For those who felt deceived

[Honorentheos]

Iâ??m sure it does. Likewise, the fact that many believing mormons here insist that every person theyâ??ve ever known who fell away from the church did so due to â??lifestyle issuesâ? creates some bias to overcome in exmormons. Add to that fact the numerous statements of revered church leaders who connect apostasy to sin and pride, and there is quite a bit of potential bias on both sides. I think thatâ??s why so little communication occurs.

Very good points.

I actually could not read at exmormon or some of the other websites that are "not to be named" or how ever the euphemism is supposed to go. The pure emotion of most people's reactions on these sites was hard to take when I was trying to fight my own emotional response (both pro and con for the church) in trying to understand things and reestablish my worldview when it seemed the world had lost it's footings.

And there aren't any good resources on the net that I have found that fill this niche. I think this says something about the demand for it...it's too fine of a line to walk for both believers and critics because everyone who actually cares to spend any time with the subject is emotionally invested to some degree.

[Calm]

There is no context in which turning out a wife and child to die is morally acceptable.

And Abraham did not do so:

Gen 21:11 And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his ason.

12

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, in that case, just shoot them so they die fast.Really, doesn't it bother you at all that you have to create such bizarre scenarios in order to justify the "morality" presented in the Bible?

I wasn't talking about the Bible. You made a generalized statement about something being morally acceptable and I showed it may very well have been overstated (I believe it was overstated). Additionally, on your view I am not sure what your morals are grounded on to begin with. And I'm not sure you fully understand morals or ethics, the grounds thereof within LDS thought. I'm also not sure, now that you're bringing up he Bible, that you adequately explain the biblical narrative.

I've noticed that those who leave the church like to apply this to those who stay but not to themselves. Could it be the change is the self-deception?

I found a lot of interesting insight in Hoffer's The True Believer that not only dealt with my faith, but with the faith of those who profess they have none.

[Jeff K.]

Generally those who claim deception usually deceive themselves and cast about for another target.

The church doesn't deceive people, people's expectations usually are usually the stumbling block. They often expect too much of others and too little of themselves. They justify their anger at this poor ratio by blaming "the other side" rather than understanding their own choice.

I have in the best failed to achieve something and sought to blame others because I could not achieve it. But I was young then and immature. After you grow up, you start understanding, sometimes ruefully, where you made your mistakes and how you might have done better. It is the static people that can't let go and hold on to the blame of others. To some its their only comfort.

[beastie]

He had God's assurance that they would not die.

Then your argument is with Pa Pa, who made the initial reference. I was simply responding to the point he made.

Pa Paâ??s post:

Some things seem more horrible when not understood in context. My grandmother married at 13 as late as 1903. Abraham whom God associates with his name turned his wife and child out to die. We are so lacking in information and trying to fill the gaps with today's social morays.

Besides, if this particular example lacks sufficient natural moral repugnance, there are plenty others in the OT.

LoaP:

I wasn't talking about the Bible. You made a generalized statement about something being morally acceptable and I showed it may very well have been overstated (I believe it was overstated). Additionally, on your view I am not sure what your morals are grounded on to begin with. And I'm not sure you fully understand morals or ethics, the grounds thereof within LDS thought. I'm also not sure, now that you're bringing up he Bible, that you adequately explain the biblical narrative.

See above. My reference to the Abraham story was in direct response to Pa Paâ??s use of the story to demonstrate how context removes moral repugnance.

So your opinion is that this comment is â??overstatedâ?:

There is no context in which turning out a wife and child to die is morally acceptable.

Your suggestion that, since Iâ??m an atheist, I do not â??fully understand morals or ethicsâ? is typically simultaneously offensive and ill-informed.

Tell me, if you lost belief in God, would you no longer understand morals or ethics?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Again, beastie, I responded to your blanket statement. Further, I didn't say you don't fully understand morals and ethics in general, I said morals and ethics in LDS thought. You'll note I said "Additionally, on your view I am not sure what your morals are grounded on to begin with." In other words, I don't know what theory of ethics or morals you currently hold or believe. Not that you don't have any since you don't believe in God.

[Jeff K.]

