me sympathize with some of these “proud” individuals that dare to put the Church in its place: Quote:The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich…
The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them; otherwise, the prophet is just giving his opinion–speaking as a man.The rich may feel they have no need to take counselof a lowly prophet. In the Book of Mormon we read: “O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish…But
to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.” To me, this sounds like sour grapes almost as if he saw a few examples of rich or highly educated members displaying a defiant attitude toward Church leaders so then he wanted to lash out at anyone like this and act like the Church is too good for them anyway because they are so proud. Ridicule and personal attacks are also a common rhetorical trick used to try to discredit the opposition based on things that often have nothing to do with the validity of the actual arguments being made.
Even if someone is arrogant and not very nice it doesn’t mean that they are automatically wrong about specific things they say. Maybe some of these educated or rich members that are supposedly such a thorn in the Church’s side had perfectly understandable reasons to question the prophet and their education, business success, etc. just gave them more confidence to speak up about it, but rather than listen to any feedback it seems like top Church leaders would rather just call them proud and insist they were completely wrong to think that way.
In the shared words of my 12-year-old son’s and mine after a “14 Fundamentals” talk yesterday, “He’s just a guy.” President Monson is just a guy. You are just a guy, I am just a guy, Joseph Smith was just a guy, and Brother Monson is just a guy. Nobody in particular is such a much. Of course we are all angels of heaven also. Nobody gets special consideration in this matter.
So if we apply that to Fundie 11, we get something like this:
Quote:The two groups that have the greatest difficulty in accepting each other’s revelations are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
So do we accept and weigh considerately each other’s revelations? Do we each believe in the words of our inner prophet? Does the LDS Church humbly consider and quote the words of Desmond Tutu, Dorothy Day, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Pope Benedict, Deepak Chopra, Eckhart Tolle, Bart Ehrman, etc? Do we invite them to give firesides and Sunday School classes? Or do we collectively and individually consider ourselves wealthy and learned and thus close our ears to any but our own man?
I actually think this statement is VERY correct. But I don’t think it’s a bad thing. It just seems to me that the more I become “learned” the more I realize how that the chances of the church being the only true church on the face of the earth, and that “the prophets will never lead us astray,” just isn’t really plausible. Many of these issues I have with the church is because I have LEARNED that it’s not always black and white, or that what I was taught in primary/SS doesn’t contain all the pertinent information to make an informed decision. I didn’t get all facts. What is wrong with people LEARNING, and then making logical rational decisions based on the facts. Example — most credible scientist believe that homosexual behavior is genetic based. Why can’t I believe that over what BKP says in GC? Does that make me proud that I use secular and scientific knowledge to come to conclusion? To be learned is good if you hearken unto god? Yep, my learning, and god, tells me that people are genetically gay – so that means the “prophets” who did not have the scientific data growing up who still believe its a choice and that god wouldn’t do that to his children, were wrong, IMO. Does that make me proud.
As far as the rich thing is concerned — yep. We teach kids that if they want to make their own choices and own rules, they need to get a job, move out of the house and make it on their own. It takes a certain amount of wealth to become independent of parents, and the government – which allows folks to rely less and less on others and have more control over their OWN lives. It just makes sense, that if we are not having to rely on parents, government OR THE CHURCH for financial assistance, we have more power and freedom to think and make our decisions based on our own conscience. Does that concept make me a “proud” person?
The other problem with F11, is we are told that prophets speak as prophets sometimes and and men sometimes, but they never tell us when they are, so we are left on our own to decide — which is the greatest mormon apologetic statement ever invented. So, were the learned men who knew the priesthood ban needed to change, PROUD? Or were they just learned men who disagreed with the church policy?
Quote:So do we accept and weigh considerately each other’s revelations? Do we each believe in the words of our inner prophet? Does the LDS Church humbly consider and quote the words of Desmond Tutu, Dorothy Day, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Pope Benedict, Deepak Chopra, Eckhart Tolle, Bart Ehrman, etc? Do we invite them to give firesides and Sunday School classes? Or do we collectively and individually consider ourselves wealthy and learned and thus close our ears to any but our own man?
Excellent! How often are we being told that we can only use church material in church now? Perhaps the local church leadership needs to reevaluate their own definition of being too proud to listen and follow other wise men who are “prophetic.”
DevilsAdvocate wrote:But
to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.Music to my ears! (Just don’t tell me that Brother Monson is God. Wait. He is. Oh, never mind. Sigh.) So, just what does that interesting phrase mean, “hearken unto the counsels of God.” Could it mean to have a listening ear, observant eyes, and an open mind and heart? Ewww! Sounds liberal. Yuck. Somebody stop me before I say something I will regret.
