Jump to content

stemelbow

Limited
  • Content Count

    10,246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,144 Excellent

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,894 profile views
  1. I'm not sure why anyone would ever wish others suffer other than for those who think perpetrators for various things deserve it. i suppose viewing it from the position of being one who believers tend to say will suffer, it's a bit different. I can't imagine suffering in eternity. Sounds awful would much rather obliterate my own existence I think. It's precisely why I couldn't maintain belief, as much as anything. God suggests according to mormonism that people will suffer if they chose not to repent. The problem is everyone repents, and even accoridng to Mormonism everyone will bow the knee confessing...you know. This doesn't make much sense. We're supposed to be like God. If God suffers for eternity then so should we. That is if God finds sadness and pain in those who don't believe in him, then so should we. And it must be, there will always be those who don't believe. Thus, suffering is eternal for God. If for God, then it should be for us. no it's not. That's just your perception of what's real. There's nothing real about it--it's all subjective perception. It might be. Whose mental anguish is worse a mormon mother who loses a small child or an atheist mother who loses a small child? How would we know? What's the point of claiming the person without the gift of the Holy Ghost must be blessed less than he who has been given it? What do you mean? That's exactly what they thought. You said, "Even some people who might have believed things that were wrong in that regard were quite different in their behaviors to people they met. What's worse, a person who believed because of tradition that blacks shouldn't have the priesthood and marry white people but treated with charity all the blacks they met, " That's not charity. I'm pointing out the very thing you claimed about Mormons in the early 70s as them possibly being charitable is not charitable at all. If you say "hello" and "how are you doing?" to someone who you think is a lesser person in the eyes of God, then your minute of decency doesn't turn your decency into charity for that person. My point is simply you can't be said to be charitable if you hold negative biases. even if you go mow their lawn, that's not charity. That's being somewhat decent in spite of your uncharitable position towards the person. Maybe, but I don't see it. It seems I'm sticking to what you're saying.
  2. it can't possible sweep away all the problems. I think you mean to say it sweeps away the problems associated with was it composed anciently. Of course we still have the problem of things like racism, sexism, and simplistic black and white propositions.
  3. There was certainly nothing prophetic about the way this has historically gone down. There is no more obvious statement to make about it.
  4. Well that feels rather incomplete. No doubt at the same time some of your friends suffered because of choices for not keeking the word of Wisdom or Law of Chastity, many LDS people who kept the law of Chastity and Word of Wisdom suffered greater than your friends. If the suffering is expected more in the next life, I wonder how much of that comes down to one's hope that suffering happens to those who don't do well, in terms following the commandments Mormonism prizes. Since none of us really know what happens in the next life, we're all just guessing, I wonder why anyone imagines others who don't do as well in following the commandments Mormonism prizes as suffering in the eternities. That's not charity. That's the opposite of it, in fact. Treating others as people is far more charitable then finding excuse not to treat them like people, like brothers and sisters. Your proposed hypothetical doesn't make sense, at all. You can't say "I'm extremely nice to all Jewish people I meet, but I think they are evil scum-sucking losers, each and every one of them." That's not charity. Well whatever. I'm surprised by your views here, completely.
  5. What kind of suffering are you imagining? Suffering in the world to come, as they say? Or suffering in the here and now? that is if you don't keep a year's supply of food or pay your tithing you'll suffer things like starvation, or bankruptcy? What suffering happens to those who reject the prophet? Worse as in God's view of us? Meaning we're only worse because God is less pleased with us than he was with leaders and members in the 60s. Curious because leaders back then opposed obviously good things like civil rights legislation, the mixing of races, and were far harsher in rhetoric and position on LGBT...were less prone to hear women, it seems, and opposed vehemently as I understand it, things like birth control.
