Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[DBMormon]

You'll find the diehards in any group. But pretty soon most either leave or learn to keep their opinions to themselves.

not in my neck of the woods.  Every lesson has "black and white", us vs them kinds of comments.  I do my best to stem it.  While I am seen as informed and intelligent I also get a bit of a rabble rouser reputation for doing so.

[jkwilliams]

You'll find the diehards in any group. But pretty soon most either leave or learn to keep their opinions to themselves.

Like I said, I hope the kid outgrows this. It's one thing to believe in this absolute obedience/perfectionism, and another thing entirely to think it deserves to be broadcast to the entire university.

In my experience, people like this are those who have unrealistic expectations of their church leaders. When they discover that church leaders are human and make mistakes, they tend to have a crisis of faith.

[Stone holm]

Of course people differ in how they express their alignment with and interpretation of the several items listed on post #336 (and you haven’t responded to #334). Perhaps some seem to stumble because of the placing of their words, or because they are not mighty in speaking. Despite that, the phrase (“shut up and obey”) does seem to be polemic in reference to others and not to describe oneself.

 

Just as “we lack the data to be able to say what ‘most Mormons’ believe,” we lack the data to be able to say whether our average member feels that he has the freedom to pray about earrings. While I suspect this is in large part because the Lord deals with individuals’ agency and not averages, I suspect it is also because they don’t feel it important enough an issue to even pray over.

 

The Church and the Gospel are all about spiritual freedom. Some see other members through the constricting lens of their own false experience—if they see that most members feel they lack freedom, it is because they (themselves) feel they lack it. Now how would it happen that people using the Gift of the Holy Ghost feel they lack the freedom to pray about something, and how is it that someone who really doesn’t know choose to view others in such a light?

 

I don’t think the saints on the whole can be properly characterized as yoking and binding their psyches down under the power and authority of their leaders and kept in ignorance; unable to lift up their heads; or living in religious bondage, having been denied their rights and privileges to speak and act according to the dictates of their conscience. That’s’ what “shut up and obey” entails, right?

 

 

Probably wouldn't say it quite that harshly, but yes.  Given the sermons and hymns...you really do not see anyone ever being encouraged to think for themselves...in fact I believe that one hymn even is a plea to think what you want me to think...like we are supposed to be obedient robots.  Thats not the doctrine of the Church, but if the counsel isn't to "shut up and obey"...we do a cracker jack job of hiding it.  Old cranks like myself don't really care, and will say pretty much whatever they feel like saying -- except when the wife's elbows are within striking distance -- but for the average member the intimidation factor of ever questioning anything said by a leader above the level of Bishop is pretty darn severe. 

[rockpond]

Of course people differ in how they express their alignment with and interpretation of the several items listed on post #336 (and you haven’t responded to #334). Perhaps some seem to stumble because of the placing of their words, or because they are not mighty in speaking. Despite that, the phrase (“shut up and obey”) does seem to be polemic in reference to others and not to describe oneself.

 

Just as “we lack the data to be able to say what ‘most Mormons’ believe,” we lack the data to be able to say whether our average member feels that he has the freedom to pray about earrings. While I suspect this is in large part because the Lord deals with individuals’ agency and not averages, I suspect it is also because they don’t feel it important enough an issue to even pray over.

 

The Church and the Gospel are all about spiritual freedom. Some see other members through the constricting lens of their own false experience—if they see that most members feel they lack freedom, it is because they (themselves) feel they lack it. Now how would it happen that people using the Gift of the Holy Ghost feel they lack the freedom to pray about something, and how is it that someone who really doesn’t know choose to view others in such a light?

 

I don’t think the saints on the whole can be properly characterized as yoking and binding their psyches down under the power and authority of their leaders and kept in ignorance; unable to lift up their heads; or living in religious bondage, having been denied their rights and privileges to speak and act according to the dictates of their conscience. That’s’ what “shut up and obey” entails, right?

 

I thought we had reached consensus in #334 so I didn't response.  Was there a question there that I missed?

 

Like I said earlier, it seems that you don't see the past mistakes as a problem.  Or, if they are, it's a problem that the council system is handling just fine.

