Prophet And Church Paradigms: Expectations And Anomaly

[mfbukowski]

It's amazing how threads evolve.

It is almost as if no one even read the OP, nor even responded to Kevin.

He raised incredibly important issues that go to the root of why we should even be discussing this the way it has been discussed but no one appears to be paying attention.

The implications of what he said make the squabbling meaningless.

Oh well. After all, why discuss substantive issues when we can argue about who's right about the trivial issues?

Edited June 28, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

It's amazing how threads evolve.

It is almost as if no one even read the OP, nor even responded to Kevin.

If that is your perspective then you are enttitled to it. I've taken the time to find out what is true though and I'm not reliant on your perspective any more than I'm reliant on anyone else's perspective, regardless of your personality type.

He raised incredibly important issues that go to the root of why we should even be discussing this the way it has been discussed but no one appears to be paying attention.

Different strokes for different folks and you're free to either discuss this or not discuss this or any other issue, however you choose.

The implications of what he said make the squabbling meaningless.

No, rather, it helps to explain why there is some squabbling.

Oh well. After all, why discuss substantive issues when we can argue about who's right about the trivial issues?

Because we can do both, even sometimes at the same time.

[canard78]

Would you accept a personal witness as evidence? (for you, not for others)

As a side note in this examination: I am curious as to why you (canard) think that David O McKay received a "not yet" from the Lord when asking him about lifting the ban. If it was just a mistake, then why wouldn't God's response have been more like "about time!"

It is that experience that has primarily kept me from settling on an explanation that it was all a mistake that was perpetuated though the traditions and fear of man rather than trusting in the Lord and that the Lord allowed to continue as another way to help his people progress in that if all growth comes through forced feeding so to speak or from the environment and not from an internal searching on how one might become closer to God and to oneness with others, that growth is unbalanced, brittle and can die up quickly if the environment goes harsh. Growth must come from inside even stronger than outside in order to grow a plant or a person that will last though hardships and attacks and accidents etc. (And it could have been a trial for that growth, one which we possibly failed to some extent due to the length of the ban, though the response at the end of it in general would seem to indicate that such wisdom and joy indicates a great move past the prejudices of the past...so perhaps there was a payoff between length and quality.)

As Stone holm has pointed out, there were those during the time were not in favour of a reversal. Elder Stapely's, frankly abhorrent, letter to George Romney shows that even in the 1960s he (and he hints at others) were still racist and were not actively seeking a change. They were passively waiting and the attitude suggest they were happy to wait longer.

I keep trying to steer it away from black priesthood but I suppose it's the best example of prophets saying one thing "speaking as prophets" but the position later being reversed and refuted.

The granting of priesthood to black members also creates a new paradigm to consider.

We read of prophets in scripture and even at the foundation of our church (Joseph) as figureheads with direct communication with God. Direct visions and ability to proclaim doctrine with some independence. Moses, Lehi, Alma etc.

On the other hand, perhaps that's the wrong paradigm. Peter and Paul didn't always agree... both prophets, seers and revelators? Perhaps. They didn't always agree. Alma and Ammon, both prophets? Not sure if Ammon would be. We normally call him a missionary.

My point is that although we read of, usually, individuals as prophets.

When I read the story of the black priesthood restoration (especially LeGrand Richards' somewhat more measured version* than McConkie's) I see "revelation by committee or consensus." What is the role of the president? They are all sustained as prophets seers and revelators. Why do we need 15 if God can speak through one? Why can the personal world view of a few apostles stop the actions of others (eg Lee and Brown in 1969)?

I appreciate that it's an efficient checking system. A way to avoid one person going off the rails. But it flies in the face of the 14 fundamentals if the president needs 14 'minders.'

As such I'm changing my paradigm. We have 15 inspired, wise men who lead the church. They bring their own 'life baggage' with them and this affects the questions they are even willing to 'study out' and seek guidance for. And then they need to reach consensus before acting. My best source for God's will remains my personal conversations with him... Not the (sometimes inspired) opinions of 15 men who are influenced by their environmental experiences, predominantly 1950s/60s western America.

I still welcome their words. They provide a framework to consider life around. But I don't feel the need to accept ever thing they say. I am comfortable with the concept of 'adopt and adapt.'

I wish I could find the talk, but I remember being very impressed many years ago when (I think) President Hinkley (he may have still been a counsellor at the time) said something to the effect of "don't just believe it because I said so, go home and pray to know for yourself." That principle is an important aspect of our church that sometimes the "follow the prophet, don't go astray" paradigm can detract from. When I hear people say things like "well if the prophet says so, it's good enough for me" I'm a little concerned that they invest so heavily in the words and sometimes opinions of a fellow-man. A good, wise, inspired one. But still fallible and imperfect like the rest of us.