  6. I know. I'm sticking with my initial answer. Sure. But it's hardly in play for all faith crises. And, I think there's a pretty good case to be made that there is extensive pressure and messaging to support those who accept a tacit expectation of infallibility, as I've laid out and will continue to clarify here. I think many good things have been said on this. Infallible may be the wrong word. But I will add it does seem apparent for all or nearly all faith crises there is some degree of mistrust for the leaders--as in people tend not to trust that they are actually speaking for God. Alright. So there is within all of what has been said the notion that an individual has to pray and feel inspired to know whether the prophet's claimed revelation is from God or not. Of course there's plenty of subjectivity going on there and it appears the issue still remains as a result. If someone disagrees with a claimed revelation from President Nelson that person has no room to offer his/her concern that it is not from God without some possible condemnation for criticizing leaders, or so it appears? What's the point of privately offering one's opinion? I mean we can all do that, of course. Are you saying someone can't offer his/her opinion publicly, but can privately? I suppose that's the exact issue I'm raising. If there is no room to publicly criticize the revelation of a prophet (not the prophet himself just his revelation) then I don't know how members are to see reasoning to question the prophet's revelation. Ok...well as I said infallibility may not be the best word. But it appears to me if those who find reason to disagree with a prophet's revelation are unable or voluntarily unwilling to explain his/her disagreement then it appears that only adds to the assumption of infallibility, at least tacitly assumed, by some as you put it. And with that it's no wonder why people seem to place too much emphasis and trust in leader's words. For one, they can't really publicly express their disagreement (at least not with potential or actual condemnation) and for two they only hear from every other member agreement with the revelation. I will add from experience the pressure to get in line is really quite strong. Well that's nice and if a member goes through the above process and declares the prophet and apostles are wrong on this topic? Does such an one risk some form of condemnation for publicly declaring as much? Of course such a risk stands. And that there defines nicely the reason why members often tacitly view the prophets as infallible--without, likely, ever really wanting to use the word infallible. Well that's fine, but just know these little principles don't work for everyone. I've never seen anyone take a "you do one thing I dislike and I'm outta here" approach. I don't know what that would even be. Most people from what I've seen who experience anything near what is termed a faith crisis, endure many troubling things for years before, if ever, they say they are outta here. I would suggest there are a lot of problems with your approach as described here (the approach you use as guiding principles, if you will). But that is beside the point.
  7. I think it goes like this since the names don't really matter: the ideas are expressed to Joseph's mind. But he's uneducated and can't really put the words together to make a coherent script, so the ideas are expressed he starts to put phrases together and some divine help comes to dummy down what a divine person might say into ways Joseph might say them. So for specific names. Some conglomeration of symbols might best be transliterated into Puntoalow but to Joseph it was really just Zarahemla. not because the symbols would represent Zarahemla, but because somehow the thought occurred to Joseph to just think Zarahemla. The tool he used helped him spell them out, because although he could say Zarahemla in his mind's eye, he could might not really be able to spell it. Divine help comes along and helps him spell a name that will never turn up in archaeological finds because it was really just conceived of in Joseph's head. Thus, you can't really argue the Book of Mormon is not an authentically ancient account of real people living in the Americas.
