And This Pope Rocks On

[DBMormon]

Cal,

Let's say for a moment the issue of Homosexual behavior being sin.  I for the record support the current policy, I also do not fight for this to be changed but acknowledge if a change came I would welcome it.

 

That said we get this stance from the scriptures and they are backed up by our Church leaders.  This Doctrine comes from the Old Testament and is among other Doctrines in the same scriptures that we have tossed out as nonsense.  We realize that in some of this the Prophets of their day held nonsense beliefs but have chosen to keep this Doctrine around.  Jesus says nothing of Homosexuality so we do not have a statement from him.  Our only support for it is the Scriptures which I think we both acknowledge has both truth and nonsense in it (and yes the truth far outweighs the nonsense) and any revelation the Brethren have received from God to back up such stances on this issue.  If they have received revelation on such they have not declared so and either consider such communication private have not received such and simply hold to the standard that the Scriptures teach.  Realizing this issue has many other types that fall into the same type of thing - Are we really willing this very moment to consider what we have that is Divine Truth and what is not from God.

 

Does God want me to wear a white shirt and tie on Sunday or can I wear jeans and a t-shirt and still be 100% acceptable to him? 

 

Does God really care If I have knowledge of the Gospel's truth claims or does it only matter that I do my best and repent when I fall short? 

 

Even though the Doctrine is that how we decide 10% of what is tithing is between us and the Lord, do the Leaders rush out and teach it this way or do they infer it is Gross so as to help bring in as much as possible to the Church?

 

We teach fallibility but we frown upon people who say no to a calling they feel was not inspired

 

We speak of adopting truth where ever it can be found but it took us forever to allow women to pray in our General Conference.  Maybe it just never occurred to them, though I tend to believe we are slow to adopt truth when it runs counter to our culture.

 

The Pope is saying things that feels true, many seem to be picking up on that.  Are we as LDS open to those truths even if they collide with our beliefs?  or is our defending our beliefs at the expense of missing out on possible truths ok?

 

Elder Uchtdorf said this and I find it the greatest pearl of Wisdom I have come across in years

 

We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it—because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.

When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive.

 

Ponder that for a moment as I think as a Church collectively we are as guilty of this as any individual.

Edited December 27, 2013 by DBMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

To suggest that a Leader "can" have serious flaws does not say they actually do, rather it teaches that a leader can be extremely fallible and still be an instrument in the hands of God. 

 

We can say leaders are imperfect and fallible till we are blue in the face.  If we actually acknowledge it on specific instances, we are asking for trouble.  I disagree with that but so be it.  Being told a leader's shortcomings helps me to see that I am still saveable.  For me it is a positive to hear the Church actually internalize fallibility rather then just pay it lip service.

I see a distinction between acknowledging imperfection as part of the human condition and endless faultfinding, particularly with anointed leaders as the target. The one is a given; the other is seldom necessary and may in fact be harmful.

 

As for it being good "to hear the Church actually internalize fallibility," you probably didn't mean that the way it came out, but it occurs to me that the Church is about motivating people to righteousness, repentance and, ultimately, perfection through the atoning blood of Christ, not embracing fallibility.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

Same here TSS, but worry for his safety. And as much as I'd like Pres. Monson to do the same things as the pope, it's maybe too risky.

Is the risk to Pres Monson any greater than the risk to the Pope? And even if so, should that matter? Isn't that risk part of the job of being a prophet?

[DBMormon]

I see a distinction between acknowledging imperfection as part of the human condition and endless faultfinding, particularly with anointed leaders as the target. The one is given; the other is seldom necessary and may in fact be harmful.

 

As for it being good "to hear the Church actually internalize fallibility," you probably didn't mean that the way it came out, but it occurs to me that the Church is about motivating people to righteousness, repentance and, ultimately, perfection through the atoning blood of Christ, not embracing fallibility.

