Church History And Faith Crisis Part 3

[selek1]

cwald called him a liar. He may not have used that word but he did use a synonym. He owes selek1 a retraction at minimum and if he didn't mean it an apology or else proof that he is one.

Thank you for the vigorous defense, Doc.

If I may, I think the kerfuffle is becoming a bigger distraction than it needs to be.

If cwald wishes to dialogue with me, I am all ears. If not, c'est la vie.

I am far, far, more interested in a discussion about my post above (#274) and the tired old chestnut that the Church requires blind obedience (which accusation is what started the sleigh ride to begin with).

The implication was (and remains thoroughly discredited) that the Church demands and imposes a strict orthodoxy of thought with immediate parallels in cultish behavior such as that practiced by the FLDS and Warren Jeffs.

(On a side note, I'd early accused cwald of a Godwin's Law violation in comparing President Monson to Jeffs. I read cwald's defense that he was comparing the rationales for following each man rather than the men themselves. I don't wholly agree, but I am willing to accept that no malice or provocation was intended in the comparison).

I pointed out above why the idea that the Church imposes a strict homogeneity in thought and deed was wrong.

I think the matter needs to be expanded a little further still.

Not only do I contend that the Church does not require "blind obedience", but that it seldom even requires strict obedience.

• As faithful Latter-day Saints, we are covenanted with keeping the commandments to the best of our ability. How many of us truly do that? How many of us have instead found a "comfortable middle" and set up shop there?
  
• As faithful Latter-day Saints, we are covenanted to pay a full tithe. What safeguards are in place to ensure that this is taking place?
  
• As faithful Latter-day Saints, we are covenanted to fulfill our various callings- not the least of which is Home Teaching. How many of us are truly involved with our member families as brothers and sisters in Christ? How many of us make a single short visit on the last day of the month? How many of us fail even at that?
  
• As faithful Latter-day Saints, we are covenanted to seek out the best things in life, and to abstain from the bad. How many of us can say that we are doing so in complete fidelity?
  
• As faithful Latter-day Saints, we are covenanted to strive ever onward to become more like our Savior and our Father in Heaven. How many of us are still working on catching up to Ned Flanders?
  

All of these things (and many more besides) are part of our covenants and the Lord's commandments to us.

Yet how many of us live our lives in complete fidelity to those covenants?

What mechanisms are there within the Church to ensure that we are doing so? In my estimation- almost none.

With the exception of the most serious sins or disaffection (and even with some of those), the Church operates on an honor system- we take our members' word for it.

Our Bishops, Stake Presidents, and General Authorities are not enforcers compelling and enforcing obedience- they are counselors exhorting and encouraging integrity and honor.

Our leaders are rightly concerned more with the direction that we are headed than which milepost we have passed.

The Church is not a resort for the perfected, but is instead a refuge for the sick and the afflicted. Rather than checking off a list of rules, the Church is more concerned that we be striving towards our goal- becoming more like our Father in Heaven.

By and large, the system works pretty well- the Saints as a whole are known as a good and honest people- vigorous and hardworking.

We will always (both as individuals and as Saints in Zion) have more to do- that;s the beauty of setting your goal on the highest levels of Eternity.

Edited June 23, 2012 by selek1

[DBMormon]

Selek

I am far, far, more interested in a discussion about my post above (#274) and the tired old chestnut that the Church requires blind obedience

I would add that some leaders at times have implied that you are to tow the line. I can give examples if needed. While i also agree with you, many leaders have given members freedom to think on their own and look for answers from the spirit.

[ERayR]

Selek

I would add that some leaders at times have implied that you are to tow the line. I can give examples if needed. While i also agree with you, many leaders have given members freedom to think on their own and look for answers from the spirit.

To selek - so let it be written so let it be done.

To DBMormon. Not wanting to quibble but leaders of the church have no authority to take or give freedom to their members. The only have authority to teach correct principles and urge members to embrace those principles.

[DBMormon]

here they are even if you do not ask

"Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don't need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray."-Marion G. Romney, quoting LDS President (and prophet) Heber J. Grant "Conference Report" Oct. 1960 p. 78

"When the Prophet speaks the debate is over".-N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3

Now to be fair here are those suggesting we should and are obligated to think for ourselves

Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses 9:150:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

Brigham again in JD 4:36 "How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves."

Brigham again in JD 3:45

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord."

If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil. - Joseph F. Smith, Sept. 3, 1892

I don't always think telling church members to follow the prophet has to imply blind obedience but it seems to get taken that way.

