Mormons As "blind Followers"

[Bernard Gui]

Define "harm". I have held a similar position until I was urged to write to my Senator and tell him to vote for the marriage amendment. That, I believe, has caused great harm to my testimony, even if you do not consider all the other implications harmful.

The First Presidency has reserved the right to speak out on what they consider

moral questions. Which of the General Authorities asked you to write to

your Senator? If I were asked by a local authority, I would respond, "Well,

I'll think about it." It certainly would have nothing to do with my testimony.

Bernard

[Zoidberg]

The First Presidency has reserved the right to speak out on what they consider

moral questions. Which of the General Authorities asked you to write to

your Senator?

Why the First Presidency, of course (through that letter that was read in Sacrament meetings about the Marriage amendment). Nobody personaly asked me to do it, but I don't see how that makes a difference. Saying "we urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate" would apply to all members equally, I believe. That letter also set forth (once again) their position that "the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship". By then the words of President Hinckley's talk on loyalty had escaped my mind. Then I read them again and realized that my faith was miniscule compared to some people: "How grateful, my brethren, I feel, how profoundly grateful for the tremendous faith of so many Latter-day Saints who, when facing a major decision on which the Church has taken a stand, align themselves with that position." And it's likely never to reach that tremendous amount those other people have. So I would always be less faithful than those who have "uncompromising loayalty to the Church". Because it might mean that I would have to compromise my loyalty to my conscience (not to say I have never done that, but ideally I would like to have uncompromising loyalty to my conscience). I thought that it was always possible for me to be 100% loyal to the Church while simultaneously being 100% loyal to my conscience. I was wrong.

[Maidservant]

You know, I've always been confused since my experience with that letter as after talking with other people (not necessarily on this board), what I heard and what they heard were two different things. When I listened to the letter re the Constitutional Amendment, I heard that I was supposed to contract my national leaders with my personal beliefs -- to be involved in the process. I didn't hear that I was supposed to support the Amendment (which I don't not any thing to do with 'gay rights' but because of my beliefs regarding the constitution -- although since then I have had one experience that has made me change my mind a little).

I suppose I should look up the text of the letter somewhere. Hmmm.

[Zoidberg]

You know, I've always been confused since my experience with that letter as after talking with other people (not necessarily on this board), what I heard and what they heard were two different things. When I listened to the letter re the Constitutional Amendment, I heard that I was supposed to contract my national leaders with my personal beliefs -- to be involved in the process. I didn't hear that I was supposed to support the Amendment (which I don't not any thing to do with 'gay rights' but because of my beliefs regarding the constitution -- although since then I have had one experience that has made me change my mind a little).

I suppose I should look up the text of the letter somewhere. Hmmm.

http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2006/05/30/p1662

[Doctor Steuss]

There are 7 different words for bird in Hebrew. Since you didn't look that up you probably don't know much about Mormonism's history either. The point here, again, is following blindly. Do your own research and you won't make these ridiculous statements. This just shows how much you follow their lead.

Iâ??m really having trouble figuring out if youâ??re actually serious in these silly posts of yours. Iâ??m beginning to think that youâ??re someone trying to play a joke on us, as I canâ??t see any being unintentionally this dense and obtuse.

But then again, you did claim that Ehrman was "LDS Propoganda" once, so perhaps you are serious (I hope not though... I really do.)

[Doctor Steuss]

Zakuska,

I would appreciate it if you wouldnâ??t confuse rocmonkey with facts. Facts just get in the way of his â??research.â?

[LifeOnaPlate]

For what it's worth, I have the same hope, Doctor Steuss: that rocmonkey is pulling our legs.

I have to say, however, this thread really made me laugh and brought some sunshine to a tough day at work, and for that, I thank you all.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For what it's worth, I have the same hope, Doctor Steuss: that rocmonkey is pulling our legs.

I have to say, however, this thread really made me laugh and brought some sunshine to a tough day at work, and for that, I thank you all.

Out of a scale of 1 to 10 this was a 9 on the fun scale. I was laughing at work and had to be careful to not draw to much attention to me. I hope he is pulling our leg. But i have come across much of this type of dialogue on the mission,and the people talking to me were very serious about it. Hoefully he is not a few sandwichs short of a picknick. I once saw some one post that. its a great saying.