Many give up on that same path when they feel it is to much an incline and combine that with feeling others are more capable to climb it.  TElling people George Albert Smith had very sever Depression (Elder Holland finally did that), that some have forced their views in spite of it not being Doctrinal and some even being flat out wrong.  That President Benson had sever dementia and was not acting as Prophet even when we claimed he was doing ok and still leading the Church.  These kinds of things when not talked about make prophets to almost become near perfect and it makes it harder for the the strugglers on the fringe to see how they will ever make it.  There are others.  But yes some of these venture off into posing some risk of hurting the faith of others more then helping it.  That said that alone does not make it wrong to be honest about such things.

[DBMormon]

Is the risk to Pres Monson any greater than the risk to the Pope? And even if so, should that matter? Isn't that risk part of the job of being a prophet?

Now there is a good question.  Isn't one of the usual roles of prophet (cough... cough... Lehi, Abinidi, Jonah, Alma the Younger, Ammon, Mormon, Moroni) to warn the people in spite of the risk to oneself and the risk of the people revolting against such truths?

[Calm]

How often when celebrities are targeted these days they are the only ones to get hurt?

When calculating the risk, I suspect Pres. Monson is much more concerned with the risk to others than himself. I suspect the Pope is too.

I don't think it is part of the Prophet's job to make sure everyone knows he has a life outside of his calling and to allow them access to it.

I have a distaste myself for staged photo ops; if he wouldn't be doing something normally, I don't think he should do it so someone can take a picture that looks good.

The man is 86, we don't know what his health is like, how up and down it is. The decrease, if there is one, in pictures of him at overseas or charitable events could be due to that.

[Yirgacheffe]

 

The Pope is saying things that feels true, many seem to be picking up on that.  Are we as LDS open to those truths even if they collide with our beliefs?  or is our defending our beliefs at the expense of missing out on possible truths ok?

 

I think that one should be careful if things feel true but run counter to beliefs, one should spend some time examining both the belief and the feeling before jumping on the bandwagon.  Of course there is a range in belief from the small, jeans in church, to the large say, adultery.  What I find problematic is when someone says something that feels good and does not run counter to beliefs and people proceed to belittle the message and attribute base motivation to the messenger, for no apparent reason other than someone of another faith said it.

[Calm]

Many give up on that same path when they feel it is to much an incline and combine that with feeling others are more capable to climb it.  TElling people George Albert Smith had very sever Depression (Elder Holland finally did that), that some have forced their views in spite of it not being Doctrinal and some even being flat out wrong.  That President Benson had sever dementia and was not acting as Prophet even when we claimed he was doing ok and still leading the Church.  These kinds of things when not talked about make prophets to almost become near perfect and it makes it harder for the the strugglers on the fringe to see how they will ever make it.  There are others.  But yes some of these venture off into posing some risk of hurting the faith of others more then helping it.  That said that alone does not make it wrong to be honest about such things.

I do not count illnesses as "serious flaws" or having to do with fallibility. The American culture is still uncomfortable with mental and emotional illness. It does not surprise me that in the past leaders have considered such things private issues. They don't even share much info on purely physical illness. One thing our Church does try to give its leaders, IMO, is a sense of a private life. I think they should though I agree that at times if limiting someone's involvement, that limit should be made known even if details on why they are limited are kept private as they should be allowed to be for all who desire that privacy, IMO.

I am not getting how you are jumping from serious flaws and fallibility to illnesses.

[mormonnewb]

To suggest that a Leader "can" have serious flaws does not say they actually do, rather it teaches that a leader can be extremely fallible and still be an instrument in the hands of God.

We can say leaders are imperfect and fallible till we are blue in the face. If we actually acknowledge it on specific instances, we are asking for trouble. I disagree with that but so be it. Being told a leader's shortcomings helps me to see that I am still saveable. For me it is a positive to hear the Church actually internalize fallibility rather then just pay it lip service.