To answer your first question. Yes, I suppose if God spoke to me and explained personally why he had banned the blacks from having the priesthood then I would accept it. Personal revelation trumps everything else. But my personal revelation may not apply to you or others. So the answer He gives to me may be different to what He told McConkie in the 1950s.

Or... Given that doesn't really make sense... Perhaps He gives everyone the same answer, but our imperfect minds hear it through different filters. As Elder Holland said, working with such imperfect partners in the plan must be incredibly frustrating for Him. But the He can't really complain. It was, after all, His idea.

[canard78]

It's amazing how threads evolve.

It is almost as if no one even read the OP, nor even responded to Kevin.

He raised incredibly important issues that go to the root of why we should even be discussing this the way it has been discussed but no one appears to be paying attention.

The implications of what he said make the squabbling meaningless.

Oh well. After all, why discuss substantive issues when we can argue about who's right about the trivial issues?

You're right, and for my part I apologise for the minutia. I've tried to use them as context to discuss and explore the actual topic, but it's probably naive of me to think I could raise examples of errancy without having to discuss the examples of errancy rather than the implications of errancy. Or perceived errancy.

Out of interest, which part are you particularly wanting to explore further? Help us get back on topic.

Or do you think there's no need for further discussion and the point is closed within the OP?

Edited June 29, 2013 by canard78

[Stone holm]

As Stone holm has pointed out, there were those during the time were not in favour of a reversal. Elder Stapely's, frankly abhorrent, letter to George Romney shows that even in the 1960s he (and he hints at others) were still racist and were not actively seeking a change. They were passively waiting and the attitude suggest they were happy to wait longer.

I keep trying to steer it away from black priesthood but I suppose it's the best example of prophets saying one thing "speaking as prophets" but the position later being reversed and refuted.

The granting of priesthood to black members also creates a new paradigm to consider.

We read of prophets in scripture and even at the foundation of our church (Joseph) as figureheads with direct communication with God. Direct visions and ability to proclaim doctrine with some independence. Moses, Lehi, Alma etc.

On the other hand, perhaps that's the wrong paradigm. Peter and Paul didn't always agree... both prophets, seers and revelators? Perhaps. They didn't always agree. Alma and Ammon, both prophets? Not sure if Ammon would be. We normally call him a missionary.

My point is that although we read of, usually, individuals as prophets.

When I read the story of the black priesthood restoration (especially LeGrand Richards' somewhat more measured version* than McConkie's) I see "revelation by committee or consensus." What is the role of the president? They are all sustained as prophets seers and revelators. Why do we need 15 if God can speak through one? Why can the personal world view of a few apostles stop the actions of others (eg Lee and Brown in 1969)?

I appreciate that it's an efficient checking system. A way to avoid one person going off the rails. But it flies in the face of the 14 fundamentals if the president needs 14 'minders.'

As such I'm changing my paradigm. We have 15 inspired, wise men who lead the church. They bring their own 'life baggage' with them and this affects the questions they are even willing to 'study out' and seek guidance for. And then they need to reach consensus before acting. My best source for God's will remains my personal conversations with him... Not the (sometimes inspired) opinions of 15 men who are influenced by their environmental experiences, predominantly 1950s/60s western America.

I still welcome their words. They provide a framework to consider life around. But I don't feel the need to accept ever thing they say. I am comfortable with the concept of 'adopt and adapt.'

I wish I could find the talk, but I remember being very impressed many years ago when (I think) President Hinkley (he may have still been a counsellor at the time) said something to the effect of "don't just believe it because I said so, go home and pray to know for yourself." That principle is an important aspect of our church that sometimes the "follow the prophet, don't go astray" paradigm can detract from. When I hear people say things like "well if the prophet says so, it's good enough for me" I'm a little concerned that they invest so heavily in the words and sometimes opinions of a fellow-man. A good, wise, inspired one. But still fallible and imperfect like the rest of us.

To answer your first question. Yes, I suppose if God spoke to me and explained personally why he had banned the blacks from having the priesthood then I would accept it. Personal revelation trumps everything else. But my personal revelation may not apply to you or others. So the answer He gives to me may be different to what He told McConkie in the 1950s.

Or... Given that doesn't really make sense... Perhaps He gives everyone the same answer, but our imperfect minds hear it through different filters. As Elder Holland said, working with such imperfect partners in the plan must be incredibly frustrating for Him. But the He can't really complain. It was, after all, His idea.