  8. I'm going to take a stab at bringing it back to the questions and points in the OP, after some discussion, in a way of summing up as I see it. No one, not one member now or in the past, would ever say the prophet is infallible...that feels quite apparent after this discussion. That is to say each and everyone, even those who leave, do not, or did not in the case of those who leave, accept prophetic infallibility. It does appear, though, and it seems most agree, many believers act as though the prophet is infallible. Smac seems to think most or all who experience a faith crises would say the prophet is infallible, or at least act as if he is even if he/she denies infallibility. Interestingly on page 4 Smac responds to me with this: Here Pres. Nelson is quoting D&C 115:4. So we have the presiding high priest, apparently functioning in that capacity, invoking what has been "impressed upon {his} mind," and quoting canonized scripture. So Pres. Nelson is declaring X, and doing so in a big way. It's not a whim. it's not cosmetic. It's not inconsequential. It's based on explicit instruction in canonized scripture. So if John Q. Churchmember (who is under covenant) comes along as says "Meh, it's not God's will to use the formal name of the Church," then others are in something of a conundrum. Pres. Nelson has declared X, and John Q has declared Not X. Not X is innately adverse to X. It's not just a difference of opinion, I think. It's a matter of which is right: Pres. Nelson or John Q. X or Not X. Both can't be right about this. As I have made covenants in the Church, I submit to the jurisdiction of the leaders of the Church. That is a necessary component of sustaining them, of discipleship, of pursuing a "unity of the faith" per Ephesians 4, and so on. The Lord's house is one of order. Someone has to be in charge. And although we each have huge amounts of agency, I think we also need to acknowledge the (righteously exercised) authority of the Presiding High Priest. He has jurisdiction on this matter. It is his call, and not John Q's opinion, that carries the day. I call this out to point out something that I've always struggled with in the Church (and now out of it). Something declared to be revelation from God by a prophet, according to the above is not a matter of opinion. That is to say, Nelson could not possibly claim a revelation from God if it is not really a revelation from God. It's not possible Nelson had mistaken some other impression and called it a revelation. And a member, who is under covenant, has no room to say Nelson's claimed revelation is not really revelation, according to the above. The obvious problem with this line of reasoning, it seems to me, is in effect the members, if they hold something similar to the way Smac describes it, view the leaders as infallible. There seems no difference to me to say a leader is infallible on his revelations, than to say we simply can't disagree with and must follow any claimed revelation by a leader. So the claim that leaders are not infallible seems only a claim in word only, because in effect the practice is to treat claimed revelation as infallible. Additionally, when asked what specifically has Nelson said or done that Smac disagrees with. Smac responds with a long line of quotations from leaders that suggest a member can't, or should not without condemnation, criticize a leader. Yet, Smac agress disagreeing with a leader's claimed revelation is not criticizing that leader. So it appears there is pressure on members to at least treat leaders as infallible--that is to say members will be condemned if that member expresses his/her disagreement with a leader's claimed revelation. Or at the very least, if anyone does disagree with a leader's claimed revelation and is under covenant not to say so, and will be summarily condemned if he/she does, then the impression for all other members is that the leaders can't make mistakes in revelation because there is no room to express one's own feelings or one's own welfare of his/her soul. Another recent example to consider is the claimed 2015 revelation to change the church policy regarding LGBT. You will recall a leader, Nelson, claimed that the policy change came by revelation. Some short time later, after quite a bit of push back, the leaders claimed revelation that took the policy out of the handbook, even if the policy is still in effect, it was claimed to no longer be in effect. You will also recall the change to the initial change in Nov 2015. Just after the revelation was had and the change was put into the handbook, many questions and concerns were raised. The leaders in effect changed some elements of the policy, adding certain qualifications. As it is, if God is behind these revelations, one must wonder what in the world God is thinking and doing. But sadly that's the kind of up and down, back and forth, wishy washy and dare I say taffy puller God is. Right? wrong?
  9. Then as Cinepro just said, "then there's the answer to your question about why people get unrealistic expectations about Church leaders and their fallibility and reliability." Over the years I've seen most members hold the position that the leaders words were largely infallible. I'd imagine that they hold that view largely because there is little room to discuss the possibility of leaders being wrong. If ever someone would suggest as much there was often great outcry over such a notion--how dare they presume to know more than the leaders about anything...was often the attitude. Indeed, that seems to have come up in this very thread. It even seems to have come out in your own replies to me- The problem is it really is only a matter of opinion of whether Nelson ever really got revelation. Maybe nelson confused it with other thoughts of inspiration. Maybe he misunderstood. Maybe it was the devil trying to trick him. maybe he simply doesn't know. A member has all sorts of possible explanations of why he/she disagrees.
