Church History And Faith Crisis Part 3

[cwald]

Incorrect.

We do not think you're a wolf-in-sheep's clothing because you disagree.

We think you're a wolf because you prey upon the ignorance of the gullible and spread falsehoods designed to undermine and divide the faithful.

.

Oh really. and where are YOUR FACTS to back up that claim? Please tell me one church member that I have "preyed upon."

Now who is

spraying accusations like a runaway firehose

?

[selek1]

Just for grins and giggles, I looked up Brother Costas' talk,

It can be found in it's entirety here.

Imagine my utter shock and surprise when I discovered that you'd been misrepresenting it.....

Here are some sentences from the opening paragraphs of Costas' talk:

Before I made the decision to be baptized in The Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints, I studied extracts from the history of Joseph Smith. I prayed after carefully reading each paragraph. If you would like to do this yourself, it may take you 14 hours.

After I read, pondered, and prayed, the Lord gave me the assurance that Joseph Smith was His prophet.

Can you find the action words in the sentences above? Here's a hint: they're bolded and underlined.

How did Brother Costas discover the truth? He read, studied, pondered, and prayed. He was not content to know what we believe- but was determined to find out why.

Brother Costas goes on to reiterate fourteen points illuminating how a prophet works, why a prophet is important, and the blessings entailed in obedience- and gives examples for several of those points.

The thrust, of course, is that we should trust and follow the Prophet.

Conspicuously absent, however, is any suggestion that we should follow or trust him blindly.

There is not a single word to that effect in the entire talk.

In point of fact, there is nothing in this talk that is the least bit disagreeable- except for the repeated refrains that those who follow the Prophets will be blessed. Those who do not will not be.

But that's a simple fact of life. God rewards the faithful and the obedient- in this life and the next.

[selek1]

Can somebody have a different point of view without being excoriated?

Of course.

But there is a fundamental difference between a "different point of view" and propagating hateful lies against the Church.

Who is this "we" who share your judgmental attitude?

What "judgemental attitude"?

Cwald iterated that there's a lot of "rhetoric" "here about how I'm supposedly a wolf in sheep clothing because I don't necessarily agree with everything the church leaders say".

I am disagreeing with him as to the cause of a condition he insists exists here.

[John Ping Pong]

Conspicuously absent, however, is any suggestion that we should follow or trust him blindly.

Really?

Fourth fundamental: “The prophet will never lead the Church astray."

[John Ping Pong]

Of course.

But there is a fundamental difference between a "different point of view" and propagating hateful lies against the Church.

Maybe I missed it, then.

What "hateful lies" has CWald propagated against the Church?

[selek1]

Cwald began his most recent spate of attacks in Post #222, with a Godwin's Law violation comparing President Monson to Warren Jeffs.

He then continued to insist that the Church teaches the kind of fundamentalist, uncritical obedience demanded by Warren, and hinted darkly that the Church- while "benign" now- may one day turn on its members.

He then suggested that "Perhaps the church should tell the folks to judge for themselves and listen the spirit, rather than just accepting the prophets words for it."

When it was pointed out that this is exactly what the Church does, he accused me of lying and referenced (vaguel) a talk by Brother Costas which supposedly supported his claims that the Church teaches "blind" obedience.

It does nothing of the sort.

[John Ping Pong]

I understand that you disagree with CWald on these issues.

But these all sound like opinions to me, not "hateful lies."

[selek1]

Really?

Yes.

Really.

There is nothing in that statement that suggests we must trust the Prophet blindly.

There is nothing in that statement that suggests we should not study, ponder, pray, and seek understanding for ourselves.

[Damien the Leper]

Really?

Perhaps a Fifteenth Fundamental is in order: A prophet can be wrong on any matter at any time due to humanity and any kind of limited understanding.

I like what Staccato said in another thread:

The human filter is an impure one. Therefore, nothing coming from man can be a perfect communication from God.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Valentinus

[John Ping Pong]

There is nothing in that statement that suggests we must trust the Prophet blindly.

I see it differently, I suppose.