I am a big believer in personal responsibility. I believe that when you abrogate your personal responsibility you end up abrogating any true search for ethics. In the second world war many death camp guards claimed that they abrogated their personal responsibilities, they in effect were "following orders". It reflects a certain lack of moral fiber that allows any immorality to be justified in mock deception. It is a weakness the german volk regretted from that age.

[Abulafia]

I am a big believer in personal responsibility. I believe that when you abrogate your personal responsibility you end up abrogating any true search for ethics. In the second world war many death camp guards claimed that they abrogated their personal responsibilities, they in effect were "following orders". It reflects a certain lack of moral fiber that allows any immorality to be justified in mock deception. It is a weakness the german volk regretted from that age.

Woah there Jeff, be careful. Lots of church members historically, did things that we would probably, today, find morally repugnant, because they were following 'orders' from someone they believed to be a true prophet of God.

I don't know much about the backgrounds of those who worked in the death camps, but you have to ask what kind of environment they were living in, in order to truly understand why German folk allowed themselves to be involved or turn a blind eye to such things.

In my rather unlearned opinion...

First they came to live in a millitary dictatorship (with the threat of the SS an ever present danger should they disagree with the regime), second a lot of kids were brought up to believe that Jews were a mortal danger to them, that Jews were no better than cattle, third, there was a lot of propagandizing going on through schools, media and so forth, fourth, anything that was dangerous to the regime was destroyed, including books, fifth, Hitler was looked on as a saviour to his people after the humiliation of WW1 and the loss of economic clout with the Treaty of Versailles, and party rallies were run like religious crusades. Sixth, Hitler seemed to have the capacity to attract thugs, particularly in the death camps. Seventh, regular soldiers are expected to obey orders and could be shot for not doing so. No armed force in the world could operate if it's soldiers decided that they would pick and choose which orders to follow.

What Hitler did to the Jews, with the aid of many Germans, was horrific and an untold evil, but I think it helps to try to understand how they got to the point where it would be considered (by the Germans that knew about it) that such behaviour was morally acceptable and justifiable. If we understand that, then just maybe, we could be in a position to not allow history to repeat itself...

Mary

[Jeff K.]

I would beg to disagree.

Germany was not some backward closed environment when Nazism came to power. Hitler was elected to his position, he was chosen. The "kids" did most of the fighting, the older soldeirs and college educated men, they were the one's who ran rather efficient deathcamps. These were simply thugs, but well educated individuals.

It is very easy to say, look how they were raised, but they were educated, many of the German leadership was well traveled, educated. The propaganda defense does not work well. In contrast, Japan's system was isolated, few of its people and leadership traveled, and its people were pliable to the will of its leadership.

Your claim that Hitler attracted thugs is obvious but shallow if you understand the situation, he did not attract only thugs, the efficient war machine and death camp machines could not be run efficiently by thugs. It required clarity of thought. Indeed the actions of Germany required the submission of hate and raw emotion for emotionless efficiency (to me that is perhaps the greatest evil). It became a process.

While Hitler used the Treaty of Versailles and the defeat in the last war as an excuse, it was a political excuse to gain power, it did not play into the post elective process, there was no longer a need to keep reminding people why they were fighting it became "lebensraum" or the getting of more land for the "right" volk.

If you look at that context today, it would be the equivalent of the US putting Mexicans in deathcamps with an educated class supervising the action.

A country that is closed might be brainwashed, not one that is open to other sources of information.

Germans recognize this. It is one reason that they (in my youth at least) required tours of camps and were unvarnished in showing everyone what was done. It is also a reason that Germany continues to send renumeration to Israel and it is afraid of sending troops anywhere outside its own nation. Nationally Germany accepts what it did as a nation (or volk if you will). The excuse given by those educated leaders and those efficient gray men below them was that they were following orders or they were deceived into an intolerable situation.

The worst thing one can do is claim deception for someone's own decisions. It reflects a rejection of the idea and ideal that everyone should have a choice in things. That some people don't have the capacity to choose and should be given some sort of dispensation for their poor choices by creating a metaphorical sacrificial sheep that is driven away from the community.

East Germany has a burgeoning neo nazi group because their portion of the nation never really confronted their past.

So I cannot accept the claim of deception when the information is clear. One does need to bear up to one's own responsibility in such situations.