 

I don't see it that way.  I see the increased awareness of past errors (thanks to the internet) and the differing interpretations of apostolic/prophetic (in)fallibility as causing somewhat of a divide within the membership of the church.  It's something I believe the Brethren are well aware of.  But I don't see a reason why we can't work to address it within our own stewardships as well -- which is why I discuss these matters here with the hope of uncovering thoughts/ideas/promptings that will help me and others.

[Stone holm]

I thought we had reached consensus in #334 so I didn't response.  Was there a question there that I missed?

 

Like I said earlier, it seems that you don't see the past mistakes as a problem.  Or, if they are, it's a problem that the council system is handling just fine.

 

I don't see it that way.  I see the increased awareness of past errors (thanks to the internet) and the differing interpretations of apostolic/prophetic (in)fallibility as causing somewhat of a divide within the membership of the church.  It's something I believe the Brethren are well aware of.  But I don't see a reason why we can't work to address it within our own stewardships as well -- which is why I discuss these matters here with the hope of uncovering thoughts/ideas/promptings that will help me and others.

 

Council system is not designed to correct the mistakes in the higher atmosphere, it is for controlling those at the bottom of the pyramid.  Instruction and influence flows down, not up.

[rockpond]

Council system is not designed to correct the mistakes in the higher atmosphere, it is for controlling those at the bottom of the pyramid.  Instruction and influence flows down, not up.

 

Agreed.

[CV75]

not in my neck of the woods.  Every lesson has "black and white", us vs them kinds of comments.  I do my best to stem it.  While I am seen as informed and intelligent I also get a bit of a rabble rouser reputation for doing so.

A demand to name specific mistakes might just be taken as a step toward the black-and-white, just as the hyperbolical addition of the adjective “serious” to Elder Uchtdorf’s use of the word “mistakes.” Or suggesting for others what the mistakes are actually supposed to be.

 

And likewise, characterizing “most members” and “most LDS,” as perpetuating any mistake or not doing their share of digging for the truth, and defining “subsets” might be taken as a step toward establishing an “us-and-them” dynamic (as well as black-and-whitism).

 

At least you are on the cusp of realizing how your reputation came about and so may be able to work more effectively with the memebrs of a ward which, on the whole, must enjoy the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Stone holm]

Agreed.

 

Correlation Committee was originally intended in part to keep some GAs in line and also those at lower altitudes, but it has pretty much just resulted in milk production.

[CV75]

I thought we had reached consensus in #334 so I didn't response.  Was there a question there that I missed?

 

Like I said earlier, it seems that you don't see the past mistakes as a problem.  Or, if they are, it's a problem that the council system is handling just fine.

 

I don't see it that way.  I see the increased awareness of past errors (thanks to the internet) and the differing interpretations of apostolic/prophetic (in)fallibility as causing somewhat of a divide within the membership of the church.  It's something I believe the Brethren are well aware of.  But I don't see a reason why we can't work to address it within our own stewardships as well -- which is why I discuss these matters here with the hope of uncovering thoughts/ideas/promptings that will help me and others.

OK I think we're good on #334.

 

I didn't mention the council systrem only, and I don't have time to re-write thsoe points.

 

As I also mentioned, every period since the Restoration has had its challenges that the Brethren lead out in addressing for the Church. It's one thing to carry out some inspired tactic on one's own to serve one's own, and quite another to demand a certain approach of the Brethren.

[rockpond]

OK I think we're good on #334.

 

I didn't mention the council systrem only, and I don't have time to re-write thsoe points.

 

As I also mentioned, every period since the Restoration has had its challenges that the Brethren lead out in addressing for the Church. It's one thing to carry out some inspired tactic on one's own to serve one's own, and quite another to demand a certain approach of the Brethren.

 

That may be true, but I don't think that the Brethren are "leading out" in addressing the issues that are currently causing faith crises, others are.  That may be a conscious decision on the part of the Brethren and possibly inspired.  But, I can tell you, they certainly had nothing to say that helped me through my faith crises a few years back.  I had to go outside the church leadership structure to find answers.

 

It's impossible to demand anything of the Brethren and I haven't seen anyone doing that from within the ranks of the church.