Shhhh? Such truths are dangerous to publicize. Just let it be that we will not be held accountable for following the Prophet, nor will the Church. Eventually we get it almost right, that is the most we have the right to expect. I doubt that any of us in the pre existence thought we would be given an exact road map to truth. Its enough that this herd of cats we call Saints is headed in the generally correct direction the vast majority of the time.

[canard78]

Shhhh? Such truths are dangerous to publicize. Just let it be that we will not be held accountable for following the Prophet, nor will the Church. Eventually we get it almost right, that is the most we have the right to expect. I doubt that any of us in the pre existence thought we would be given an exact road map to truth. Its enough that this herd of cats we call Saints is headed in the generally correct direction the vast majority of the time.

And no more of this please:

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done..."

(Which I recognise is one paradigm among many and not official church policy)

[Stone holm]

And no more of this please:

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done..."

(Which I recognise is one paradigm among many and not official church policy)

Yes. Am very familiar with the paradigm.

[Kevin Christensen]

And no more of this please:

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done..."

(Which I recognise is one paradigm among many and not official church policy)

One of the perks of my paradigm is a different approach to that thinking, seeing it not as offical (for what is official, see

http://en.fairmormon...g_has_been_done

), but as characteristic of a certain stage of thinking that some individuals adopt a a means of dealing with complexity. Certain personality types may be more vulnerable to its appeal at different times, but because it is more a developmental issue than a doctrinal one, the notion of stomping it out is a pipe dream. Many formal statements have failed to eliminate it in the past. But by having a different context for processing it when I encounter it, including a repetoire of Prophetic Declarations to the Contrary to balance their Appeals to Authority, and some basic patterns to consider, such as Myers-Briggs type descriptions and especially this from the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, I have a different context in which to process it. Perry was studying Harvard students transitioning from provincial high school environments to a Univeristy Environment (that is, Smart kids). The relevance to the chronic complaints of LDS shows that the complaints were not created by the LDS environment, but have more to do with human development.

Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified. (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty. But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems. It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.

(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed. It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind." When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced. When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.

TRANSITION: 2-3 - Dualism modified

Now the person admits that good authorities can admit to not knowing all the answers yet, but they will teach what they know now and teach the rest when they have it. They accept that disciplines are divided into the definite and the vague, but that in the end even science fails. Though they have given up dividing meaning into just two realms, they still feel knowledge and goodness are quantitative and that agency is "out there".

POSITION 3 - Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate. (Snake's logic considered)

The person still feels that the nature of things naturally produces differing opinions, but it's as it should be, because the Authorities will figure it all out and hand on their conclusions eventually.

ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME. (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.)

There are seven ways a person can go. ...

...

[which I'll leave to the link on my profile, till a person gets to Position 6]

POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.

FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT.

Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right. He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it. He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief. He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength.

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition. He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

[ and several more transitions leading to Stage 9]

Official statements won't be truly "heard" by those who don't yet have a higher understanding of human authorities because that understanding is contingent on developing that understanding of human authorities. The transition cannot be forced by statements from authorities. As the FAIR link shows, such statements have been made by the highest LDS authorities on several occasions. One might think that those who most depend on authority figures for guidance would have noticed, but the issue is not the thoughts expressed, but the thinking about authority that filters perception and guides thinking at those positions. The best we can do is nurture those in transition, and the best way to nurture individuals through transitions is to understand the individual types and developmental positions for what they are.

And that is why I love Brigham Young on "knowing people as they are, and not as you are."

When I get some time over the holiday weekend, I'm going to start another thread on Biblical examples of those who hold prophets to a higher standard.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited July 2, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have always believed we all have placed too much "faith" in every word, even when spoken privately to others and not to the entire Church. Not to mention other things be taught as canon when after 200 years still have not be canonized, nor ever will. I once had a friend tell me he world follow Joseph even if he knew the Book of Mormon were not true, because Joseph was so smart and so right about so many things. I warned him that was the very definition of a cult. Since that time he has pulled further into "end of the world" cults, found himself pulling away from present Prophets and toward only those whom he thinks upholds his more extreme beliefs. Should we follow the Prophets; yes! Should we do so and seek to find and understand through the scriptures and the Holy Ghost; NO!!!

