God Can'T Please Everyone

[jskains]

Do we as a species understand that we should be picking truth, not what we think we want God to be like?

If God runs the Church, then God theoretically told the Church to get involved with Prop 8. But there are people that were faithful members up until that point, basically taking the stance seemingly that "God ran the thing until I didn't agree".

The flaw here is the assumption that God is going to tell the Church to do things you will always agree with, and if the Church does something you don't, it isn't because you and God disagree, but because the Church must be wrong.

But that logically doesn't work. God can not push the Church to do everything YOU agree with, or theoretically He would push the Church to do something someone ELSE disagrees with.

Doesn't that create arrogance? That the Church should do everything YOU want it to do, screw everyone else?

For example, one might not agree with polygamy, but could simply disagree with God rather than the Church. In other words, "God, I don't agree with you on polygamy" rather than "Oh, I don't agree with Polygamy, so the Church must be wrong".

Does anyone understand my point?

JMS

[thesometimesaint]

God didn't make sockpuppets.

I like to think that while having no desire to have a polygamous marriage in this life, I would do so if asked in the next.

[David T]

I think there's a major reason not only was a Church Hierarchy set in place, but also the essential element of Personal Revelation, and Common Consent.It is not just suggested, but essential for us to seek spiritual confirmation concerning the movement and forward progress of the Church. I believe the Prophet is not just a spokesman for God, but a spokesman for the Church - and you will find a reflection in the questions and concerns of the leadership the questions and concerns of the majority of the membership.

President George Albert Smith, who we are studying this year, specifically smacked down the "When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done" mentality.

It shouldn't ideally be a case of the Prophet declaring something radical, and everyone being drug forward - it should be a process of everyone asking the same questions, pleading for the same thing, and everyone receiving the same revelation - the difference being that the Church can't institutionally move forward until the Church Leadership officially declares it. Everyone choosing to move forward together because of their own individual spiritual enlightenment. It's those who are vigorously holding back and clinging to Old Incorrect Behaviors and Traditions that the New Revelation generally tends to yank forward, or ultimately leave behind.

Traditionally and historically, in Biblical and Book of Mormon narratives, the times when new and legitimate revelation comes from a Prophet, the majority of the people have been in opposition to the revealed principles of God. I certainly hope that today, the majority of Church members would be more in line, and the light and knowledge would be more communal and the voice from Salt Lake would be joyful confirmation of light and knowledge already personally received (or at least prepared for) by the general membership than something jarring, frightening, and discordant.

While certainly all of us should be prepared that there are things we earnestly believe that will need to be adjusted and repented of (I am personally keenly aware of this when it comes to my own thoughts and views), we should also be open to the fact that some who, in their thinking, appear to be beyond the scopes of current Orthodoxy may indeed be fore-runners, or 'Elias' figures, designed to assist the Church (meaning the body of its members) in preparing for the Institutional Revelation From On High, from the President of the Church.

At all times, there will be Church members in line with, behind, way off errantly to the side, and, yes, perhaps even ahead of the current official Institutional Revelation and Doctrine. In many cases, individual members will be on each of those levels on different subjects! This is to be expected. I think it is healthy, and good.

Edited April 4, 2012 by David T

[BCSpace]

Does anyone understand my point?

Yes. We are essentially cafeteria Mormons until we begin to pick the right thing and all right things all the time. The least we can do is acknowledge the doctrines even if we don't accept them. At the same time we have this tension of "fallible man" which forces us to decide what is man and what is prophet. That the prophets council together to decide on doctrine and policy is a huge safeguard making it very unlikely for man's ideas to be doctrine or policy. This already remote possibility diminishes with time assuming Christ leads the Church. There may be some small things that aren't right or just opinion, especially because there may not be revelation on it and we just go with traditional Christianity, but if our claims are true, that the Church is true and Christ is at the head of the Church, then there isn't going to be enough of these small things to lead us astray.

Edited April 4, 2012 by BCSpace

[Sky]

Do we as a species understand that we should be picking truth, not what we think we want God to be like?

If God runs the Church, then God theoretically told the Church to get involved with Prop 8. But there are people that were faithful members up until that point, basically taking the stance seemingly that "God ran the thing until I didn't agree".

The flaw here is the assumption that God is going to tell the Church to do things you will always agree with, and if the Church does something you don't, it isn't because you and God disagree, but because the Church must be wrong.

But that logically doesn't work. God can not push the Church to do everything YOU agree with, or theoretically He would push the Church to do something someone ELSE disagrees with.

Doesn't that create arrogance? That the Church should do everything YOU want it to do, screw everyone else?

For example, one might not agree with polygamy, but could simply disagree with God rather than the Church. In other words, "God, I don't agree with you on polygamy" rather than "Oh, I don't agree with Polygamy, so the Church must be wrong".

Does anyone understand my point?

JMS

I understand your point very well, and thanks for making it. It needs to be said. This highlights the underlying issue of why we usually run into problems when we become at odds with the Brethren.

I know it can be frustrating when we disagree with or don’t totally understand a position the Brethren have taken, but that is sort of a tradeoff we have to live with for having living prophets and apostles. The alternative is that we have no living prophets and apostles, and we have to lean entirely on our own understanding.

“When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done” may not be right – but the perpetual arguing and bickering should be.

[Analytics]

For example, one might not agree with polygamy, but could simply disagree with God rather than the Church. In other words, "God, I don't agree with you on polygamy" rather than "Oh, I don't agree with Polygamy, so the Church must be wrong".

Does anyone understand my point?

This type of thinking is responsible for the couplet, "when the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done."

[Duncan]

Isn't there a scripture that says whatever the leaders say and do is what God would say and do? so in theory if the leaders of the Church get involved in Prop 8, without even praying about it, they are doing what God would want when in fact God may not even want them to get involved or get involved but in a different way

[Analytics]

Isn't there a scripture that says whatever the leaders say and do is what God would say and do? so in theory if the leaders of the Church get involved in Prop 8, without even praying about it, they are doing what God would want when in fact God may not even want them to get involved or get involved but in a different way

In my youth, the quote of Heber J. Grant was repeated often: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Is that what you are referring to?

That approach sure makes decision-making easy--you don't worry about what your own inner-voice says--just follow the Prophet.

[jskains]

This type of thinking is responsible for the couplet, "when the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done."

There is a difference between thinking for yourself and assuming God will always do something you will agree with. One is filled with a lot of arrogance.

JMS

[Ryan.Samples]

Isn't there a scripture that says whatever the leaders say and do is what God would say and do? so in theory if the leaders of the Church get involved in Prop 8, without even praying about it, they are doing what God would want when in fact God may not even want them to get involved or get involved but in a different way

Did you find the relevant scripture reference?

[TAO]

Duncan, it's D&C 1:38.

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

However, it says nothing about what would happen if they didn't pray. I think they need to pray (and they do pray). I am sure they prayed a lot about such a tough issue like Prop 8, as well.