:crazy: It is Is just a slam on those who disagree, or at least it is meant to be. But like Cwald said it is a somewhat accurate statement taken at face value. To have this statement carry weight you have to first believe the prophet. If you do not then what is wrong with not following him because you are more learned than him on a particular subject.I choose not to follow the prophet on homosexuality because I know more than him about it. The statement only works when the prophet is correct, but not so much when he is wrong. The proud who are learned.There’s a fine line between “knowing better” and “thinking you know better.” The latter is implied in this fundamental, but sometimes the former might be more accurate. The proud who are rich. This is starting to sound like someone just grousing about two groups of people that have more than they do. Elsewise, why not just say “the proud”? Since the church is focused on providential living and education, it would seem that eventually one graduates from following the prophet by becoming learned & rich. Notably, the proud who are poor and stupid are in the clear!
cwald wrote:Quote:So do we accept and weigh considerately each other’s revelations? Do we each believe in the words of our inner prophet? Does the LDS Church humbly consider and quote the words of Desmond Tutu, Dorothy Day, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Pope Benedict, Deepak Chopra, Eckhart Tolle, Bart Ehrman, etc? Do we invite them to give firesides and Sunday School classes? Or do we collectively and individually consider ourselves wealthy and learned and thus close our ears to any but our own man?
Excellent! How often are we being told that we can only use church material in church now? Perhaps the local church leadership needs to reevaluate their own definition of being too proud to listen and follow other wise men who are “prophetic.”
I love it when words of wisdom are shared over the pulpit, coming from CS Lewis or RW Emerson.James E. Faust wrote:What are the fruits of the Spirit? Paul answered this question by saying they are “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” (Gal. 5:22–23). The joy we seek is not a temporary emotional high but a habitual inner joy learned from long experience and trust in God.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Rectitude is a perpetual victory, celebrated not by cries of joy, but by serenity, which is joy fixed or habitual”(“Character,” Ralph Waldo Emerson: Complete Writings, New York: Wm. H. Wise & Co., 1929, p. 268). Jeffrey R. Holland wrote:the incomparable Ralph Waldo Emerson rocked the very foundations of New England ecclesiastical orthodoxy when he said to the Divinity School at Harvard: “It is my duty to say to you that the need was never greater [for] new revelation than now.” “The doctrine of inspiration is lost. … Miracles, prophecy, … the holy life, exist as ancient history [only]. … Men have come to speak of … revelation as somewhat long ago given and done, as if God were dead. … It is the office of a true teacher,” he warned, “to show us that God is, not was; that He speaketh, not spake.”
It inspires me to see the brethren well-versed in the best books from the best writers of our time.
I am glad we teach that to be learned is good. But when being learned leads one to having an educated opinion that doesn’t match up with what the prophet says, it creates the conundrum. I guess we are asked to swallow our pride and go with the prophet in those situations. Maybe we are to do that publicly, but privately hold to our own opinions???
hawkgrrrl wrote:Notably, the proud who are poor and stupid are in the clear!
Phew, I’m safe on all accounts.
:angel: Heber13 wrote:
It inspires me to see the brethren well-versed in the best books from the best writers of our time…Yes, I agree.
So once again, WHY ARE WE TOLD TO STICK TO THE CORRELATED MANUALS AND ONLY USE CHURCH SOURCES for our lessons and talks?
👿 Don’t answer, it’s a rhetorical question.cwald wrote:So once again, WHY ARE WE TOLD TO STICK TO THE CORRELATED MANUALS AND ONLY USE CHURCH SOURCES for our lessons and talks?
👿 Don’t answer, it’s a rhetorical question.
…uh, because there are some in the church who can’t be trusted to use them responsibly, so the lowest common denominator is correlated manuals?…oh, wait…you said don’t answer. Forget I said that.
😈 cwald wrote:WHY ARE WE TOLD TO STICK TO THE CORRELATED MANUALS AND ONLY USE CHURCH SOURCES for our lessons and talks?
Do people really stick to that? Maybe that’s why I haven’t been asked to give a talk in a while.
Given the context of our background discussions, (i.e. the prophet is only the prophet when he is speaking as such, the prophet only speaks scripture when inspired by the holy spirit, the prophet sometimes/most times/always speaks with limited light and knowledge) how might an individual go about disagreeing with the prophet or brethren or church policy but notsuccumb to pride? Is this 11th fundamental trying to say that to disagree is de facto a manifestation of pride? Even if it does attempt to say this in its own limited application, what is the best NOM/Stayer approach to respectfully disagree?
Heber13 wrote:I guess we are asked to swallow our pride and go with the prophet in those situations. Maybe we are to do that publicly, but privately hold to our own opinions???
Beware of groupthink. There is a culturally acceptable way to disagree. We just have to find it.
- The topic ‘The 14 Fundamentals: Number 11’ is closed to new replies.