[Tacenda]

I have always believed we all have placed too much "faith" in every word, even when spoken privately to others and not to the entire Church. Not to mention other things be taught as canon when after 200 years still have not be canonized, nor ever will. I once had a friend tell me he world follow Joseph even if he knew the Book of Mormon were not true, because Joseph was so smart and so right about so many things. I warned him that was the very definition of a cult. Since that time he has pulled further into "end of the world" cults, found himself pulling away from present Prophets and toward only those whom he thinks upholds his more extreme beliefs. Should we follow the Prophets; yes! Should we do so and seek to find and understand through the scriptures and the Holy Ghost; NO!!!

What, am I understanding you to say we're not to go through the scriptures and Holy Ghost, to know if something is true?

[Calm]

What, am I understanding you to say we're not to go through the scriptures and Holy Ghost, to know if something is true?

I think he left out a "not" as we all do from time to time when writing too fast.

[mfbukowski]

You're right, and for my part I apologise for the minutia. I've tried to use them as context to discuss and explore the actual topic, but it's probably naive of me to think I could raise examples of errancy without having to discuss the examples of errancy rather than the implications of errancy. Or perceived errancy.

Out of interest, which part are you particularly wanting to explore further? Help us get back on topic.

Or do you think there's no need for further discussion and the point is closed within the OP?

Well I think Kevin really nailed it here.

Official statements won't be truly "heard" by those who don't yet have a higher understanding of human authorities because that understanding is contingent on developing that understanding of human authorities. The transition cannot be forced by statements from authorities. As the FAIR link shows, such statements have been made by the highest LDS authorities on several occasions. One might think that those who most depend on authority figures for guidance would have noticed, but the issue is not the thoughts expressed, but the thinking about authority that filters perception and guides thinking at those positions. The best we can do is nurture those in transition, and the best way to nurture individuals through transitions is to understand the individual types and developmental positions for what they are.

The entire issue is how we as individuals perceive the alleged "conflict" here. There is an underlying assumption that I think both Kevin and I make, (I would never presume to speak for Kevin- this is just my understanding of his position) and that is that what we say is always said to achieve some goal or purpose or emphasize some point and by its very nature is ambiguous when taken out of context, so we need to be higly tolerant of ambiguity in expressions because there is no such thing as an unambiguous statement.

Any time someone says that something is the case, it leaves out all the times and circumstances under which it might not be the case. If you have ever read a legal disclaimer you understand what I mean. Statements by prophets do not come with legal disclaimers.

So what happens is that any linguistic statement about the "truth" automatically excludes other perspectives by even making the statement. Language is ambiguous and people are emotional, opinionated, and always-ALWAYS motivated to make a point. There is no such thing, for example as "objective" journalism, and there is also no such thing as "objective" statements of any kind, including doctrinal statements by prophets.

We just have to learn that that is the case. As one grows through the various stages Kevin mentions, what one is realizing, hopefully, is this very point, that language itself is contingent and relative, and even that point is itself contingent and relative!

It's kind of miraculous, in my mind, that real communication is even possible, and the more abstract the topic we discuss, the more ambiguous it all becomes. Wittgenstein, in his Philosophical Investigations starts out with very simple communications between, for example, a bricklayer and his assistant, where the bricklayer says "Brick", is handed the brick, and then says "Mortar" and is handed the mortar already loaded on the tool. This is a simple language which is totally based on the context- the two know each other, know what they are doing together and one-word communication is all that is necessary to get the job done.

Yet if you were walking through a mall, and walked up to someone and said "Brick", they would rightly think you were totally crazy. Language is dependent on context to get its meaning, but is always ambiguous. There is a rift between what we experience and what we can say.

We are all writers here of one stripe or another and indeed the very existence of most of these threads is dependent on the ambiguity of language, and what we are arguing about is precisely that in most cases- language.

"No, I meant thus and so"... "Why did you say that this was the case"... "This expert says such and such... No, you misunderstood what he said..." etc etc.

If I understand Kevin, he is saying that according to our personality type, our perspectives as individuals, and the degree to which we understand authority and the purposes of language and its ambiguity, our very understandings of all these issues and especially in highly abstract discussions like we have here, ALL of these factors combine to create such a high degree of ambiguity that we need to be tolerant of every statement made of this kinds.

So the bottom line is that General Authorities are in the same category as every other human who speaks, and are not immune from misunderstandings. They make mistakes, they have agendas, prejudices, they speak with limited understanding, they do things wrong, and do not instantly understand as they come out of the womb, that indeed language itself is ambiguous, perhaps until they go through personally the very stages Kevin brings up.

Even General Authorities learn line-by-line like everyone else. If Jesus himself learned that way, we should certainly not expect them to be exempt from the human condition by being perfect and omniscient from the womb. Such an expectation is completely unreasonable on its face.