[wenglund]

I suppose that prior to me gaining a more mature understanding of the nature and purpose of the restored gospel, there may have been a chance that my learning certain "negative" points of LDS history or certain quibbles over the historicity of LDS scripture, may have caused me to loose faith.

However, since I have realized that the gospel is a means designed by God for gaining a fulness of joy and love and Christ-like character--i.e. the gospel is the means for becoming like God, it is clear to me that the supposed "negative" points of LDS history and the quibbles over historicity, are irrelevancies and distractions, and thus of no significance to my faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

Do you know a Dane Englund?

[Honorentheos]

LOAP mentioned Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer", which I think is extremely insightful regarding the exchange above. One of the most important books I read while I was re-investigating the church, ultimately to take personal responsibility for what I believe is credulous and leave.

Published in 1951, it is very close to the events cited above.

Actually, I don't disagree with Jeff K. People join mass movements because they are seeking to lose their personal identity, which they are hiding from for various reasons, within the folds of the bigger movement. And part of this is being able to escape responsibility.

To quote the Hoffer book, "There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and it's appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy a desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation." (Section 7 - The Desire for Substitutes)

"Freedom aggravates at least as much as it alleviates frustration. Freedom of choice places the whole blame of failure on the shoulders of the individual. And as freedom encourages a multiplicity of attempts, it unavoidably multiplies failure and frustration. Freedom alleviates frustration by making available the palliatives of action, movement, change, and protest.

"Unless a man has talent to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden...We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, "to be free from freedom." It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank and file Nazis declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder the responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the Nazi movement in order to be free from responsibility." (Section 26)

(Please note that I had to type the above quotes from the book, so any variation in the text from the original is from my carp typing.)

But I think that one can not take the social context that gave rise to this loss of self-esteem too seriously, either. We create environmentals that inevitably lead to certain social conditions. In fact, the current struggles with the economy may be the most dangerous position for freedom we have ever been in, globally, because of the recent exposure to wealth that many have had and lost around the world. Extreme nationalism, religiousity, and segregation can easily follow as people try to reshape the world into one that restores their loss of hope and self-worth.

And I also think this subject is interesting within the framework of this overall discussion on institutional vs individual responsibility for knowing the background regarding the church's history.

One often hears things like, "The Lord will not let the Prophet lead the church too far astray" or the concept that the sin lay on the head of the leadership if a person does what they are asked, even if they believe it to be wrong often within the church.

I recently re-read Juanita Brooke's' book on the MMM. It's a perfect example of the above, both during the event and in how it was dealt with years later.

Often on these boards, one gets the sense that people will fall back on other's knowledge of something as an assurance that, even though they themselves can not reconcile some matter with reality, there are those who are smarter and better informed who do. This applies to both critics and believers of all faiths, LDS and otherwise. There are also those that post on this board who seem to have a feeling that the facts do not reconcile with their faithfulness to the church, but the values and lifestyle of the church justify continued allegiance. We've read in this very thread that some do not read all of the material available, preferring sympathetic sources for their information regarding the church. Or even in something that is internal but given an external cause (testimony). "I have a spiritual witness, I can not be held responsible for evaluating the historical facts as we have them."

How is this any different?

I think often in the SSM debate that many are allowing the church to do their thinking for them rather than asking themselves whether what the church says is really right or not. Most things that are complicated for members today to justify are often tossed back into the "presentism prevents us from really understanding things" because it allows one to be removed from an undesireable responsibilty to accept what appears immoral without distancing one's self from the organization. The same may one day be true of how modern members react to SSM though most members today view this as impossible. Yet the fact that others around them today see the injustice in it will hopefully stand against it as the opposition to polygamy does against the 1840's saints.

The church has institutional responsibility for what it chooses to share regarding it's past - and there is a more strict standard for this on institutions in this country than for individuals. Jeff K's examples above only serve to strengthen this argument, not oppose it. The individual has responsibility for both ensuring they are as informed as possible, and also for how they deal with the information once they receive it.

[wenglund]

Do you know a Dane Englund?

Yes...I am proud to call him my brother.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Abulafia]

Jeff, Hi,

I didn't say that Germany was always a dictatorship, I said it became one. I appreciate that Hitler came to power through a democratic process.