  10. Fewf! I thought I was going crazy there for a bit. I admit, I can't make heads or tails of your explanation (I honestly can't see any relevance with the Trump example or the employer example at all), but if you agree with this, then I'm feeling satisfied. So a member can disagree with Nelson about whether Nelson is giving the will of God on any particular subject and that member is not criticizing Nelson, per se? Great so, what has Pres Nelson said, as it pertains to his claims in speaking for God, that you disagree with?
  11. That's all it is is a difference of opinion. Are you saying if someone, not pres Nelson or any of the leaders, say they speak for God, and you disagree then it's not really your opinion vs his/her opinion? "well, he claimed to speak for God so I have no way to disagree with that. I just ahve to accept he did speak for God and I must just agree because well, he says he speaks for God." I really don't think you see it that way, so I must ask...why is it not a difference of opinion? If someone does not think it's God's will and Nelson thinks it is? All I see in this are two opinions and difference. Wow. what an explanation. unfortunately, I admit, trying to read between the lines, seeing as you didn't answer the question, I don't see anything that really makes much sense in relation to the question at hand. Are you suggesting that a member who disagrees with a leader's teaching is criticizing that leaders if he/she says "I disagree"?
  12. Why? I had you agreeing. But on this there's some question? Curious why you think so.
  13. Criticizing an idea or teaching is not criticizing the person. Disagreeing with Nelson that it's God's will to not use the nickname Mormon is not criticizing Nelson at all. I notice I disagree with you a lot, but I've never seen such as criticizing you. I simply disagree.
  14. Of course. It's all subjective. What other option do we have? We are each humans seeing life, experiencing it and making our decisions. I dont' see why this needs called out, that is clearly the case. We are left with our own subjective viewpoints. Of course in your subjective opinion. But again, not really relavent to the point. Maybe, but rejecting various parts of scripture is what everyone does. I dont' know if anyone can remain consistent and accept all ideas and teachings found in scripture at the same time, since there is contradiction found in them. ok, but that is contrary to many statements by leaders and some official statements. for instance, 1949: While I'd agree plainly that it is best today for a member to reject the past teaching and say since it was not started by revelation we need not consider it prophecy, there is no simple reconciliation with the prophetic statements of the past. That's not what I said. I'm speaking about the attitude and thus position regarding LGBT. The sublime truth of this is we all get to benefit from each other. The church's teaching of being in the world but not of it is silly. While he doesn't recommend to to you, he is not omitting it as an option. I'm not sure there is much here other than the boy said he physically attacked another while speaking the context of physical mischeif with another man. That's what I'm talking about. I'm sure plenty felt the same way over these very important doctrines that have changed over the years, at some point. That is it was unspeakable to the presidency in 1947 that mixed race marriages were ok. Now, they seem rather ok, and endorsed for those who so engage. What if? Who cares. That's nto the point. I suppsoe we can say anything we want. What if God didn't want polygamy to stop when it did? What if women were supposed to have the priesthood and not men? It's obviously a point different for each of us to determine for ourselves. To some it might not matter at all. They might support a leader to the point of imprisonment for child marrying and such, for instance. The point is we're all different and will see things differently. Obviously if we were to consider every proposition made by leaders since the church's founding and categorize them we'd all have different lists. Some might consider some not worth mentioning and some would view some as mistaken or dishonest while others would stand behind the same. of course not. It is interesting to consider, maybe one day Jesus will requuire the Church to accept LGBT. I mean it might be hard for some members, but he might require it. It sounds to me on that day, you might say, "this is wrong. It can't be possible that we needed more light and knowledge and such as it pertains to the law of chastity. We can't possibly accept that things are different than we thought." I mean someday. We'll see, I guess. Thanks for the sermon, but it feels quite unrelated to the discussion. I dont' care if anything is popular or not. Not at all. I'm pointing out that in some cases the world seems to have quite the influence on the Church it's perspective and teaching. That's not at all to say anything about what is popular in the eyes of the majority.
×
×
  • Create New...