None of that should imply for one minute that they are not the Lord's servants, that they are not inspired, nor that they do not have authority to speak for the Lord.

The problem is that they, like all humans, are not automatons. The Lord may speak to their hearts, but what comes out of their mouths will be filtered by their very imperfect human natures, and we will hear is interpreted with our probably even more imperfect ears and brains.

In the long run, all we have is our testimonies. God himself will show us the path he wants us to take, and it is up to us to decide for ourselves to follow that revelation or not.

[canard78]

Kevin and mfbukowski. I doff my cap at both of you.

You've given me plenty to think about. Thank you for your time. Any suggested further reading on this?

[mfbukowski]

Kevin and mfbukowski. I doff my cap at both of you.

You've given me plenty to think about. Thank you for your time. Any suggested further reading on this?

Well from my point of view, there are certainly many books one could read. Rorty's Contingency Irony and Solidarity is one, as is Philosophy and the mirror of Nature but both of those might be kind of intimidating for beginners because they have a lot of jargon in them.

But to further the discussion perhaps, I have been reflecting on this topic and I realized that those who "advance" in the church are those who are incredibly dedicated to their callings. They are stake presidents who stay to clean up and polish the floors after an activity. They are people who arrive early and stay late. They are people who cheerfully put in 8-10 hour days on a Sunday in starting with a Bishopric meeting early in the morning then PEC and then the block, counting tithing, showing up for a baptism and then a fireside later.

They are people who cheerfully do their home teaching early in the month and never miss. They are always where they are supposed to be, and enthusiastic to be there.

They are dedicated and have powerful testimonies, and are in constant communication with the Spirit.

They don't care about the history of the church- if it is actually "what happened" or not. None of that matters. They don't care about the ambiguity of language- they might take the gospel literally or figuratively or whatever- none of this really matters to them but their testimonies.

These are the people who become General Authorities. Dedication is everything, and dedication has nothing to do with what you know or think you know. They are humble servants of the Lord who do all he asks without complaining, and do it happily because they no longer have any desire to do wrong, but to do good continuously.

That has nothing to do with philosophy or reading books on intellectual development or theories of personality. They couldn't care less about such things.

Edited June 30, 2013 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

Well from my point of view, there are certainly many books one could read. Rorty's Contingency Irony and Solidarity is one, as is Philosophy and the mirror of Nature but both of those might be kind of intimidating for beginners because they have a lot of jargon in them.

But to further the discussion perhaps, I have been reflecting on this topic and I realized that those who "advance" in the church are those who are incredibly dedicated to their callings. They are stake presidents who stay to clean up and polish the floors after an activity. They are people who arrive early and stay late. They are people who cheerfully put in 8-10 hour days on a Sunday in starting with a Bishopric meeting early in the morning then PEC and then the block, counting tithing, showing up for a baptism and then a fireside later.

They are people who cheerfully do their home teaching early in the month and never miss. They are always where they are supposed to be, and enthusiastic to be there.

They are dedicated and have powerful testimonies, and are in constant communication with the Spirit.

They don't care about the history of the church- if it is actually "what happened" or not. None of that matters. They don't care about the ambiguity of language- they might take the gospel literally or figuratively or whatever- none of this really matters to them but their testimonies.

These are the people who become General Authorities. Dedication is everything, and dedication has nothing to do with what you know or think you know. They are humble servants of the Lord who do all he asks without complaining, and do it happily because they no longer have any desire to do wrong, but to do good continuously.

That has nothing to do with philosophy or reading books on intellectual development or theories of personality. They couldn't care less about such things.

Interesting. I think it's quite likely that many of those who lead us care little about "philosophy or reading books on intellectual development or theories of personality." I suppose that those of us who do care of such things need to like it or lump it.

[mfbukowski]

Interesting. I think it's quite likely that many of those who lead us care little about "philosophy or reading books on intellectual development or theories of personality." I suppose that those of us who do care of such things need to like it or lump it.

Well I think we need to understand that these are independent variables- that is what is essential. Total dedication to the church has nothing to do with whether or not one is interested in, and therefore somewhat educated in these topics.

Some people may be suited to be engineers or accountants or company executives, or military leaders, or scientists or dishwashers or architects or construction workers while others are suited for pursuing psychology or philosophy.

It has nothing to do with intelligence or spirituality- one may be an engineer who is highly spiritual and be either dedicated to his calling or not. One might be philosophically inclined and be dedicated to his calling or not- these are independent variables, I think.

So the way I see it, it is not about "liking it or lumping it", it is about whether or not we have the realization that church service brings incredible joy regardless of what we think about doctrine.