[Stone holm]

That may be true, but I don't think that the Brethren are "leading out" in addressing the issues that are currently causing faith crises, others are.  That may be a conscious decision on the part of the Brethren and possibly inspired.  But, I can tell you, they certainly had nothing to say that helped me through my faith crises a few years back.  I had to go outside the church leadership structure to find answers.

 

It's impossible to demand anything of the Brethren and I haven't seen anyone doing that from within the ranks of the church.

It's best neither to demand or expect help from the Church during faith crises, you are likely to be disappointed. That is what being in the woods all night and staring at a fire in the fireplace are for.

[Robert F. Smith]

Obviously, we lack the data to be able to say what "most Mormons" believe.  But, if you want to take a specific (rather innocuous) example, it's been my impression that most members believe that "no earrings for men, only one set for women, and no tattoos" is something that is not to be questioned.  It was something that President Hinckley counseled in general conference.  Does that make it scripture?  A commandment?  Does our average member feel that they have the freedom to pray about this for themselves and determine if they should follow his counsel?  My experience is "no".

Earrings and tattoos?  Is that what the Gospel has become?  And who is going to tell that African, or Samoan, or Maori brother that he can't have tattoos?  In some societies, the tattoo is not a mark of gang affiliation, but of high cultural & social standing.  Often it is a sign of manhood and never regarded as negative.  The LDS Church is a worldwide Church, not some version of American conceit.  We need to broaden our horizons.

[canard78]

not in my neck of the woods. Every lesson has "black and white", us vs them kinds of comments. I do my best to stem it. While I am seen as informed and intelligent I also get a bit of a rabble rouser reputation for doing so.

I suggest from now on you use the following quotes library for making any challenging point:

http://tinyurl.com/ldsquotes

It has saved my sanity many times. When you're quoting general authorities you can't really be a rabble rouser.

[Stone holm]

Earrings and tattoos?  Is that what the Gospel has become?  And who is going to tell that African, or Samoan, or Maori brother that he can't have tattoos?  In some societies, the tattoo is not a mark of gang affiliation, but of high cultural & social standing.  Often it is a sign of manhood and never regarded as negative.  The LDS Church is a worldwide Church, not some version of American conceit.  We need to broaden our horizons.

I think we are seeing the Church trying to move away from the idea that the 1950's American White Middle Class as idealized was the acme of The Mormon traditional value style. We have, in many ways successfully, broken into the American main stream by following a cult of normalcy trying to establish that we are according to American standards the epitome of wholesomeness . The problem now is trying to slow the aircraft carrier down and allow for cultural differences as we become an international Church. Give it time. About a half to two thirds of the men in our Ward sport beards...except for when somebody gets a Stake calling, I don't see that changing. At some point the Church will realize that nobody is trying to emulate Castro anymore, maybe they will realize that a large percentage of American gays are clean shaven with short hair.

[thesometimesaint]

Council system is not designed to correct the mistakes in the higher atmosphere, it is for controlling those at the bottom of the pyramid.  Instruction and influence flows down, not up.

Yes and no.

[CV75]

Old cranks like myself don't really care

Neither does just about any other age/personality cohort you can split the membership up into!

[CV75]

That may be true, but I don't think that the Brethren are "leading out" in addressing the issues that are currently causing faith crises, others are.  That may be a conscious decision on the part of the Brethren and possibly inspired.  But, I can tell you, they certainly had nothing to say that helped me through my faith crises a few years back.  I had to go outside the church leadership structure to find answers.

 

It's impossible to demand anything of the Brethren and I haven't seen anyone doing that from within the ranks of the church.

I think it is great that you have resolved your faith crisis to your satisfaction in a way that worked for you. I think the Brethren have confidence that this can occur. For example, I see this confidence reflected in Elder Uchtdorf’s talk referenced in this thread. I think I can understand to a degree, as I have felt the same confidence towards more than one person in faith crisis as they have vented to me and explored explanations and ultimately found resolution. It is a very personal process. Some (both teh faithful and teh struggling) would worriy and fret and in their anxiety do or say things that alienated the struggling from the faithful and vice-versa, but the Spirit can surely win out in the end.