[Oracle]

Out of a scale of 1 to 10 this was a 9 on the fun scale. I was laughing at work and had to be careful to not draw to much attention to me. I hope he is pulling our leg. But i have come across much of this type of dialogue on the mission,and the people talking to me were very serious about it. Hoefully he is not a few sandwichs short of a picknick. I once saw some one post that. its a great saying.

Oy. I've never seen a finer pack of wild dogs.

There are two temple recommend questions that are relevant to the questions in the OP.

2. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

3. Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?

If anyone agrees that you can sustain, but not obey, please provide me an example. Otherwise, there appears to be a clear stipulation with following your leader. If you do not, you do not get access to the temple with its higher laws and blessings.

I think one is more inclined to put their obedience on autopilot with these types of stipulations. As is the case with anyone employed by the church. You must keep a temple recommend which means you must answer in the affirmative to the above mentioned questions. If you do not keep a temple recommend, you lose your job.

[Doctor Steuss]

Oy. I've never seen a finer pack of wild dogs.

There are two temple recommend questions that are relevant to the questions in the OP.

2. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

3. Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?

If anyone agrees that you can sustain, but not obey, please provide me an example. Otherwise, there appears to be a clear stipulation with following your leader. If you do not, you do not get access to the temple with its higher laws and blessings.

I think one is more inclined to put their obedience on autopilot with these types of stipulations. As is the case with anyone employed by the church. You must keep a temple recommend which means you must answer in the affirmative to the above mentioned questions. If you do not keep a temple recommend, you lose your job.

I am LDS. I am not on "probation" nor am I "disfellowshiped." I do not hold a temple recommend, nor do I plan on getting one any time soon. It is my choice, and my right to forgo that privilege.

One may be â??inclinedâ? to put their obedience on autopilot, but the Church's teachings as a whole (and G-d) do not demand (nor like) such things.

[thesometimesaint]

Doctor Steuss:

I'm LDS, and have had a TR for 35 years now. I agree that one may be â??inclinedâ? to put their obedience on autopilot, but the Church's teachings as a whole (and G-d) do not demand (nor like) such things.

[Zakuska]

If anyone agrees that you can sustain, but not obey, please provide me an example. Otherwise, there appears to be a clear stipulation with following your leader. If you do not, you do not get access to the temple with its higher laws and blessings.

Paul and Barnabus. Peter and Paul. David and Nathan. Jonah.

[Doctor Steuss]

Iâ??m going to see if I can raise the IQ back of this thread. Oracleâ??s post made me realize that this is possibly salvageable from the level it dropped due to â??the petting zoo poster.â? (Thank you Oracle).

I definitely think the Church can indeed bring about â??blind obedienceâ? in some people. We are all familiar with Mr. Bachmanâ??s comment on the PBS special. Those who perpetrated MMM were blindly following their local leaders. However, there were some who didnâ??t follow. There were some who were heroes and refused to participate, and protested the very idea of the act. These were also members of the Church (members in good standing as I understand).

Blind obedience can pop up in any religion. It seems that those who adhere to â??blind obedienceâ? as a beating stick for the LDS are also the very black-and-white thinkers who would follow blindly (or who once were willing to follow blindly [i.e. Bachman]). One needs only look at rocmonkey, the false dichotomy guru to see how it is only black-and-white thinkers without an ability to look beyond egocentric ideals that adhere to the Church being some grand wizard pulling the strings of its Morgbot creations.

The Church does not advocate â??blind obedience.â? Are there a few anomalous comments that would lead one to think it does? Yes, but these only lend credence for the person that is unwilling to look at the picture as a whole. The Church does put an emphasis on obedience, but it does not want people to obey blindly. It wants people to obey because they see.

[edited for homonyms and typos]

[jwhitlock]

I definitely think the Church can indeed bring about "blind obedience" in some people. We are all familiar with Mr. Bachman's comment on the PBS special. Those who perpetrated MMM were blindly following their local leaders. However, there were some who didn't follow. There were some who were heroes and refused to participate, and protested the very idea of the act. These were also members of the Church (members in good standing as I understand).

I think that perhaps I'd phrase it differently than "bring about blind obedience in some people". You are correct in that there are some members of the Church you become rigid in their faith. However, there are other people who are not, and so the cause and effect is not necessarily there.

Instead, I think that some people can interpret what the Church teaches, or use their membership in the Church as justification for their own inherent rigidity or proclivity towards BO. (Oops, better be careful about the acronym.)