I think we have to teach people to follow the prophet... from our point of view... he is a prophet. we should follow him. Can that be dragged to an extreme... yes Has authority been abused by mortals on this earth.... yes.

still have to teach both principles. Follow the prophet / get confirmation from the spirit before blindly doing anything your not comfortable with

Edited June 23, 2012 by DBMormon

[selek1]

I don't always think telling church members to follow the prophet has to imply blind obedience but it seems to get taken that way.

How does that old saw go?

"The Catholics teach that the Pope is infallible, but no one believes it- the Mormons teach that the Prophet is fallible- but no one believes that either."

I don't think "follow the Prophet" ever has to imply "blind" obedience- nor even blind trust.

When deciding whether or not to follow the Prophet, I have my own experiences and memories to draw upon.

I have the faculties of intelligence and reason which God has given me.

I have the testimony of the Holy Ghost, and the witness that he has left in my life.

I can draw upon the testinomy of the other members around me, the witness of Prophets of God such an Eldon Tanner, Ezra Taft Benson and Brigham Young.

The criticisms of "Follow the Prophet" offered in this thread come preloaded with the assumption that the Prophet's counsel is somehow unreasonable, extreme, or are occuring in a vacuum.

Yet no such examples occur in anywhere in Latter-day Saint history.

I was waiting for the N. Eldon Tanner quote to pop up. It's easily the most proof-texted, over-hyped quote in the critic's arsenal.

I always find it interesting, though, that they never, ever want to discuss the context in which it was said, nor the qualifiers that surround it.

Even your citation above ( "August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3") admits that there's more to the conversation than the single soundbite.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

DBMormon noted:

The more I think of this Dichotomy, the more I struggle to make sense of it. That is that two people who both love God and value truth can come to opposite conclusions. You can even have two people who believe the Bom is the word of God and that this is his church and yet see much of it's events through two completely different lenses, and neither side really can grasp how the other sees things the way they do.

Kerry notes:

The spooky part though is when you genuinely have a belief or an interpretation that differs from what the lessons in the church teach, or something said in General Conference, and you are attacked for seeing things so differently. I have found this when it comes to my discovery (discoveries about the nature of the Bible and what that actually means) of the Bible through scholarship. The church does not encourage us to explore, but wants us to reaffirm what they interpret as being the truth. The church is very good at telling us what to think, but not in how to think and think through things....... the more I do that, the more questions I have that disturb people at church, which is simply silly....... we are not used to asking questions as the scholars do, and our conclusions are actually quite naive compared to their analysis, because we simply believe what we have been told without thinking through the implications........ a most interesting conundrum......

[selek1]

The spooky part though is when you genuinely have a belief or an interpretation that differs from what the lessons in the church teach, or something said in General Conference, and you are attacked for seeing things so differently.

Call For References, please. Attacked by whom, precisely? Under what circumstances?

The church does not encourage us to explore, but wants us to reaffirm what they interpret as being the truth. The church is very good at telling us what to think, but not in how to think and think through things.......

Again- Call For References.

The canard that the Church enforces an orthodoxy in scholarly thought is a popular one among her enemies- but in my experience, it's almost never backed up in fact.

I wonder if you might be the first.

the more I do that, the more questions I have that disturb people at church, which is simply silly....... we are not used to asking questions as the scholars do, and our conclusions are actually quite naive compared to their analysis, because we simply believe what we have been told without thinking through the implications........ a most interesting conundrum......

Ya gotta love it when people claiming to adore scholarly discipline wax rhapsodic about the ignorance, niaivete, and lack of critical thinking of the Mormon people in general.

There's a disconnect there that needs to be explored, I think...

Edited June 23, 2012 by selek1

[DBMormon]

Selek - I get that now. I understand, simply throwing out why they say it, not agreeing with them

[selek1]

Selek - I get that now. I understand, simply throwing out why they say it, not agreeing with them

Ayep. I was merely pointing out the logical counterargument, not making any accusations.

You should know me well enough by now to know when I've got someone in my sights.

[John Ping Pong]

You are conflating two separate concepts: obedience and agreement. This is a mistake.

Thank you for taking the time to write out that thoughtful response.

I am trying my best to understand where you are coming from.

Are you saying that Mormons should obey the prophet even if they disagree with him?

[DBMormon]

You should know me well enough by now to know when I've got someone in my sights.

yeah yeah.... hard fast and furious

[DBMormon]

Are you saying that Mormons should obey the prophet even if they disagree with him?