I agree with your first post that personal responsibility trumps 'obeying orders', but in that context I wish that someone would write (if they havn't already) a book that includes a more sympathetic view of the independent spirits of the early restoration. Those that apostatised because they felt that too much power was going in to the hands of a few and that those few were doing things that they couldn't agree with and certainly couldn't follow. The Higbees', Law, Foster, the Cowderys', all come to mind.

Do you know of any such book. If there is one, I'd like to read it.

Mary

[Jeff K.]

LOAP mentioned Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer", which I think is extremely insightful regarding the exchange above. One of the most important books I read while I was re-investigating the church, ultimately to take personal responsibility for what I believe is credulous and leave.Published in 1951, it is very close to the events cited above.Actually, I don't disagree with Jeff K. People join mass movements because they are seeking to lose their personal identity, which they are hiding from for various reasons, within the folds of the bigger movement. And part of this is being able to escape responsibility.To quote the Hoffer book, "There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and it's appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy a desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation." (Section 7 - The Desire for Substitutes)"Freedom aggravates at least as much as it alleviates frustration. Freedom of choice places the whole blame of failure on the shoulders of the individual. And as freedom encourages a multiplicity of attempts, it unavoidably multiplies failure and frustration. Freedom alleviates frustration by making available the palliatives of action, movement, change, and protest."Unless a man has talent to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden...We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, "to be free from freedom." It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank and file Nazis declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder the responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the Nazi movement in order to be free from responsibility." (Section 26)(Please note that I had to type the above quotes from the book, so any variation in the text from the original is from my carp typing.)But I think that one can not take the social context that gave rise to this loss of self-esteem too seriously, either. We create environmentals that inevitably lead to certain social conditions. In fact, the current struggles with the economy may be the most dangerous position for freedom we have ever been in, globally, because of the recent exposure to wealth that many have had and lost around the world. Extreme nationalism, religiousity, and segregation can easily follow as people try to reshape the world into one that restores their loss of hope and self-worth.And I also think this subject is interesting within the framework of this overall discussion on institutional vs individual responsibility for knowing the background regarding the church's history.One often hears things like, "The Lord will not let the Prophet lead the church too far astray" or the concept that the sin lay on the head of the leadership if a person does what they are asked, even if they believe it to be wrong often within the church.I recently re-read Juanita Brooke's' book on the MMM. It's a perfect example of the above, both during the event and in how it was dealt with years later.Often on these boards, one gets the sense that people will fall back on other's knowledge of something as an assurance that, even though they themselves can not reconcile some matter with reality, there are those who are smarter and better informed who do. This applies to both critics and believers of all faiths, LDS and otherwise. There are also those that post on this board who seem to have a feeling that the facts do not reconcile with their faithfulness to the church, but the values and lifestyle of the church justify continued allegiance. We've read in this very thread that some do not read all of the material available, preferring sympathetic sources for their information regarding the church. Or even in something that is internal but given an external cause (testimony). "I have a spiritual witness, I can not be held responsible for evaluating the historical facts as we have them."How is this any different?I think often in the SSM debate that many are allowing the church to do their thinking for them rather than asking themselves whether what the church says is really right or not. Most things that are complicated for members today to justify are often tossed back into the "presentism prevents us from really understanding things" because it allows one to be removed from an undesireable responsibilty to accept what appears immoral without distancing one's self from the organization. The same may one day be true of how modern members react to SSM though most members today view this as impossible. Yet the fact that others around them today see the injustice in it will hopefully stand against it as the opposition to polygamy does against the 1840's saints.The church has institutional responsibility for what it chooses to share regarding it's past - and there is a more strict standard for this on institutions in this country than for individuals. Jeff K's examples above only serve to strengthen this argument, not oppose it. The individual has responsibility for both ensuring they are as informed as possible, and also for how they deal with the information once they receive it.

Moroni revealed all to Christ in but a few settings.

Christ revealed all that he was to His apostles in Jerusalem when they first gathered.

Missionaries must be well versed in both the economic and religious history of the Mormon church to preach doctrine of the church.

No, actually they didn't and aren't. God is not silly, nor is he absurd, therefore the ideology of absurdism doesn't enter into such things.The Church bears the responsibility to teach of its doctrines to others. It does just that. The history and context is not doctrine, it is absurd (again) to assume the full context is understood and therefore the judgement of history is somehow fixed one way or another. Yet that would be the requirement to stating "this is what we know", which isn't the case. Bushman's last book "Rough Stone Rolling" is reflective of such a view.