Perhaps some people simply tend to move towards rigidity in any situation, and the Church becomes the catalyst for those members to live more rigidly within what they perceive as its structure. BO is probably more attributable to personal preference than anything.

[selek]

I think that perhaps I'd phrase it differently than "bring about blind obedience in some people". You are correct in that there are some members of the Church you become rigid in their faith. However, there are other people who are not, and so the cause and effect is not necessarily there.

Instead, I think that some people can interpret what the Church teaches, or use their membership in the Church as justification for their own inherent rigidity or proclivity towards BO. (Oops, better be careful about the acronym.)

Perhaps some people simply tend to move towards rigidity in any situation, and the Church becomes the catalyst for those members to live more rigidly within what they perceive as its structure. BO is probably more attributable to personal preference than anything.

As part of a shameless plug for our new allies at ldsforums.com, I'd like to copy-and-paste-and-slightly-revise something I myself (in the interests of full disclosure, I have a legitimate financial stake in Me, Myself, and I) posted there earlier today, which I think is relevent to the discussion here:

Most of us wants a God, a Church, a cause that we can dedicate ourselves to wholly, completely, passionately, and without reservation. For a tiny minority, that desire can become a need for perfection and for an easy ride. It works out something akin to; "Now that I'm a member of the Church, I am safe. I don't need to weigh things for myself or diligently study- I can merely do whatever the Brethren tell me and I will be healthy, prosperous, and successful."

In an even tinier minority, such blind devotion appeals to the absolutist elements of their character, and when deprived of that expectation, they become embittered, hostile, and frankly, fanatical. The idea that obedience will guarantee them a safe and easy passage is devastating when they find out they are still subject to the hardships, trials, bumps, and bruises of life.

A reasonably prominent commentator in the recent PBS special on the Mormons is a prime example. He made inflammatory claims about his zealousness and devotion in an effort to paint Mormons as blind followers, and then admitted that he fell away because the leaders weren't what he thought they were.

The realization that our leaders and our Church are not infallible- and that we are each expected to work out our own salvation "with fear and trembling" was devastating to his testimony.

That he remained responsible for his own salvation and could not rely on "perfect" leaders was devastating- it didn't appeal to his absolutist streak, and so he has become absolutist in the opposite extreme. The Church which failed to meet his expectation and answer his needs has now become the greatest evil in his life.

________________________________________________________________

Simply put, such "blind obedience" as our critics are wont to claim is not endemic to the Church, nor is it expected, nor is it even remotely supported by our Scriptures or beleifs. It is almost invariably a personality flaw which leads to broken testimonies and broken hearts.

As such, it is then used as a weapon against the Church, either as a matter of projection from the embittered former-Mo or as a matter of exploitation by someone equally zealous in attacking the Church in pursuit of his own religious agenda.

[jwhitlock]

Simply put, such "blind obedience" as our critics are wont to claim is not endemic to the Church, nor is it expected, nor is it even remotely supported by our Scriptures or beleifs. It is almost invariably a personality flaw which leads to broken testimonies and broken hearts.

As such, it is then used as a weapon against the Church, either as a matter of projection from the embittered former-Mo or as a matter of exploitation by someone equally zealous in attacking the Church in pursuit of his own religious agenda.

And a large variety of other personal character flaws that Mormons and everyone else possess are also used as fodder to attack the Church.

I remember Christ being castigated for spending time with "undesirables", termed sinners of various sorts, by the ruling elite class. I also remember President Kimball, on a visit to the Utah state prison, saying how honored he was to be able to talk with the prisoners there. I think we're probably in good company and on the right track.

[Pahoran]

Oy. I've never seen a finer pack of wild dogs.

In reference to what? Our response to Rocmonkey's vile and hate-based Mormon-baiting?

Why, exactly, should we put up with that kind of swinery?

There are two temple recommend questions that are relevant to the questions in the OP.

2. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

3. Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?

Yes, I know all about those questions. Unlike you, I am entitled to know about them. What on earth do they have to do with the mindless and nasty stereotype of "blind obedience" that is only believed by proudly ignorant bigots?

If anyone agrees that you can sustain, but not obey, please provide me an example. Otherwise, there appears to be a clear stipulation with following your leader. If you do not, you do not get access to the temple with its higher laws and blessings.