 

As far as demanding things of the Brethren, I see this as the premise for this thread (and not among the “ranks of the Church”—though I’m sure there are some individuals “out there” that do), since it was the leaders whose lack of specificity about the “serious mistakes” was asserted to undermine the progress of the struggling, and that these leaders should be more specific in order to save these souls.

[CV75]

they certainly had nothing to say that helped me through my faith crises a few years back.  I had to go outside the church leadership structure to find answers.

I overlooked this point. I think we need to acknowledge that without the Brethren, there would be no Church to go back to. You would have no Gift of the Holy Ghost, or any other reference point (baptism, priesthood, sacrament, temple covenants, prior experiences, etc.) that you and those outside the leadership structure could be able to look to or remember.

[CV75]

in fact I believe that one hymn even is a plea to think what you want me to think...like we are supposed to be obedient robots.

Interestting that you have not specified this hymn! Let's discuss the actual hymn!

 

I think such a discussion will bear out that I am not arguing that people be obeient robots. But by asserting that I am, you've demonstrated my point about how people with baggage see others as they really are not, and are left holding the bag as a result.

[Stone holm]

Interestting that you have not specified this hymn! Let's discuss the actual hymn!

 

I think such a discussion will bear out that I am not arguing that people be obeient robots. But by asserting that I am, you've demonstrated my point about how people with baggage see others as they really are not, and are left holding the bag as a result.

Yep,I am a definite baggage carrier.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm more of a prick kicker myself.

[Robert F. Smith]

rockpond, on 15 Nov 2013 - 2:43 PM, said:

..................................................................................   
.It's impossible to demand anything of the Brethren and I haven't seen anyone doing that from within the ranks of the church.

 

........................................................................  
 
As far as demanding things of the Brethren, I see this as the premise for this thread (and not among the “ranks of the Church”—though I’m sure there are some individuals “out there” that do), since it was the leaders whose lack of specificity about the “serious mistakes” was asserted to undermine the progress of the struggling, and that these leaders should be more specific in order to save these souls.

Most of the so-called "Brethren" (also a term applied to the once all-male U.S. Supreme Court) are humble men who are only too ready to listen, even when insincere people write to them.  They often reply very graciously even to ridiculous diatribes.  They also ponder reasonable letters and appeals to their position as shepherds of the flock.  We must not underestimate their willingness to listen and learn.  So demand away, if you must, and they might just listen, although I counsel a much nicer approach to influencing them.  However, please don't waste their time with silly stuff which could best be dealt with by your local bishop or stake president.

 

[CV75]

Most of the so-called "Brethren" (also a term applied to the once all-male U.S. Supreme Court) are humble men who are only too ready to listen, even when insincere people write to them.  They often reply very graciously even to ridiculous diatribes.  They also ponder reasonable letters and appeals to their position as shepherds of the flock.  We must not underestimate their willingness to listen and learn.  So demand away, if you must, and they might just listen, although I counsel a much nicer approach to influencing them.  However, please don't waste their time with silly stuff which could best be dealt with by your local bishop or stake president.

I of course agree, and that very few people resort to demanding (except in this thread!).

Edited November 17, 2013 by CV75

[rockpond]

Most of the so-called "Brethren" (also a term applied to the once all-male U.S. Supreme Court) are humble men who are only too ready to listen, even when insincere people write to them.  They often reply very graciously even to ridiculous diatribes.  They also ponder reasonable letters and appeals to their position as shepherds of the flock.  We must not underestimate their willingness to listen and learn.  So demand away, if you must, and they might just listen, although I counsel a much nicer approach to influencing them.  However, please don't waste their time with silly stuff which could best be dealt with by your local bishop or stake president.

 

Haven't we been told NOT to write to the Brethren (Seventies, Apostles, First Presidency)?

 

I don't doubt that some are willing to listen and respond but others have decided that we shouldn't write any of them.

[Stone holm]

Haven't we been told NOT to write to the Brethren (Seventies, Apostles, First Presidency)?

 

I don't doubt that some are willing to listen and respond but others have decided that we shouldn't write any of them.

 

Yeah, people keep forgetting about that.  No you aren't suppose to write them, you are suppose to hand a note to your Bishop and then they are supposed to pass it up the line.  And from personal experience and the experience of countless others....well good luck with that.