I think it was Elder Ballard who said "There is no joy without service"- and that statement typifies what being a General Authority is all about. I suppose there is a "General Authority" type individual across doctrines in all churches- I suspect that in comparing personalities perhaps the Pope and the prophet have much in common, as perhaps do Catholic cardinals and the General Authorities.

Perhaps this is the important insight here- that if we see these as "problems" then they are problems all religions have, but they don't have to be seen as "problems" at all.

In my opinion, the very purposes and reasons for religious belief have nothing to do with history or what is observable and what can be verified by any kind of observation other than what one can feel and "observe" in one's own heart.

To me, religion is about understanding what gives my life purpose and joy within myself- and I heartily agree that indeed the "kingdom of heaven is within" as it says in the gospels repeatedly.

That has nothing to do with whether or not there was a global flood or evolution is "true" or creationism is "true" (whatever that means anyway) or whether or not historically an institution had to deal with institutional racism and is therefore tainted in some way, or someone taught some doctrine with which others disagree hundreds of years later.

Ultimately the "proof is in th pudding". The kingdom of heaven is within us- it is a state of mind and I think it will be a state of mind which will actually survive physical death. How that happens I don't really know, but I think some divine person who knows me and is watching out for me and loves me has "told" me that, and I cannot deny that I have had experiences which justify that belief to my total satisfaction and indeed certainty.

That has nothing to do with whether I am an engineer or street sweeper, educated or unable to pass 3rd grade, or whether or not I understand some philosopher's theory of language or personality, or any event which anyone THINKS did or did not happen in history.

So I think that once one has had experiences as I have had, "lumping it" is not an option.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin and mfbukowski. I doff my cap at both of you.

You've given me plenty to think about. Thank you for your time. Any suggested further reading on this?

Your are most welcome.

For reading, besides Kuhn, Ian Barbour, various books in Myers-Briggs types, and the link on my profile discussing the Perry Scheme, how about Boyd Peterson's current Sunstone essay here:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/arriving-where-i-started-disassembling-and-reassembling-a-testimony/

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Stone holm]

Well I think we need to understand that these are independent variables- that is what is essential. Total dedication to the church has nothing to do with whether or not one is interested in, and therefore somewhat educated in these topics.

Some people may be suited to be engineers or accountants or company executives, or military leaders, or scientists or dishwashers or architects or construction workers while others are suited for pursuing psychology or philosophy.

It has nothing to do with intelligence or spirituality- one may be an engineer who is highly spiritual and be either dedicated to his calling or not. One might be philosophically inclined and be dedicated to his calling or not- these are independent variables, I think.

So the way I see it, it is not about "liking it or lumping it", it is about whether or not we have the realization that church service brings incredible joy regardless of what we think about doctrine.

I think it was Elder Ballard who said "There is no joy without service"- and that statement typifies what being a General Authority is all about. I suppose there is a "General Authority" type individual across doctrines in all churches- I suspect that in comparing personalities perhaps the Pope and the prophet have much in common, as perhaps do Catholic cardinals and the General Authorities.

Perhaps this is the important insight here- that if we see these as "problems" then they are problems all religions have, but they don't have to be seen as "problems" at all.

In my opinion, the very purposes and reasons for religious belief have nothing to do with history or what is observable and what can be verified by any kind of observation other than what one can feel and "observe" in one's own heart.

To me, religion is about understanding what gives my life purpose and joy within myself- and I heartily agree that indeed the "kingdom of heaven is within" as it says in the gospels repeatedly.

That has nothing to do with whether or not there was a global flood or evolution is "true" or creationism is "true" (whatever that means anyway) or whether or not historically an institution had to deal with institutional racism and is therefore tainted in some way, or someone taught some doctrine with which others disagree hundreds of years later.

Ultimately the "proof is in th pudding". The kingdom of heaven is within us- it is a state of mind and I think it will be a state of mind which will actually survive physical death. How that happens I don't really know, but I think some divine person who knows me and is watching out for me and loves me has "told" me that, and I cannot deny that I have had experiences which justify that belief to my total satisfaction and indeed certainty.

That has nothing to do with whether I am an engineer or street sweeper, educated or unable to pass 3rd grade, or whether or not I understand some philosopher's theory of language or personality, or any event which anyone THINKS did or did not happen in history.

So I think that once one has had experiences as I have had, "lumping it" is not an option.

I would agree with your sentiments about religion. Unfortunately, an extremely large percentage of religious effort is spent on crowd control.

[mfbukowski]

Your are most welcome.

