The Rise Of Humanism

[Cobalt-70]

(Every time someone quotes Mormon Doctrine as if its unauthorized expansions and unapproved hyperbole were, in fact, "Mormon Doctrine", I feel a rather desperate need to point out that its unauthorized expansions and unapproved hyperbole are actually, in point of fact, unauthorized expansions and unapproved hyperbole.)

It's also interesting that McConkie quotes Lectures on Faith (which has been decanonized because it said the Father was a spirit, and that the Holy Spirit was not a separate personage) to rebut a point derived from the King Follett sermon.

McConkie's point only goes to one particular aspect of God's progression. He apparently doesn't doubt Smith's statement God progresses in glory. McConkie's issue was the question of whether God's progression includes progression in knowledge. But the idea which McConkie states is "false--utterly, totally, and completely" was perhaps made without McConkie knowing that that precise doctrine which McConkie claims is false had been advocated by two prior apostles who, in their day, outranked him.

Wilford Woodruff said: "God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end." (Journal of Discourses 6:120). http://jod.mrm.org/6/115#120

George Q. Cannon, a member of the First Presidency, also said, "...advancing as our Father in heaven advances, for there is progress for our father and for our Lord Jesus. There is no such thing as standing still in the eternal work of our God. It is endless progress, progressing from one degree of knowledge to another degree." (Millennial Star 61:117) http://www.mormonhandbook.com/storage/media/ms-v61p117.png

[Cobalt-70]

From the Chapter of the Doctrine and Covenants you yourself cited above:

Quote

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

Well, that and the power to excommunicate, disfellowship, or prevent you from attending the temple. They can do more than just persuade you to stay home from the temple.

[Cobalt-70]

I think this mischaracterizes priesthood authority in the LDS Church, and so I disagree. No one can control what someone believes in order to remain in good standing in the Church--good standing depends entirely on what a member does with his belief, not what he believes. This is where authorizing members to receive covenants and ordinances comes into play. Priesthood authority allows a particular kind of service and invitation that not just any/everyone can do (temple work, extending callings).

Likewise, no member is authorized to believe anything. An member can believe what he wants, when, why and how he wants. Imposing on one’s agency is antithetical to proper priesthood authority and righteous dominion.

The church can refuse to grant you a temple recommend if (1) you do not believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (2) you do not believe in the atonement, (3) you do not believe in the restoration, (4) you do not recognize the President of the Church as the only person on the earth who can exercise all priesthood keys, and (4) you do not believe that the members of the presiding quorums are prophets, seers, and revelators.

But this gets away from the main point, which is that priesthood authority is different from priesthood power, and that priesthood power is a very humanistic idea. I don't see how anybody can doubt that the church has authority over its members. My point was that this authority is the only thing that was delegated. One may have priesthood power independently of any delegation of authority. The power comes from (1) knowledge, and (2) righteousness. In Joseph Smith's theology, the only thing that separates us from God (besides immortality and having had more time to accumulate a larger kingdom) is that he has more knowledge than us and is more righteous.

Not only that, but although the idea of priesthood authority is less humanistic than the idea of priesthood power, it is still more humanistic than the authority models of Protestantism. In Protestantism, priesthood authority comes from directly from God. In Mormonism and Catholicism, however, the authority comes via human intermediaries, living or dead. Thus, humans have a higher place in the mechanism of God's heavenly monarchy.

[Deborah]

Not only that, but although the idea of priesthood authority is less humanistic than the idea of priesthood power....

This seems backwards. If authority is ordained then it is humanistic in the sense that it takes a human to ordain. Power is indeed a godly function and existed before the earth existed.

In Protestantism, priesthood authority comes from directly from God.

I guess that assumes that they have any priesthood authority. Certainly not as LDS understand it.

Thus, humans have a higher place in the mechanism of God's heavenly monarchy.

Honestly Cobalt, I don't know how you reach some of your conclusions although I'm not sure what this statement even means.

[mfbukowski]

Service is required and expected of all who are in authority within the LDS Church. However, service is not itself authority. The ultimate expression of direct authority in the LDS Church is the right of bishops and stake presidents to decide who can enter the temple, and the right of stake high councils to determine who should be excommunicated. Another example is the charismatic authority (see Max Weber, Theory of Social and Economic Organization) exercised by presidents of the LDS Church.