Amen, amen and amen! Part of my testimony of Joseph Smith comes from what I would describe as a "lust issue." Now, I understand that's not the only lens through which to view his institution of polygamy, but it is the most faith-promoting to me. Why? Because King David had the same issue. Because my modern hero, Dr. Martin Luther King, had the same issue. Because Noah was a drunk and Moses had anger management issues. Because Paul fell into recurring sin so much that he eventually had to seek comfort in the Lord's assurance that "My grace is sufficient for thee."

In fact, I can't think of a single hero in scripture who was not "seriously flawed" in some way. However, it is considered "speaking ill of the Lord's anointed" to even acknowledge that His modern day prophets have any specific flaws at all. To me, this is backwards. The Lord said, "My strength is made perfect in weakness." As a result, I don't follow anyone who doesn't walk with a limp because God doesn't seem to make much use of you perfect folks

Edited December 27, 2013 by mormonnewb

[Calm]

I think that one should be careful if things feel true but run counter to beliefs, one should spend some time examining both the belief and the feeling before jumping on the bandwagon.  Of course there is a range in belief from the small, jeans in church, to the large say, adultery.  What I find problematic is when someone says something that feels good and does not run counter to beliefs and people proceed to belittle the message and attribute base motivation to the messenger, for no apparent reason other than someone of another faith said it.

I would find that problematic as well. It is not however something I have observed myself among church members whom seem instead to be very happy when they find what they believe are commonalities with others of different beliefs. I don't doubt that it happens in my faith just as it probably happens in all given human nature, however I have never seen a Catholic degrade an idea solely based on who it came from either. I have seen it from members of a few other Christian denominations, very few thankfully. Have seen it from a few atheists as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

Many give up on that same path when they feel it is to much an incline and combine that with feeling others are more capable to climb it.  TElling people George Albert Smith had very sever Depression (Elder Holland finally did that), that some have forced their views in spite of it not being Doctrinal and some even being flat out wrong. 

You make it sound as though Elder Holland disclosed some dark and closely guarded secret. Leading up to the year when we studied his teachings in Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society meetings, I read about President Smith's depression in a biography written many years ago by Francis M. Gibbons, a past General Authority.

 

That President Benson had sever dementia and was not acting as Prophet even when we claimed he was doing ok and still leading the Church.  These kinds of things when not talked about make prophets to almost become near perfect and it makes it harder for the the strugglers on the fringe to see how they will ever make it.  There are others.

 

 

I agree with calmoriah about the distinction between illness, be it physical or mental, and "serious character flaws."

 

But yes some of these venture off into posing some risk of hurting the faith of others more then helping it.  That said that alone does not make it wrong to be honest about such things.

 

There can be a fine line between honest acknowledgment and as spirit of faultfinding.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

I think that one should be careful if things feel true but run counter to beliefs, one should spend some time examining both the belief and the feeling before jumping on the bandwagon.  Of course there is a range in belief from the small, jeans in church, to the large say, adultery.  What I find problematic is when someone says something that feels good and does not run counter to beliefs and people proceed to belittle the message and attribute base motivation to the messenger, for no apparent reason other than someone of another faith said it.

But this is not necessarily what Pres. Uchtdorf is saying.  He seems to be saying that we have beliefs.  These beliefs are believed to be true, they are held and defended.  We never consider that said beliefs might be untrue as that never crosses our mind as we are the true Church and all that I believe in is Doctrine and is true.  He seems to suggest we need to be more open to examining our beliefs and be open to rooting out that which is not true.  That we need to recognize some of our beliefs are false.  Robert Kirby once told a large group of LDS  and a room that included many apologists for the faith that "everyone of you in this room believes something that isn't true".  Do we entrench on our beliefs and defend them to the death or are we really willing to listen and be open to changing those.  Are we really open to truth?  Are we really open to our some of views being false ?

