erichard Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 (edited) I happened to read this recently,Screwtape pointed out to Tapeworm, demon to demon, that “People are always talking about how Satan puts ideas into people’s heads, but we actually spend most of our time keeping them OUT.”I may be true that the adversary works on LDS above all else in keeping out of their heads the idea that there could be problems in the church Presidency itself. Many LDS are totally converted to what I call the "done-deal doctrine"-- the doctrine that not only are there no problems in the church Presidency, but it is a done-deal that there never will be any significant problem there. That is about the most important doctrine of the gospel!Other LDS may not buy into the done-deal doctrine fully, but they still basically accept it being taught regularly.I do realize that if the done-deal doctrine is false (as I happen to believe) then it opens a can of worms for the church. But nonetheless, if the gospel is to prepare us to be joint-heirs with Christ having to deal with difficult matters seems to be a legitimate possibility. Christ and the prophets certainly had to deal with extremely difficult situations. Furthermore, D&C 136:31 promises that the church will be "tried in ALL things" before Zion is set up. Two scriptures converted me, years ago, to the doctrine that even the President of the church is NOT above failing the church. These are D&C 107:81-84 and JST Mark 9:40-48. The first one provides instructions for having a special trial over a member of the First Presidency to settle a "controversy" over him. The second one instructs "every man" to stand or fall for himself and not to automatically trust a friend, a leader, or even the "eye of the body" (the church President).Those who defend the "done deal doctrine" can quote pages of quotes "proving" the doctrine. Few of the quotes, however, are actually scripture. And none of the scriptures they quote prove that the two I mentioned above have been done away with.So it seems scriptural that every promise given in scripture or in inspired sermons about the success of the latter-day work can all be completely correct and will all come to pass-- and yet at the same time it could be correct today to NOT sustain President Monson at the next conference.Pinning the guaranteed correctness of the teachings and decisions of President Monson to the promises given by the Lord I remain convinced is simply not scriptural. Those who do it feel they are defending the gospel and the church, but what they are doing is really much more human: the politics of men.Before a group can talk about a legitimate controversy over the President of the church it has to be agree upon that one can actually have such a "legitimate" controversy. (I use the term "controversy" because that is the word the scripture uses in D&C 107.) It should go without saying that if one has a controversy over the President of the church they must not fall into "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed". The two are not the same thing, even though done-deal doctrine advocates would have everyone think they are automatically the same thing.Is the President of the LDS church above legitimate controversy that could even mean he should be removed from office? Edited September 3, 2011 by erichard
Duncan Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 I don't know about Pres. Monson in terms of criticism but it does seem sometimes the Church is like Teflon Don when it comes to accepting responsibility for stuff
Arkholt Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 I happened to read this recently,Screwtape pointed out to Tapeworm, demon to demon, that “People are always talking about how Satan puts ideas into people’s heads, but we actually spend most of our time keeping them OUT.”I may be true that the adversary works on LDS above all else in keeping out of their heads the idea that there could be problems in the church Presidency itself. Many LDS are totally converted to what I call the "done-deal doctrine"-- the doctrine that not only are there no problems in the church Presidency, but it is a done-deal that there never will be any significant problem there. That is about the most important doctrine of the gospel!Other LDS may not buy into the done-deal doctrine fully, but they still basically accept it being taught regularly.I do realize that if the done-deal doctrine is false (as I happen to believe) then it opens a can of worms for the church.Why would accepting that the GAs are normal, flawed human beings open any can of worms? It actually settles a lot of things for me once the "done-deal doctrine," as you call it, is done away with.But nonetheless, if the gospel is to prepare us to be joint-heirs with Christ having to deal with difficult matters seems to be a legitimate possibility. Christ and the prophets certainly had to deal with extremely difficult situations. Furthermore, D&C 136:31 promises that the church will be "tried in ALL things" before Zion is set up. Two scriptures converted me, years ago, to the doctrine that even the President of the church is NOT above failing the church. These are D&C 107:81-84 and JST Mark 9:40-48. The first one provides instructions for having a special trial over a member of the First Presidency to settle a "controversy" over him. The second one instructs "every man" to stand or fall for himself and not to automatically trust a friend, a leader, or even the "eye of the body" (the church President).Very nice scriptures there. The first one, I think, is especially pertinent, because there would really be no reason for that kind of council if there could never be any problem in the First Presidency. There is one, though, so there must be a reason for it. Therefore, the First Presidency may have problems.Those who defend the "done deal doctrine" can quote pages of quotes "proving" the doctrine. Few of the quotes, however, are actually scripture. And