For reading, besides Kuhn, Ian Barbour, various books in Myers-Briggs types, and the link on my profile discussing the Perry Scheme, how about Boyd Peterson's current Sunstone essay here:

https://www.sunstone...ng-a-testimony/

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Indeed a brilliant piece, which curiously I just discovered independently today.

I could not agree more with you, Kevin, or with Bro Peterson.

[canard78]

Bumping this thread for Freedom's attention having mentioned it in a separate thread (here).

 

As I said at the top of page 2, I do not consider all of the 14 fundamentals to all be required belief for Mormons nor a test of faith and I consider some of them to be unhelpful for me. I recognise that the paradigm expressed by President Benson (in a BYU speech) and later repeated twice in General Conference in 2010 is helpful for some people. I recognise some people want absolutes. Following a prophet, in a 14 fundamentals style, is certainly an 'absolute' approach to life.

 

I respect and embrace the teachings of prophets. Just not in a 14 fundamentals style. There are many tools in the box of mormonism and I select the ones most useful and productive to me. They aren't mine, Freedom, but I respect your right to use them if you find them useful.

[Freedom]

I struggle particularly with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14

Do they fit your paradigm? If Brigham did not introduce the black priesthood ban with a divine sanction and if many prophets after perpetuated it without one, how can we say the prophet will never lead the church astray.

Point 4 of the above is wrong as soon as it's said. It even is leading people astray by telling them he never will. And yet many more people seem to believe this paradigm than yours.

I like yours. I just don't think it's how most people see it. I also continue to have reservations about the extent of the depth of errancy possible. The implications for 130 years of non-inspired practice is pretty serious.

Thanks for putting it so eloquently. You've given me something to ponder.

 

“First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

 

So, who else besides the prophet can speak for the lord in everything? Can you give examples?

“Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

 

What is the point of having a living prophet if what they say is not more pertinent than the scriptures?

“Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

 

Again, what is the point of having a living prophet if what they say is not more pertinent than a dead one?

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

Provide a single example of where a prophet has led us astray form the principles and ordinances of the gospel?

“Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

 

Since no prophet has ever had any particular earthly training how can you take issue with this?

“Sixth: The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.

“Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

“Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

“Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

“Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

“Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

“Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

“Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

“Fourteenth: [Follow] … the living prophet and the First Presidency … and be blessed; reject them and suffer.”

 

If I changed this to say 'follow the Book of Mormon and be blessed, reject them and suffer' what would you say? Or " follow the Savior and be blessed, reject him and suffer'.

 

If you do not have a testimony of the role of a living prophet, and accept him as Gods mouthpiece than you are not in a position to accept anything every written by any person who claims to be a prophet.

[canard78]

“First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

 

So, who else besides the prophet can speak for the lord in everything? Can you give examples?

“Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

 

What is the point of having a living prophet if what they say is not more pertinent than the scriptures?

“Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

 

Again, what is the point of having a living prophet if what they say is not more pertinent than a dead one?

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

Provide a single example of where a prophet has led us astray form the principles and ordinances of the gospel?

“Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

 

Since no prophet has ever had any particular earthly training how can you take issue with this?

“Sixth: The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.

“Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

“Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

“Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

“Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

“Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

“Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

“Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

“Fourteenth: [Follow] … the living prophet and the First Presidency … and be blessed; reject them and suffer.”

 

If I changed this to say 'follow the Book of Mormon and be blessed, reject them and suffer' what would you say? Or " follow the Savior and be blessed, reject him and suffer'.

 

Having recently moved countries and jobs I'm on a pretty tight schedule. I'll try to make some time to properly get back to you later and share the full quotes and scriptures for the points mentioned below.

 

On the 1st, no-one speaks for the Lord on everything. Our own prophets say they "prophesy in part" and speak with a limited understanding. They also that other prophets are called for other people to speak on behalf of God.

 

2nd and 3rd, I'm still considering these two and agree to your points in part - it depends on what the living or dead one says. I think God has given tools to test the truth of teachings by both living and dead, canonised and non-canonised, mormon and non-mormon.

 

4th, I believe they could. Black priesthood ban was, in my opinion, an error. There are some others. But that doesn't mean I reject prophets entirely. I accept that pure water poured through an impure filter will always come out less pure. It's a function of using fallible humans as 'tools.'

5th, I don't think the prophet is qualified to speak on all things. Medical opinion. Some political events. I didn't appreciate President Hinkley's views on those who opposed the post 9/11 invasions. I personally think he'd have been better staying out of the legitimacy of those wars, especially when many faithful saints opposed them.