And if you ever had to sit and listen to all the gruesome details of some poor soul's tortured life and then decide if he was "worthy" or not, or if it was best for that individual to be excommunicated or not, then you would understand that alleged "authority" is nothing more than service, and the most difficult service one can render.

[CV75]

The church can refuse to grant you a temple recommend if (1) you do not believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (2) you do not believe in the atonement, (3) you do not believe in the restoration, (4) you do not recognize the President of the Church as the only person on the earth who can exercise all priesthood keys, and (4) you do not believe that the members of the presiding quorums are prophets, seers, and revelators.

But this gets away from the main point, which is that priesthood authority is different from priesthood power, and that priesthood power is a very humanistic idea. I don't see how anybody can doubt that the church has authority over its members. My point was that this authority is the only thing that was delegated. One may have priesthood power independently of any delegation of authority. The power comes from (1) knowledge, and (2) righteousness. In Joseph Smith's theology, the only thing that separates us from God (besides immortality and having had more time to accumulate a larger kingdom) is that he has more knowledge than us and is more righteous.

Not only that, but although the idea of priesthood authority is less humanistic than the idea of priesthood power, it is still more humanistic than the authority models of Protestantism. In Protestantism, priesthood authority comes from directly from God. In Mormonism and Catholicism, however, the authority comes via human intermediaries, living or dead. Thus, humans have a higher place in the mechanism of God's heavenly monarchy.

No, the church authorities refuse a recommend only if you say you don’t believe in x, y, or z in the course of the recommend interview. They cannot act on what you believe; only on what you say you believe or say you are doing, unless they have heard you say or seen you do otherwise in other venues than the interview.

Yes, priesthood power does come from knowledge and righteousness, and both are outgrowths of faith in Christ, and His grace. In addition, faith has power, as also other power a person possesses by virtue of their positive response to the Light of Christ, and without possessing priesthood authority. But humanism is about personal power one develops and uses by virtue of their inate or others' human genius.

Of course God is Human but this is not the issue in humanism, for "God" is irrelevant to the approach. To try to make Him otherwise brings up the same arguments as tailoring classical Darwinian evolution into a principle that God uses to perform His work.

Edited January 23, 2012 by CV75

[CV75]

P.S. I think this kind of discussion reveals an interesting paradigm that humanists tend to have about authority and power—that they are exercised, even if seemingly ever so benevolently, over people and their beliefs. This is a very different attitude than what the Church teaches.

[Cobalt-70]

This seems backwards. If authority is ordained then it is humanistic in the sense that it takes a human to ordain. Power is indeed a godly function and existed before the earth existed.

Authority is less humanistic because even though humans may pass the authority to other humans, there is a hierarchy with God at the apex. Priesthood power, on the other hand, is according to Joseph Smith "

everlasting—without beginning of days or end of years, without father, mother, etc.,

" and depends only on the knowledge and righteousness of the person wielding that power. Thus, it is a human power. When Mormons give priesthood blessings, they bless the recipient; they do not merely ask God to bless the recipient. They are already acting as gods.

[LeSellers]

When Mormons give priesthood blessings, they bless the recipient; they do not merely ask God to bless the recipient. They are already acting as gods.

Not so.

When we perform any ordinance or give any blessing, we do it, not on our own authority, but "in the name of Jesus Christ", and, typically, "by the power of the Priesthood (I/we hold)". It is an awsome thing (in the original meaning of the word) to act in the name of God. But when we do so, it is effective solely because He authorized us to, and that authorization is conditional.

Lehi

[selek1]

When Mormons give priesthood blessings, they bless the recipient; they do not merely ask God to bless the recipient. They are already acting as gods.

Yet another fundamental and deliberate misrepresentation of Mormon belief, and practice.

Blessings almost invariably open with prayer to God and a variation of the following:

"By the authority of the Holy Mechizedec Priesthood which I hold"

and end in:

"In the name of Jesus Christ".

Priesthood power is exercised in the name and authority of God. Yes: the Priesthood Holder blesses the recipient- they do so IN GOD'S NAME and through HIS authority (which has been previously delegated to them for that purpose).