I think one is more inclined to put their obedience on autopilot with these types of stipulations. As is the case with anyone employed by the church. You must keep a temple recommend which means you must answer in the affirmative to the above mentioned questions. If you do not keep a temple recommend, you lose your job.

So what? What has any of that got do do with the mindless and nasty stereotype of "blind obedience" that is only believed by proudly ignorant bigots?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

Iâ??m going to see if I can raise the IQ back of this thread. Oracleâ??s post made me realize that this is possibly salvageable from the level it dropped due to â??the petting zoo poster.â? (Thank you Oracle).

Who me?

[rocmonkey]

I've been watching rocmonkey continually set up straw men on this thread on then kick them over, exultantly exclaiming "I've proven Mormonism to be false!"

Here we have:

If an LDS leader said to do as you're told, even once, then:

Members were following blindly.

And members continue to follow blindly.

There, I've proven my case that Mormons are blind.

*************************

The logical disconnect in this whole sequence is so egregious that it's hard to know how to respond, except to shake your head about the motivations of such a person. Especially when that person then trumpets that "they know the truth!" and that their "logic" trumps anything the Mormon apologists can come up with.

And there's a whole thread filled with this drivel.

It is instructive that there are people out there whose perspective on reality is so warped by their dismissive hatred of the Church and everything it stands for that they blindly justify their fabrication of facts in the finest tradition of creatio ex nihilo.

I suppose that the new mantra for many critics of the Church is "Why attack the Church with facts, when the assumptions and fabrications are so much more damning?" The polarization of the righteous and the wicked, and the clear evidence of the methods of the wicked is indeed being demonstrated once again.

I answered every cfr and no one has responded to them with evidence, only to say its being said by someone who doesn't know Mormonism. Ok, answer this, If someone claims a return date for Jesus and claims to be a prophet of Jesus' Father [God- who never lies, changes and knows everything before He created anything (1 Ne.9:6)] how is it possible for him to give a false prophecy? Either Jesus returned in 1890 or JS gave a false prophecy. Which is it?

I have given LDS sources for everything I have said. Its you who blindly live by fabrications, I live by what's been recorded. If there's a contradiction, always use the oldest source for the truth.

This is all one need know to see if Mormonism is true or not. If it was founded by a man whose prophecy never happened then its all false.

One more note to examine. Someone said the men on moon thing was by a 10 year old boy given 50 or so years ago. Are you saying the LDS church accepted a 10 year old boys word for its stand on what JS prophesied? Are the good ol boys up there that far gone as to accept a crazy story like that as fact and then print it? I find that harder to believe than the true one- the one I 'quoted'. Can you CFR your 10 year old boy story from non-LDS sources? LDS sources would be too biased to accept- unless its dated at the same time the LDS magazine is that says such outrageous stuff.

[selek]

I answered every cfr and no one has responded to them with evidence, only to say its being said by someone who doesn't know Mormonism. Ok, answer this, If someone claims a return date for Jesus and claims to be a prophet of Jesus' Father [God- who never lies, changes and knows everything before He created anything (1 Ne.9:6)] how is it possible for him to give a false prophecy? Either Jesus returned in 1890 or JS gave a false prophecy. Which is it?

This is all one need know to see if Mormonism is true or not. If it was founded by a man whose prophecy never happened then its all false.

As Pahoran pointed out Rocmonkey- your understanding and interpretation of the prophecy is in error.

You simply don't know what you are talking about. You also dodged his specific questions for you about the prophecy itself- which suggests you've never read it, but are taking someone else's word for what's there.

As such, your false dichotomy- either the prophecy is true or it is not, is irrelevent.

Also, this standard you are attempting to employ will automatically disqualify a number of Old Testament prophets as well. That standard is a double-edged sword- be careful who you cut with it.

[Doctor Steuss]

I answered every cfr and no one has responded to them with evidence, only to say its being said by someone who doesn't know Mormonism. Ok, answer this, If someone claims a return date for Jesus and claims to be a prophet of Jesus' Father [God- who never lies, changes and knows everything before He created anything (1 Ne.9:6)] how is it possible for him to give a false prophecy? Either Jesus returned in 1890 or JS gave a false prophecy. Which is it?

This is all one need know to see if Mormonism is true or not. If it was founded by a man whose prophecy never happened then its all false.

What if a pronouncement was made by someone that "some standing here" would not "taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," and then over 2000 years passed. Would that make a false prophet of that person?