If "the prophet will never lead the Church astray," this seems to me tantamount to saying we must follow him regardless of what we may think about it.

[cwald]

Thanks Pong

I did not compare Monson to Jeffs.

I did compare some of the teachings of the church, to those that Warren Jeffs teaches to his followers. ie, that that prophet will never lead you astray, and pretty well all of the 14 principles from Costa's talk. And made the comment that it is a dangerous concept to accept that kind of thinking, regardless of who is in charge.

[selek1]

I see it differently, I suppose.

If "the prophet will never lead the Church astray," this seems to me tantamount to saying we must follow him regardless of what we may think about it.

If that is your opinion- then you are (by all means) welcome to it.

You do not, however, have the right to impute such a teaching to the Church.

[cwald]

I also never accused of you of lying.

I said "from my experience." I was just voicing my opinion.

[selek1]

I also never accused of you of lying.

I think you're being very disingenuous, and I don't appreciate the personal dig about reading "hate sites."

dis·in·gen·u·ous

/ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnyuəs/ Show Spelled[dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs] adjective, lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; lying

Care to reconcile these two statements?

Edited June 22, 2012 by selek1

[cwald]

dis·in·gen·u·ous

/ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnyuəs/ Show Spelled[dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs] adjective, lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; lying

o reconcile these two statements?

No.

I'm tired of you. You are rude, and only want to argue and defend the church at the expense of reason and civility, and you have demonstrated absolutely no understanding of those who doubt and question, yet search for a middle way to remain part of their family and tribe.

There are far more interesting and faithful believers on this forum who are actually interested in discussing these issues with me, without making it personal.

Don't waste my time.

[John Ping Pong]

If that is your opinion- then you are (by all means) welcome to it.

You do not, however, have the right to impute such a teaching to the Church.

And you are certainly welcome to your opinions, as well.

But I am interested in following this a little bit further, if you don't mind.

My reasoning for thinking the axiom "the prophet will never lead the Church astray" is tantamount to "blind obedience" is as follows:

If the prophet will never lead the Church astray, then the member of the Church who does not agree with the prophet is on the wrong path.

There is no valid reason countenanced within the Church for a member to disagree with a prophet.

Members may be counseled to pray and seek their own confirmation, but it must be a confirmation of what the prophet says, otherwise it will be concluded to be coming from a source other than God.

In this way, the reasoning becomes circular.

Mormons are told to pray for revelation, but that revelation must conform to what the current prophet says.

Why?

Because the current prophet will never lead the Church astray.

So we are not to follow the prophet blindly. We are to follow the prophet after gaining a testimony from God that what he is saying is true.

With the caveat that any testimony that what the prophet is saying is not true cannot be coming from God.

[cwald]

Yep Pong, that is the problem I have with it.

[ERayR]

No.

I'm tired of you. You are rude, and only want to argue and defend the church at the expense of reason and civility, and you have demonstrated absolutely no understanding of those who doubt and question, yet search for a middle way to remain part of their family and tribe.

There are far more interesting and faithful believers on this forum who are actually interested in discussing these issues with me, without making it personal.

Don't waste my time.

It seem to be the predominate method for you to deal with being caught in the wrong. Your post do indicate you are "disingenuous".

[cwald]

That's fine Eray.

I did not come here to contend or engage in a personal war.

Edited June 22, 2012 by cwald

[Calm]

Can somebody have a different point of view without being excoriated?

Yes, it happens all the time.

Sometimes though the individual ignores the respectful disagreement and focuses on the perceived attacks for some reason.

[John Ping Pong]

Sometimes though the individual ignores the respectful disagreement and focuses on the perceived attacks for some reason.

There's no need to bring Selek1 into this.

[ERayR]

That's fine Eray.

I did not come here to contend or engage in a personal war.

It appears as if you did come to be as disrespectful as possible then when called on it you refuse to engage.

[ERayR]

There's no need to bring Selek1 into this.

cwald called him a liar. He may not have used that word but he did use a synonym. He owes selek1 a retraction at minimum and if he didn't mean it an apology or else proof that he is one.