This is a far cry from your parody position, which is essentially:

<blesser>

"Hi...my name is Bob and I'll be your Priesthood Holder today".

<blesee>

"Hi, Bob"

[selek1]

Not so.

When we perform any ordinance or give any blessing, we do it, not on our own authority, but "in the name of Jesus Christ", and, typically, "by the power of the Priesthood (I/we hold)". It is an awsome thing (in the original meaning of the word) to act in the name of God. But when we do so, it is effective solely because He authorized us to, and that authorization is conditional.

Lehi

Why are we still playing with this troll?

He's been corrected by every faithful Latter-day Saint who's wandered within fifteen feet of this thread.

It's perfectly clear that he's neither here to learn nor arguing in good faith.

Edited January 24, 2012 by selek1

[Cobalt-70]

Yes, priesthood power does come from knowledge and righteousness, and both are outgrowths of faith in Christ, and His grace. In addition, faith has power, as also other power a person possesses by virtue of their positive response to the Light of Christ, and without possessing priesthood authority. But humanism is about personal power one develops and uses by virtue of their inate or others' human genius.

I think your understanding or priesthood power is more Protestant than Mormon. In Mormonism, priesthood is a personal power. It is the power to reach into heaven and bind things there, or see things there (Ether 3:19-20--saying that even Jesus could not have kept the brother of Jared from seeing beyond the veil). It is the very power of God, but since in Mormon theology humans are gods in training, it is ultimately a human power.

I would not say it is an outgrowth of faith. There is a difference between faith that God will heal someone, and faith that your priesthood blessing will heal someone. Moreover, Mormon priesthood power is more about knowledge than faith. (See Ether 3:19, and the temple ceremony.)

[Cobalt-70]

Not so.

When we perform any ordinance or give any blessing, we do it, not on our own authority, but "in the name of Jesus Christ", and, typically, "by the power of the Priesthood (I/we hold)". It is an awsome thing (in the original meaning of the word) to act in the name of God. But when we do so, it is effective solely because He authorized us to, and that authorization is conditional.

Lehi

When you say "in the name of Jesus Christ," you are saying what your authority is. When you say "by the power of the Priesthood," you are saying what your power is. There is a difference between the power and the authority. You can do lots of things under the authority of Jesus, but unless you have the power (as a result of your knowledge and righteousness), it won't do any good.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CV75]

but since in Mormon theology humans are gods in training, it is ultimately a human power.

and this ain't humanism

[CV75]

Mormon priesthood power is more about knowledge than faith. (See Ether 3:19, and the temple ceremony.)

Faith and knowledge operate in tandem. Both begin with a desire to believe, then faith gives way to knowledge, knowledge demands the exercise of greater faith to expand, etc. But faith in Christ is not a principle of humanism, either.

[mfbukowski]

Authority is less humanistic because even though humans may pass the authority to other humans, there is a hierarchy with God at the apex. Priesthood power, on the other hand, is according to Joseph Smith "

everlasting—without beginning of days or end of years, without father, mother, etc.,

" and depends only on the knowledge and righteousness of the person wielding that power. Thus, it is a human power. When Mormons give priesthood blessings, they bless the recipient; they do not merely ask God to bless the recipient. They are already acting as gods.

Oh man! That is so wrong!

One says "I bless you" not because you are acting as a god, but because you are the voice- the servent of God - acting for him- through the power of the priesthood in his name.

I don't know where you get this stuff!

[CV75]

Oh man! That is so wrong!

“And thus we see” the similar effects between (or similar causes of) bringing humanism into Mormonism and Mormonism into humanism: a fundamental orientation to control others’ beliefs.

[LeSellers]

When you say "in the name of Jesus Christ," you are saying what your authority is.

You do not understand what acting "in the name of [someone]" is, I take it.

Look up "power of attorney". That's what the Priesthood is. Priesthood holders have no power of their own, it's all the power of Christ.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

“And thus we see” the similar effects between (or similar causes of) bringing humanism into Mormonism and Mormonism into humanism: a fundamental orientation to control others’ beliefs.

But what he is saying is a misunderstanding of both. Humanism is all about human relations, which is really what we are discussing.