In regards to undermining individual acts [added for clarity]

Generally it is the Mormons that go against the massive stream of single thought. How easy it would be for Mormons to be thoughtless and allow society to dictate their preferences rather than go against the grain and skip coffee, or live moral and chaste lives, while their neighbors are all about acceptance to the point of adoption in those lifestyles. Mormons aren't mindhive, though they can be deseret, it is society and the flow of information and even intimidation that creates the mindhive.

I find that part of the irony in the last statement.

Now as to the issue of SSM which was thrown into the mix. There are some clear differences between Polygamy and SSM in their contexts. Mormons never asked for state sanction of their marriages or official state recognition. Mormons did not feel that polygamy should be taught in schools as acceptable and equal lifestyles. They were willing to live with the idea of "partnerships" from the state level, just to be left alone. So the point is fallacious at best.Finally

And I also think this subject is interesting within the framework of this overall discussion on institutional vs individual responsibility for knowing the background regarding the church's history.

I must reject "institutional responsibility" as one of those items used to help others abrogate their responsibility on a personal level. In religion and morality there is no "institutional responsibility". Such a thing cannot exist in a religion where all decision is based on personal moral choice and that the paramount stance is one of personal choice in all things. The church bears no "institutional responsibility" at all. The responsibility lies with the individuals involved in the decision making process for their choices. Institutions do not create morality, they reflect the morality of their people, meaning the individual responsibility.My examples have shown just that. Unfortunately you missed the point.

Yes...I am proud to call him my brother. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am proud to call him a counselor in the ward I attend. He's a good man.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff, Hi,

I didn't say that Germany was always a dictatorship, I said it became one. I appreciate that Hitler came to power through a democratic process.

I agree with your first post that personal responsibility trumps 'obeying orders', but in that context I wish that someone would write (if they havn't already) a book that includes a more sympathetic view of the independent spirits of the early restoration. Those that apostatised because they felt that too much power was going in to the hands of a few and that those few were doing things that they couldn't agree with and certainly couldn't follow. The Higbees', Law, Foster, the Cowderys', all come to mind.

Do you know of any such book. If there is one, I'd like to read it.

Mary

I wish I could be more sympathetic. But too often I have seen people use sympathy as an escape to facing what they have done. I look at it along these lines, if the church is true, and you adhere to the doctrines then it really doesn't matter what stake presidents say or don't say, how much power "we" think they have or don't have. It comes down to a choice of personal pride and choice.

I appreciate your point of view, but my personal experiences in life tend to strip away the garnishments to look at the underlying reality of people and their choices (mine included).

[Honorentheos]

Jeff K

I think the gremlins ate your post and puked it back up before it made it onto the net. It appears to have been garbled. Though, the first sentence...

Moroni revealed all to Christ in but a few settings.

...seems questionable even without the server making it worse.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K

I think the gremlins ate your post and puked it back up before it made it onto the net. It appears to have been garbled. Though, the first sentence...

...seems questionable even without the server making it worse.

Thanks, it resembled early Greek writings of the scriptures for a moment.

[Abulafia]

I wish I could be more sympathetic. But too often I have seen people use sympathy as an escape to facing what they have done. I look at it along these lines, if the church is true, and you adhere to the doctrines then it really doesn't matter what stake presidents say or don't say, how much power "we" think they have or don't have. It comes down to a choice of personal pride and choice.

I appreciate your point of view, but my personal experiences in life tend to strip away the garnishments to look at the underlying reality of people and their choices (mine included).

Jeff, forgive me if I call you on this. You said this:

I am a big believer in personal responsibility. I believe that when you abrogate your personal responsibility you end up abrogating any true search for ethics. In the second world war many death camp guards claimed that they abrogated their personal responsibilities, they in effect were "following orders". It reflects a certain lack of moral fiber that allows any immorality to be justified in mock deception. It is a weakness the german volk regretted from that age.