If one believes Noah is a prophet and Noah receives revelation from God, then Noah asks the people to build an ark. We should expect righteous people to share the message of follow the prophet. Yet critics take this appropriate request and make it into something evil. Why is it so easy to see with previous dispensations but the current one gets no slack... Noah's people said the same thing... follow the prophet.... phooey... where did that get them?

[Aliwe]

If one believes Noah is a prophet and Noah receives revelation from God, then Noah asks the people to build an ark. We should expect righteous people to share the message of follow the prophet. Yet critics take this appropriate request and make it into something evil. Why is it so easy to see with previous dispensations but the current one gets no slack... Noah's people said thr same thing... follow the prophet.... phooey... where did that get them?

One question. Are you saying Noah really prophesied, or are you using a rhetorical device? Because in my Bible, God vowed to destroy all mankind except Noah and his family alone, and I do not see Noah taking the time to preach a warning to the people around him as he built the ark.

[DBMormon]

Rhetorical. simply trying to show when given examples outside our time we are apt to say "follow the prophet? absolutely we should. If not we put ourselves in danger" so easy to see except when we have an emotional tie in to the situation... then all bets are off

[cwald]

Call For References, please. Attacked by whom, precisely? Under what circumstances?

Again- Call For References.

Wow, you are something else. You have done nothing but attack my differencing opinion since I joined this board. Even your buddy DBMormon believes so...and then a couple post down from this comment you made, you boast about going after people you disagree with "fast and furious." There is your reference.

"You should know me well enough by now to know when I've got someone in my sights.

You are something else...way to go...

Edited June 23, 2012 by cwald

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Call For References, please. Attacked by whom, precisely? Under what circumstances?

Again- Call For References.

The canard that the Church enforces an orthodoxy in scholarly thought is a popular one among her enemies- but in my experience, it's almost never backed up in fact.

I wonder if you might be the first.

Ya gotta love it when people claiming to adore scholarly discipline wax rhapsodic about the ignorance, niaivete, and lack of critical thinking of the Mormon people in general.

There's a disconnect there that needs to be explored, I think...

If I taught that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each had their own version of their interpretation of Jesus, and they were simply not all saying the same thing about Jesus historically, theologically, etc. and that much of their view was based purely on the audience's make up, not on what the truth was.........which I have done in church and on my blogs and Facebook........do you think I would get nothing but nods of agreement and acceptance? Perhaps I will start a thread on this here and absolutely PROVE to you that we LDS actually do what Joseph Smith lamented so terribly about, we fly to pieces like glass the moment something new is tuahgt which appears to us to be against our truth and rightfulness.

[John Ping Pong]

Perhaps I will start a thread on this here and absolutely PROVE to you that we LDS actually do what Joseph Smith lamented so terribly about, we fly to pieces like glass the moment something new is tuahgt which appears to us to be against our truth and rightfulness.

Amen to that, Brother Shirts!

May I suggest you begin your thread with the fact that we have no idea who actually wrote the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

[selek1]

Thank you for taking the time to write out that thoughtful response.

I am trying my best to understand where you are coming from.

Are you saying that Mormons should obey the prophet even if they disagree with him?

That is the counsel we given- though I'm not sure I agree with it- or would be able to follow it.

And again, as noted, there is no enforcement mechanism against those who choose not to obey.

As with all things, the devil is in the details.

But overall, yes- those privileged to hear a Prophet's voice should be wise enough to heed that voice, even if they don't quite understand all the whither-to's and why-for's.

Contrary to the shrieking, wailing, and gnashing of teeth- that's all the Fourteen Points talk boils down to.

Hardly a manifesto, that.

Edited June 23, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

If I taught that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each had their own version of their interpretation of Jesus, and they were simply not all saying the same thing about Jesus historically, theologically, etc. and that much of their view was based purely on the audience's make up, not on what the truth was.........which I have done in church and on my blogs and Facebook........do you think I would get nothing but nods of agreement and acceptance?

No....nor should you.

Perhaps I've been blessed in the Latter-day Saints with whom I've worshipped, but I would expect a vigorous and robust conversation- and more than a sound-bite explanation of the charges leveled.

Perhaps I will start a thread on this here and absolutely PROVE to you that we LDS actually do what Joseph Smith lamented so terribly about, we fly to pieces like glass the moment something new is tuahgt which appears to us to be against our truth and rightfulness.

As I said, you'd be the first to accomplish that laudible goal.