I think that humanism cannot be separated from Mormonism- they are not discreet sets of opposing "doctrine" any more than the American view of "Manifest Destiny" can be separated from the Mormon pioneer trek west.

We are cultural 21st century world citizens, and as such, humanism is what we live and breathe. The fact that these notions are central to Mormonism is not an accident.

Edited January 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

But what he is saying is a misunderstanding of both. Humanism is all about human relations, which is really what we are discussing.

I think that humanism cannot be separated from Mormonism- they are not discreet sets of opposing "doctrine" any more than the American view of "Manifest Destiny" can be separated from the Mormon pioneer trek west.

We are cultural 21st century world citizens, and as such, humanism is what we live and breathe. The fact that these notions are central to Mormonism is not an accident.

As always, it depends on the definition being used (in this case, for humanism)--Today, humanism typically is understood to deal with strictly human values and concerns (no such interest in divine matters). Before the 1800’s there was no such dichotomy, at least in practice, between a concern for humanity and a concern with the things of God. With the 1st definition, I would disagree with you; with the 2nd, I would agree with you.

Edited January 26, 2012 by CV75

[Damien the Leper]

It's fascinating how my thread has gone off into 'gods in training' and the KFS, etc. However, I believe that those subjects are off topic where the OP is concerned.

It is odd that we say that priesthood is the power to act in God's name and yet we are not fully capable of allowing God to be God and do it Himself.

Anyway...I think this thread has run its course.

[selek1]

Valentinus- your last (rather snarky) comment is a non-sequitor.

God himself CHOSE to delegate the power and authority of the Priesthood.

Contrary to your assertion, no one is preventing God from "being God" by exercising the gifts he has bestowed or by carrying out his plans as he has defined them.

In point of fact, you do more to deny God his just and deserved role and authority by denying his gifts.

It is YOU, not we, who would prevent God from "being God" by denying his express will towards his children and decrying one of the means through which his power is made manifest.

You are arguing that God cannot be God if he delegates his authority to men.

While the assertion is illogical on it's face, it denies God's right to rule the universe as he wills in favor of YOUR preferences and prejudices.

It is YOU, not we, would deny the power and authority of God by insisting that he has to do things your way.

Edited January 26, 2012 by selek1

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus- your last (rather snarky) comment is a non-sequitor.

Thank you for your rather critical and presumptuous opinion of my post. Once again, Selek, you got it wrong.

God himself CHOSE to delegate the power and authority of the Priesthood.

Agreed.

Contrary to your assertion, no one is preventing God from "being God" by exercising the gifts he has bestowed or by carrying out his plans as he has defined them.

I said this not to 'assert' that anyone is preventing God from being God. This is more of a speculation into God's own humanity, personality and divinity.

In point of fact, you do more to deny God his just and deserved role and authority by denying his gifts.

I don't want to deny God the ability to gift us or for us to receive gifts. I speculate what our deep relationship with him would be if we trusted his Divine Providence in everyday life.

It is YOU, not we, who would prevent God from "being God" by denying his express will towards his children and decrying one of the means through which his power is made manifest.

I'm not denying God anything. I do believe that we all, individuals and churches, project our ideas of 'right', 'wrong', 'orthodox' and 'heretical' onto God. I come to this conclusion because ALL scripture is shaped by human experience.

You are arguing that God cannot be God if he delegates his authority to men.

Tell where I explicitly and exactly state what you accuse me of and not a mindless mischaracterization of what I said.

You assert too much. I'm saying that God doesn't need to. Because I don't have a full understanding of the priesthood, even as a former priesthood holder, does not mean that I cannot speculate the full magnitude of God's power. It was not my intent to disenfranchize anyone.

While the assertion is illogical on it's face, it denies God's right to rule the universe as he wills in favor of YOUR preferences and prejudices.

My preferences and prejudices are the product of my lack of understanding and so, yes, I am going to get it wrong.

It is YOU, not we, would deny the power and authority of God by insisting that he has to do things your way.

Once again, you're wrong.I have no desire for God to do things 'my way' as you put. Don't project your interpretations of what I said on to me.

Perhaps instead of telling me what I am 'asserting', as you poorly claim, you can ask me what I meant by what I said. Aren't we discussing the importance of context, though very little was given in my post, on another thread.

[Minos]

Closed by request of OP