none of the scriptures they quote prove that the two I mentioned above have been done away with.So it seems scriptural that every promise given in scripture or in inspired sermons about the success of the latter-day work can all be completely correct and will all come to pass-- and yet at the same time it could be correct today to NOT sustain President Monson at the next conference.Pinning the guaranteed correctness of the teachings and decisions of President Monson to the promises given by the Lord I remain convinced is simply not scriptural. Those who do it feel they are defending the gospel and the church, but what they are doing is really much more human: the politics of men.Before a group can talk about a legitimate controversy over the President of the church it has to be agree upon that one can actually have such a "legitimate" controversy. (I use the term "controversy" because that is the word the scripture uses in D&C 107.) It should go without saying that if one has a controversy over the President of the church they must not fall into "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed". The two are not the same thing, even though done-deal doctrine advocates would have everyone think they are automatically the same thing.Indeed. If there was a controversy over something a prophet said or did, I'd condemn the action, but no the person. There's no reason to say Pres. Monson is a bad person simply because of some particular mistake he has made. It isn't "speaking ill of the Lord's anointed," however, to point out things that he may have done wrong. In fact, it ought to be considered helping him, as it gives him the opportunity to correct those mistakes and become a better person.Is the President of the LDS church above legitimate controversy that could even mean he should be removed from office?Never. The quote from Pres. Woodruff that everyone cites for the "done-deal doctrine," something along the lines of "The Lord will not allow his prophet to lead his people astray," actually implies the opposite meaning of the way those people use it. The prophet could very well make a mistake or even deliberately try to lead the people astray. However, the Lord has ways, such as the council previously mentioned, to remove him if that is the case.Good post. I just wonder if it means you have any particular problems with Pres. Monson.
erichard Posted September 3, 2011 Author Posted September 3, 2011 ...Never. The quote from Pres. Woodruff that everyone cites for the "done-deal doctrine," something along the lines of "The Lord will not allow his prophet to lead his people astray," actually implies the opposite meaning of the way those people use it. The prophet could very well make a mistake or even deliberately try to lead the people astray. However, the Lord has ways, such as the council previously mentioned, to remove him if that is the case.Good post. I just wonder if it means you have any particular problems with Pres. Monson. Hi Arkholt,I appreciate that you agree with my points. I believe the members of the church should NOT sustain President Monson. There are many, many extremely serious controversies over him and his predecessors that have never been settled by a trial or by discussions that truly support legitimate dissent over the First Presidency.But talking about these controversies is not the purpose of this thread. You can read [link removed] if you want to.Richard
bluebell Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Hi Arkholt,I appreciate that you agree with my points. I believe the members of the church should NOT sustain President Monson. There are many, many extremely serious controversies over him and his predecessors that have never been settled by a trial or by discussions that truly support legitimate dissent over the First Presidency.But talking about these controversies is not the purpose of this thread. You can read [link removed] if you want to.RichardIf you've prayed about it and feel you shouldn't sustain him, then don't.But conspiracy theories doesn't seem like a legitimate reason not to sustain him to me.
erichard Posted September 3, 2011 Author Posted September 3, 2011 If you've prayed about it and feel you shouldn't sustain him, then don't.But conspiracy theories doesn't seem like a legitimate reason not to sustain him to me.Hi,I am not sure what you are calling a conspiracy theory.I assume that you do sustain President Monson. If someone else chooses to not sustain him, do you believe that member should be excommunicated if he or she presents their concerns to others? Richard
CV75 Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 If someone else chooses to not sustain him, do you believe that member should be excommunicated if he or she presents their concerns to others? It depends on how he goes about not sustaining, how this is made this known, and the manner in which he presents and persists in his concerns, especialy if his concerns have been reasonably addressed at teh appropriate level(s).The “controversy” about a President of the High Priesthood in D&C 107:82 means his transgression. Transgressions are discovered through voluntary admission/confession or by witnesses and involve priesthood leadership reporting channels and scopes of responsibility.There is a due process from the local to general levels of the Church.
Ares Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Hi Arkholt,I appreciate that you agree with my points. I believe the members of the church should NOT sustain President Monson. There are many, many extremely serious controversies over him and his predecessors that have never been settled by a trial or by discussions that truly support legitimate dissent over the First Presidency.But talking about these controversies is not the purpose of this thread. You can read [link removed] if you want to.RichardDont use this board to level broad, unfounded and conspiratorial accusations against LDS Church leadership.
Recommended Posts