[selek1]

My reasoning for thinking the axiom "the prophet will never lead the Church astray" is tantamount to "blind obedience" is as follows:

If the prophet will never lead the Church astray, then the member of the Church who does not agree with the prophet is on the wrong path.

There is no valid reason countenanced within the Church for a member to disagree with a prophet.

This premise is flawed. Note that the statement doesn't say anything about "agreeing with" the Prophet. It simply says the Prophet will never lead the Church astray.

You are conflating two separate concepts: obedience and agreement. This is a mistake.

An excellent example of this involves the Manifesto and the end of Plural Marriage.

A large number of LDS Elders and General Authorities disagreed with President Woodruff regarding the end of sanctioned polygamy among the Saints of the United States,

Those who obeyed- despite their often principled disagreeements- remain (by and large) members of the faith in good standing along with their descendants.

Those who did not, who clung virulently- and occasionally violently- to polygamy have lost their seat at the table.

Members may be counseled to pray and seek their own confirmation, but it must be a confirmation of what the prophet says, otherwise it will be concluded to be coming from a source other than God.

This is far too broad a generalization.

If a man (or woman) genuinely, sincerely believes that revelation tells him the Prophet is wrong, then even we admit that he must follow his or her own conscience.

We have even canonized this belief in our Eleventh Article of Faith:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

This is also the reason we ask if any are opposed to callings and major decisions of the Church. It is also one of the primary reasons we ask our membership (twice a year) to ratify and sustain our leaders and General Authorites.

There is no complusion. There is no coercion. There is no "scarlet A" for disagreement.

We believe it is an immmutable law that those who follow the Prophet will (eventually) be blessed. Those who do not- will not.

The Saints who followed Brigham Young to the Rocky Mountains suffered hunger, privation, cold, heat, hardship, and even death to scratch out a new home from the Salt Lake desert. And they (and their posterity) were blessed for it- most notably, in that they began receiving the fulness of the Temple ordinances a full generation before any one else.

Those who did not follow Young led very different lives- and did not receive the same blessing as their faithful brethren and sisters.

How many who stayed behind were in open apostacy? Probably not many. Yet how many of their progeny are found among the ranks of the Church today? Again- probably not many.

The choice to follow the Prophet- or not- has had direct and measurable consequences not only for those who made the decision- but on their descendants, as well.

Contrary to what you have stated, the Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with those who disagree with the Prophet or even disobey him- unless and until they begin attacking the Church a/o attempting to recruit others to follow them.

At that point- and if they prove unrepentant- steps must be taken to preserve both the unity of the Church and the integrity of the organization.

We do not excommunicate people simply for disagreeing with the Prophet- but for teaching false doctrine and apostacy.

Mormons are told to pray for revelation, but that revelation must conform to what the current prophet says.

Not true. We believe that the Prophet (particularly when acting in concert with the Quorum of the Twelve) cannot and will not lead us astray- but we counsel each member to find their own answer.

We do not demand that anyone follow blindly. We simply warn them that disobedience has eternal (and sometimes temporal) consequences that shape who we are and what we will become.

So we are not to follow the prophet blindly. We are to follow the prophet after gaining a testimony from God that what he is saying is true.

Ideally- yes.

We would be absolutely delighted in our Zion became- as scripture promises- a nation of prophets and revelators to the Most High God. We would be thrilled if all of our children grew up strong and wise, and in accord with divine wisdom.

But we know that we are not there yet- and that there are those who are not (and some who prefer not to be) in harmony with the teachings of the Church and the counsel fo the Prophet.

We wish them well- but we cannot allow them to dissuade us.

Zion will go forth- with or without them.

[DBMormon]

Selek - you are very abrasive in your tone and as a third party I can see how CWALD feels cornered by your abruptness. you very sharp in your posts when you disagree with someone... it feels personal.

CWALD - While I see Selek's tone, I do think you owe him an simple sorry as essentially you called him a liar. which is ok if you feel that way but then you said he wasn't so I'm confused

Now both of you go to your corner.

in seriousness you guys both made it personal...... instead of my opinion versus your opinion, it is now me vs him

Edited June 23, 2012 by DBMormon