What did Oliver and his brother, the Fosters, the Laws, the Higbees, and other independent spirits of the early restoration do wrong, other than retain their sense of personal responsibility and moral compass in the face of what they believed to be a church leadership, that was becoming a religious dictatorship. They didn't deny the book of Mormon or the validity of the restoration movement as far as I can tell, only the direction that Joseph wanted to take the church and the way he used his power - religious and secular? They kept their moral fibre surely?

Mary

[Jeff K.]

Could they have instead felt their pride was not properly assuaged, that the power that they thought passing into a few men was not power that they wanted to give up? Does power really matter in light of the gospel and its ultimate author?

If they believed the church's doctrines to be true, would that not constitute an understanding that God the arbiter of that power would in the end deal with where it would go?

If they felt the doctrines false, then of course they followed a moral compass, otherwise it was a personality issue which has nothing to do with morality.

Did their leaving help? How did they think it would help?

[beastie]

Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 6:32

Vol. 6, p.32 Well now, brethren, I tell you I have said what I have said; and may God grant that it may inspire your heartsâ??that it may exalt your mindsâ??that you may treasure up these truths, as far as they are truths; and I know nothing to the contrary but what they are truths; and if you do, or anybody else, I would be pleased to be corrected,â??that is, to have the real thing presented instead of them. Is it to my injury, because I did not happen to get it, and somebody steps forward and puts it there? Does it injure me? No: it communicates to me that I had not got,â??that is, a truth; and truth is life, and life is light. Do you not see what I get by it?

Vol. 6, p.32 In regard to our situation and circumstances in these valleys, brethren WAKE UP! WAKE UP, YE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, AND LIVE TO GOD and none else; and learn to do as you are told, both old and young: learn to do as you are told for the future, And when you are taking a position, if you do not know that you are right, do not take itâ??I mean independently. But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong,You will get water, if you dig away. That is rather presumptuous doctrine with some people; but with me it is not.

Vol. 6, p.32 I have heard men teach in this stand that I was under no obligation to do anything, except I had a revelation. I do not believe the doctrine at all. I don't care who preached it. I am not the leaderâ??I am not the Prophet, nor the chief Apostle. I do not hold the keys independently. I have no keys, only what I hold in brother Brigham; and then brother Brigham has the word of God the must do thus and so. He comes to me and says, "Brother Heber, I want you to do thus and so." Wait till I go home, get into my private room, and ask God that I may get a revelation! Aint that pretty, brother Taylor? Well, I will not talk just as I think. If I did, I would knock this pulpit head over heels, when I think of such folly. Go and get a revelation, when God has spoken through my head!â??and then the tail goes off, and gets down on his knees to get a revelation, when the head has got one !

Vol. 6, p.32 Now, I have heard that doctrine preached here, that they must have a revelation before they are bound to receive that word and go and pratise it, just as it would have been with those men I employed to go and dig that well by the arsenal. "Wait, sir." I will not wait a minute. Go along, or I will employ men that will do it. "I am going to get a revelation to know if there is water there." They [p.33] its not know that by believing on any man's testimony they increase in knowledge, wisdom, and the power of God. They forget that. Do you not see that I can learn more to be led than I can to lead, if I have the right man to lead me? Brother Brigham is my leader: he is my Prophet, my seer, and my Revelator; and whatever he says, that is for me to do; and it is not for me to question him one word, nor to question God a minute. Do you not see?

Vol. 6, p.33 I will tell you what it is right for me to do. If there is time, (and if there is not, it is not necessary,) go along and bow down before the Lord God. Say I, "Father, help me to be faithful and do the words of brother Brigham, my leader, that I may see glory in it, and that I may see immortality and eternal lives in it."

Vol. 6, p.33 I am teaching you, Elders. Now, if I am not right, I am wrong. I leave it to you to judge whether I am right or wrong. It is curious for me to talk, but it is not for me to question his words any more than it was Naaman, the Assyrian. Said he, "What better are the waters of Jordan? Why are not the rivers of Damascus and the water round Jerusalem just as good? Why is there not as much virtue in them as there is in Jordan? Why, there is; but the virtue is in the man of God telling him what to do. There was virtue in doing what the servant of God told him to do. If he had told him to have gone and got into a mud hole, it would have had the same effect as that water. It is in the words of the man of God, and God lets his angels go along wherever he goes, and the angel of God goes along and touches the man with the touch of his finger, and says, "Be thou made whole!" Why? "Because the servant of God says so, and I have come here to help to fulfil it." Either side of the vail they am active to see that your words are fulfilled. If they are not, they are not with us, nor we with them.