The fact of the matter is you are misreading Joseph's prophecy and relying on the interpretation of it given by other members of the church (and your anti-Mo egocentric universe) instead of letting the canonized words speak for themselves.

As soon as you can grasp "The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy", you might be able to find "truth" via your "research." Until then, you will continue to be chained by your hypocritical double standards and horse blinders.

PS.

Jesus returned a few times after that prophecy was given. Perhaps you should read what Joseph thought the prophecy meant... hmmmm?

[Bernard Gui]

Why the First Presidency, of course (through that letter that was read in Sacrament meetings about the Marriage amendment). Nobody personaly asked me to do it, but I don't see how that makes a difference. Saying "we urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate" would apply to all members equally, I believe. That letter also set forth (once again) their position that "the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship". By then the words of President Hinckley's talk on loyalty had escaped my mind. Then I read them again and realized that my faith was miniscule compared to some people: "How grateful, my brethren, I feel, how profoundly grateful for the tremendous faith of so many Latter-day Saints who, when facing a major decision on which the Church has taken a stand, align themselves with that position." And it's likely never to reach that tremendous amount those other people have. So I would always be less faithful than those who have "uncompromising loayalty to the Church". Because it might mean that I would have to compromise my loyalty to my conscience (not to say I have never done that, but ideally I would like to have uncompromising loyalty to my conscience). I thought that it was always possible for me to be 100% loyal to the Church while simultaneously being 100% loyal to my conscience. I was wrong.

I'm sorry for your conflict of conscience. Hopefully, you can find a way to reconcile this issue with the Church.

As I noted, the First Presidency reserves the right to speak out on moral issues, in this case the definition of a family, as put forth in the Declaration on the Family. They made the same request when the Equal Rights Amendment was being proposed. It seems to me that it is their duty as prophets and apostles to sound the

warning when danger approaches.

Bernard

[Doctor Steuss]

One more note to examine. Someone said the men on moon thing was by a 10 year old boy given 50 or so years ago. Are you saying the LDS church accepted a 10 year old boys word for its stand on what JS prophesied? Are the good ol boys up there that far gone as to accept a crazy story like that as fact and then print it? I find that harder to believe than the true one- the one I 'quoted'. Can you CFR your 10 year old boy story from non-LDS sources? LDS sources would be too biased to accept.

Oi vey. Do your own "research" since you're so good at it.

Hints for when you do the "research."

1) Find out who was recounting the story.

2) Find out what year they were born in.

3) Find out when they claim they heard Joseph say it.

You should be able to find all of this information from non-LDS sources. However, I doubt your intellectual pigmy anti-Mormon pseudo-scholarship sources will contain such information. Your ilk rarely cares about context (as you have so aptly demonstrated).

[LifeOnaPlate]

I answered every cfr and no one has responded to them with evidence, only to say its being said by someone who doesn't know Mormonism. Ok, answer this, If someone claims a return date for Jesus and claims to be a prophet of Jesus' Father [God- who never lies, changes and knows everything before He created anything (1 Ne.9:6)] how is it possible for him to give a false prophecy? Either Jesus returned in 1890 or JS gave a false prophecy. Which is it?

This is all one need know to see if Mormonism is true or not. If it was founded by a man whose prophecy never happened then its all false.

One more note to examine. Someone said the men on moon thing was by a 10 year old boy given 50 or so years ago. Are you saying the LDS church accepted a 10 year old boys word for its stand on what JS prophesied? Are the good ol boys up there that far gone as to accept a crazy story like that as fact and then print it? I find that harder to believe than the true one- the one I 'quoted'. Can you CFR your 10 year old boy story from non-LDS sources? LDS sources would be too biased to accept.

Go read the revelation again. You're wrong.

It's kind of like this example:

GUY 1: I prophecy that if you don't shut up, I'll smack you in the mouth.

GUY 2: *doesn't say anything, shuts up*

--Guy 1 doesn't punch Guy 2 in the mouth, as was promised, because Guy 2 shut up.--

[LifeOnaPlate]

Can you CFR your 10 year old boy story from non-LDS sources? LDS sources would be too biased to accept- unless its dated at the same time the LDS magazine is that says such outrageous stuff.

Haha, nice. First you say "context is outlawed," and now "all LDS sources" are out of the question, as well.

Stacking the deck, but not even trying to hide it! I love this guy!