I will grant you one thing and quibble with you on another:

Brother Joseph did warn the Saints that if he taught them the tenth part of what the Lord had revealed to him, they'd have run him out of town on a rail- or words to that effect.

On the other hand, I suspect that the Saints of three generations later are a bit more receptive to change and discourse. I don't mean to say that they are any less stiff-necked, prideful, stubborn, or dogmatic than their forebearers- only that there is more precedent for contradiction, analysis, and discussion in these "modern" days.

[Hestia]

Wow, you are something else....

Everyone, keep personal comments like this out of the thread or it or you gets shut down.

[Damien the Leper]

If I taught that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each had their own version of their interpretation of Jesus, and they were simply not all saying the same thing about Jesus historically, theologically, etc. and that much of their view was based purely on the audience's make up, not on what the truth was.........which I have done in church and on my blogs and Facebook........do you think I would get nothing but nods of agreement and acceptance? Perhaps I will start a thread on this here and absolutely PROVE to you that we LDS actually do what Joseph Smith lamented so terribly about, we fly to pieces like glass the moment something new is tuahgt which appears to us to be against our truth and rightfulness.

Orthodox religious practitioners don't much care for their preconceived notions and traditional perspectives to be challenged. A good example of this would be the Acts 29 Reformed movement that kicks and screams a form of ultra-conservative orthodoxy that is not necessarily founded within scripture. They tend to be of the flavor of John Calvin and entertain writers such as R.C. Sproul, John Piper, F.F. Bruce, Mark Driscoll, etc.

There is enough of an argument that has been taught for several decades and in circulation dealing with critical disciplines concerning the four gospels. Fundamentally, each of the Synoptic Gospels share much of the same narrative. However, there are great differences in the theologies of the writers of the Synoptic Gospels and even moreso in the Johanine Gospel. Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, Raymond E. Brown and N.T. Wright have expressed this scholarly and academic opinion on several occasions.

It is naive, uneducated or misguided to assume that the four gospels are harmonious in their theologies. Audience, speaker, context, etc. are the most essential keys to understanding the Gospels.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Orthodox religious practitioners don't much care for their preconceived notions and traditional perspectives to be challenged. A good example of this would be the Acts 29 Reformed movement that kicks and screams a form of ultra-conservative orthodoxy that is not necessarily founded within scripture. They tend to be of the flavor of John Calvin and entertain writers such as R.C. Sproul, John Piper, F.F. Bruce, Mark Driscoll, etc.

There is enough of an argument that has been taught for several decades and in circulation dealing with critical disciplines concerning the four gospels. Fundamentally, each of the Synoptic Gospels share much of the same narrative. However, there are great differences in the theologies of the writers of the Synoptic Gospels and even moreso in the Johanine Gospel. Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, Raymond E. Brown and N.T. Wright have expressed this scholarly and academic opinion on several occasions.

It is naive, uneducated or misguided to assume that the four gospels are harmonious in their theologies. Audience, speaker, context, etc. are the most essential keys to understanding the Gospels.

But that ain't what we are taught in church................

[Damien the Leper]

But that ain't what we are taught in church................

Of course not. It is easier to put on display the facade that scripture in its entirety is harmonious in the end. This is false. Theology, even in scripture, is as diverse as the theologies of many Christian churches in existence.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Call For References, please. Attacked by whom, precisely? Under what circumstances?

It was on my Facebook page.....several months ago so it's going to be in the much older posts........ I was discussing the authorship of the Gospels, and several LDS attacked my claiming I was in apostacy, disagreeing with the Leaders, and lambasting me for being so closed minded as to even READ anyone other than LDS leaders on the scriptures, who are the ONLY people on the earth who really KNOW what the Bible is all about,. It's right on the public open page for any and all to read and see. I actually gave up trying after several posts. You simply cannot discuss anything intelligently with people who refuse to intelligently discuss the scholarship.

[Aliwe]

It is naive, uneducated or misguided to assume that the four gospels are harmonious in their theologies. Audience, speaker, context, etc. are the most essential keys to understanding the Gospels.

Matthew presents Jesus as King, hence the pedigree and the incident with Herod and the chain of fulfilled Messianic prophesies. Mark presents Jesus as the suffering Servant, hence it is largely concerned with the last week of his life. Luke presents Jesus as Man, it is a very humanist gospel, in it Jesus shows concern for non-Jews, for lepers, Samaritans, gentiles, even for women. John presents Jesus as God.