Vol. 6, p.33 What difference does the vail make? None at all. To us there is a vail, but to them there is no vail. They can see through the side of a house as well as through the air. I know that by experience. "Well, now," some one says, "What good does it do for two or three thousand men to be in the mountains? Why, I don't know that it is any of our business. It says "Uncle Sam cannot come. We are ready; we are on the spot." Well, what else? It gives those men. an experience that they cannot have on any other principle. They are getting an experienceâ??for what? To cultivate them for something greater, which will come next year; and if it does not come then, it will come some time. I do not say it will come next year. You never heard me say it would; but you and I want to live our religion and do as we are told, not questioning a word for a moment. You have got to stop that. It is enough for others to do that, without our meddling with those things. I am speaking to the Elders of Israel.

Vol. 6, p.33 Well, these things are all right. You learn to do as you are told; and those that have not been baptised into the Church, I say, Go and be baptised, and put on Christ by baptism, that you may receive the Holy Ghost and be one with us: that is all I have got to say to you.

http://www.mormonismi.net/jod/hck_vol6_p.28.html

[Jeff K.]

Oh look Heber C. Kimball said something that I don't agree with. The church simply must be false then.

Do you understand the context of the time or are you simply cutting and pasting to justify yourself?

[Honorentheos]

Moroni revealed all to Christ in but a few settings.

I hope you will explain this statement as it does not seem to make any sense. It seems that you have Christ and Moroni reversed, but even still the statement, â??Christ revealed all to Moroni in but a few settingsâ? is obscure.

Christ revealed all that he was to His apostles in Jerusalem when they first gathered.

Dr. Peterson seems to disagree.

Missionaries must be well versed in both the economic and religious history of the Mormon church to preach doctrine of the church.

Again, others in this thread do not hold this opinion.

No, actually they didn't and aren't. God is not silly, nor is he absurd, therefore the ideology of absurdism doesn't enter into such things.

This does not seem to follow from anything you said above. Are you referring to a specific part of my post that is not clear here?

The Church bears the responsibility to teach of its doctrines to others. It does just that. The history and context is not doctrine, it is absurd (again) to assume the full context is understood and therefore the judgement of history is somehow fixed one way or another. Yet that would be the requirement to stating "this is what we know", which isn't the case. Bushman's last book "Rough Stone Rolling" is reflective of such a view.

We are talking about when more is known to have occurred than is typically shared, and the material not shared changes how one would possibly act. Is it ethical for an institution to act otherwise?

In regards to undermining individual acts [added for clarity]

Generally it is the Mormons that go against the massive stream of single thought. How easy it would be for Mormons to be thoughtless and allow society to dictate their preferences rather than go against the grain and skip coffee, or live moral and chaste lives, while their neighbors are all about acceptance to the point of adoption in those lifestyles. Mormons aren't mindhive, though they can be deseret, it is society and the flow of information and even intimidation that creates the mindhive.

I find that part of the irony in the last statement.

In your thinking above, you seem to be advocating a certain lose-lose for free will â?? either one subscribes to the doctrines and thinking of the church or one chooses to subscribe to a hypothetical opposite of the churchâ??s doctrine. You have created a false other to which you contrast church doctrine. Not all non-mormons sip coffee, live â??unchasteâ? lives or fall into the polar opposite of your worldview.

In your case, the mindhive may have already won in that you can no longer see that the opposite of your view is pluralistic, not diametric to your worldview. There are also other options from within the LDS body. There is plenty of variety within the LDS membership. I argue only that there is an abdication of personal responsibility when one allows the church to make the decisions for them, or avoids making a choice altogether. The post of mine above gives examples where this occurs.

Now as to the issue of SSM which was thrown into the mix. There are some clear differences between Polygamy and SSM in their contexts. Mormons never asked for state sanction of their marriages or official state recognition. Mormons did not feel that polygamy should be taught in schools as acceptable and equal lifestyles. They were willing to live with the idea of "partnerships" from the state level, just to be left alone. So the point is fallacious at best.

Not how I used the SSM example.