 

On the 14th, I know plenty of people who reject the LDS prophet and are not suffering. They are being lead towards God in other ways and are very fulfilled in doing so. God uses more than the LDS prophets to teach his 7billion children (Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius are among them - that's LDS leaders who say so, not just me).

 

 

If you do not have a testimony of the role of a living prophet, and accept him as Gods mouthpiece than you are not in a position to accept anything every written by any person who claims to be a prophet.

 

 

That's nonsense. I do have a testimony of the role of a living prophet and do accept him as God's mouthpiece and do accept many things written by many people who I believe to be 'prophets.' I don't have to believe in prophets in the way President Benson's fundamentals teaches them to still have a testimony of them.

[Freedom]

Having recently moved countries and jobs I'm on a pretty tight schedule. I'll try to make some time to properly get back to you later and share the full quotes and scriptures for the points mentioned below.

 

On the 1st, no-one speaks for the Lord on everything. Our own prophets say they "prophesy in part" and speak with a limited understanding. They also that other prophets are called for other people to speak on behalf of God.

 

2nd and 3rd, I'm still considering these two and agree to your points in part - it depends on what the living or dead one says. I think God has given tools to test the truth of teachings by both living and dead, canonised and non-canonised, mormon and non-mormon.

 

4th, I believe they could. Black priesthood ban was, in my opinion, an error. There are some others. But that doesn't mean I reject prophets entirely. I accept that pure water poured through an impure filter will always come out less pure. It's a function of using fallible humans as 'tools.'

5th, I don't think the prophet is qualified to speak on all things. Medical opinion. Some political events. I didn't appreciate President Hinkley's views on those who opposed the post 9/11 invasions. I personally think he'd have been better staying out of the legitimacy of those wars, especially when many faithful saints opposed them.

 

On the 14th, I know plenty of people who reject the LDS prophet and are not suffering. They are being lead towards God in other ways and are very fulfilled in doing so. God uses more than the LDS prophets to teach his 7billion children (Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius are among them - that's LDS leaders who say so, not just me).

 

 

That's nonsense. I do have a testimony of the role of a living prophet and do accept him as God's mouthpiece and do accept many things written by many people who I believe to be 'prophets.' I don't have to believe in prophets in the way President Benson's fundamentals teaches them to still have a testimony of them.

There is a difference between speaking for the lord on everything and being an authority on everything. The prophet is the ultimate authority and the only one authorized to represent the Lord in all respects. He represents the Lord on earth, not botany, psychology, pedagogy or any other human endeavor. 

Even if we assume that the ban was wrong, did it lead the church away from salvation? Did any prophet lead the church astray from the principles and ordinances of the gospel required for salvation? No. The point about expertise is that, if God wants the prophet to speak the prophet will speak. Although information precedes inspiration, inspiration trumps revelation.

There is a difference between following what you know of God and rejecting what God has given you. This is the point.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

There is a difference between speaking for the lord on everything and being an authority on everything. The prophet is the ultimate authority and the only one authorized to represent the Lord in all respects. He represents the Lord on earth, not botany, psychology, pedagogy or any other human endeavor. 

Even if we assume that the ban was wrong, did it lead the church away from salvation? Did any prophet lead the church astray from the principles and ordinances of the gospel required for salvation? No. The point about expertise is that, if God wants the prophet to speak the prophet will speak. Although information precedes inspiration, inspiration trumps revelation.

There is a difference between following what you know of God and rejecting what God has given you. This is the point.

You're adding your own spin onto the talk.  Elder Benson said the prophet wouldn't lead us astray. He didn't add any caveats. In fact he added this story:

I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘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.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.

Elder McConkie gave a list of seven "deadly" heresies. Since at least two (and in my mind there is evidence for a couple of the others too) were taught by Brigham Young as a prophet, didn't Brigham lead people astray? If he didn't why are those heresies deadly?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

There is a difference between speaking for the lord on everything and being an authority on everything. The prophet is the ultimate authority and the only one authorized to represent the Lord in all respects. He represents the Lord on earth, not botany, psychology, pedagogy or any other human endeavor. 

I have a little problem with the exclusivity required here.  Since blacks and the priesthood was raised lets talk civil rights.  I happen to believe that Martin Luther King spoke the words that the Lord wanted said to this country in the sixties.  This article sums my view on Rev King perfectly.  What were the brethren talking about during the civil rights movement? The author of the 14 fundamentals was writing pamphlets such as "Civil Rights: Tool of Communist Deception." Again "The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything," but in practice the Lord appears to use a variety of tools both inside and outside the church to speak for his purposes.