Finally

QUOTE

And I also think this subject is interesting within the framework of this overall discussion on institutional vs individual responsibility for knowing the background regarding the church's history.

I must reject "institutional responsibility" as one of those items used to help others abrogate their responsibility on a personal level. In religion and morality there is no "institutional responsibility".

Why not? The church does not need to be held to some standard of truth?

If your bank were found to have used your money in a manner that was not fully disclosed to you that appears to have resulted in your loss of assets, would you just shrug it off and take what was left of your money to another bank?

I do not get the sense this is in your personality to do so.

The church bears no "institutional responsibility" at all. The responsibility lies with the individuals involved in the decision making process for their choices. Institutions do not create morality, they reflect the morality of their people, meaning the individual responsibility.My examples have shown just that. Unfortunately you missed the point.

I have to disagree.

[Honorentheos]

Oh look Heber C. Kimball said something that I don't agree with. The church simply must be false then.

Do you understand the context of the time or are you simply cutting and pasting to justify yourself?

Interesting.

One often hears things like, "The Lord will not let the Prophet lead the church too far astray" ...Often on these boards, one gets the sense that people will fall back on other's knowledge of something as an assurance that, even though they themselves can not reconcile some matter with reality, there are those who are smarter and better informed who do...Or even in something that is internal but given an external cause (testimony). "I have a spiritual witness, I can not be held responsible for evaluating the historical facts as we have them.

How is this any different?

...many are allowing the church to do their thinking for them rather than asking themselves whether what the church says is really right or not. Most things that are complicated for members today to justify are often tossed back into the "presentism prevents us from really understanding things" because it allows one to be removed from an undesireable responsibilty to accept what appears immoral without distancing one's self from the organization.

[beastie]

Oh look Heber C. Kimball said something that I don't agree with. The church simply must be false then.

Nowhere did I say, or even imply, that since Heber C. Kimball said something you donâ??t agree with that means the church is false.

Do you understand the context of the time or are you simply cutting and pasting to justify yourself?

I think I understand the context of the time as well as you do. Besides, there are other, similar statements made by modern prophets, such as this one, from N. Eldon Tannerâ??s First Presidency message in August 1979:

Why should there be any debate over the moral issues which are confounding the world today? From the beginning God has made his position very clear in regard to marriage, divorce, family life and love of children, immorality, chastity, virtue, and the high and holy role of women. Through his prophet today he reiterates the Old and New Testament teachings which are clear on these matters.

History and experience have proven that whenever and wherever there is departure from following the word of the Lord, calamity occurs. Civilizations have fallen; there has been general and individual destruction; there have been weeping and wailing and great sorrow; there have been famine and pestilence. Only Satan and his cohorts have been left to rejoice. He is the author of the debates on moral issues. He has sworn to thwart the purposes of God. He it is who deceives and lays in wait to promote his cunning schemes, promising the riches of this world as a reward to those who follow him.

To gain these riches many engage in the debates on moral issues. The alcohol and tobacco industries and dealers in pornography are accumulating great wealth at the expense of the people and to the detriment of their health. With all the evidence of child pornography, it is deplorable that any parent would allow any child to be so exploited. Some children are being neglected and abused because their mothers are seeking worldly pleasures and careers outside the home. Many fathers are more concerned with their financial success than with the welfare of their wives and children.

We must turn all this about. We cannot serve God and mammon. Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoi..._&hideNav=1

My point is this: you are presenting your personal views as if they represent the churchâ??s teachings and views in some clear, irrefutable fashion. Whether or not your personal views on this issue are correct or not, my point is that itâ??s very easy to find statements from prophets and apostles that contradict your personal views; hence, a believer â?? or exbeliever â?? could be as justified as you are in stating that the views and teachings of the church donâ??t correlate with your personal views. Iâ??m sure you can also find statements that support your personal view, as well. But there is no clear â??correctâ? church teaching on this matter.

IIRC, youâ??re the same poster who stated that I had morally and ethically failed in that I joined the church without finding out details about church history beforehand (of course, how I was supposed to find that information in 1976 was not adequately explained). I pointed out to you that I joined the church in the exact manner and process that the church itself encourages and desires. This was verified by statement from other believers.

Both of these assertions of yours seem to indicate you have some trouble telling the difference between your personal opinions and actual church teachings and positions, IMO.