[Calm]

Now there is a good question. Isn't one of the usual roles of prophet (cough... cough... Lehi, Abinidi, Jonah, Alma the Younger, Ammon, Mormon, Moroni) to warn the people in spite of the risk to oneself and the risk of the people revolting against such truths?

Please notice it was Tacenda speculating and not Pres. Monson or another church leader who made a statement that Pres. Monson wasn't doing something because of the risk. Edited December 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Amen, amen and amen! Part of my testimony of Joseph Smith comes from what I would describe as a "lust issue."

Pure conjecture, which I reject out of hand.

[mormonnewb]

How often when celebrities are targeted these days they are the only ones to get hurt?

When calculating the risk, I suspect Pres. Monson is much more concerned with the risk to others than himself. I suspect the Pope is too.

I don't think it is part of the Prophet's job to make sure everyone knows he has a life outside of his calling and to allow them access to it.

I have a distaste myself for staged photo ops; if he wouldn't be doing something normally, I don't think he should do it so someone can take a picture that looks good.

The man is 86, we don't know what his health is like, how up and down it is. The decrease, if there is one, in pictures of him at overseas or charitable events could be due to that.

Perhaps, part of the problem is that we seem to insist that our prophets serve life terms, regardless of their health. There doesn't seem to be any precedence for this in scripture. For instance, while Moses served to the very end, here is how he was described: "And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated." Deuteronomy 34:7. Perhaps, we should allow our prophets to step down after 30, 40 or 50 years of faithful service to The Lord.

[pogi]

There can be a fine line between honest acknowledgment and as spirit of faultfinding.

 

I agree, but I think that what many (including myself) have experienced is that when making an honest acknowledgment, we are more often than not accused of faultfinding and are marginalized as borderline apostates, which is really unfortunate.  I agree with DBMormon and mormonneb that an honest acknowledgment is more helpful than harmful to faith.  I also agree with you in that faultfinding is indeed harmful to faith.

[DBMormon]

I do not count illnesses as "serious flaws" or having to do with fallibility. The American culture is still uncomfortable with mental and emotional illness. It does not surprise me that in the past leaders have considered such things private issues. They don't even share much info on purely physical illness. One thing our Church does try to give its leaders, IMO, is a sense of a private life. I think they should though I agree that at times if limiting someone's involvement, that limit should be made known even if details on why they are limited are kept private as they should be allowed to be for all who desire that privacy, IMO.

I am not getting how you are jumping from serious flaws and fallibility to illnesses.

 

I see others.  We have a tendency on Mormonism to overstate things as inspired when they are not necessarily.  For instance all 15 thought they were inspired in teaching interracial marriage as sin.  Were they?  not according to today's leaders who have said they were wrong and have disavowed it.  Are today's leaders right about everything or could they be wrong and missing out on some truth.  Am I allowed to bring such truths to their attention or is my job to keep quiet and still till they figure it out on their own?  And If I am to keep quiet doesn't that speak to our willingness to adapt to truth rather then entrench in our culture?

 

I also can show examples of leaders using unrighteous dominion to teach their pet theories as Doctrine.  I could also show where Leaders have used dishonesty in their sermons to flatter their audience.  I could also show where leaders have used their authority to chastise others for having a view different then theirs when there was no Doctrine to defend either side.  I know of local leaders who assume Church leaders at the top level are always inspired and always speak the mind and will of the Lord and this then gives them a feeling of permission to then impose anything said on those under them.  We rarely address such things.  When it comes to teaching people to follow the Spirit and not assume anything is the will of God without such spiritual confirmation or teach people to follow the prophet no matter what - which one do you think gets more lip service? 

 

Unfortunately, topics such as this are personal to me and so I am keenly aware that I will use rhetoric that incites strong opinions.  It is one of my weaknesses.  I hope to get to a place where I can state my opinion someday on such topics without being drawn in emotionally into a tumult of opinion.  Currently I am unable as I still am damaged goods and much of that is a result of my having been extremely frustrated by leaders close to me who displayed the far end of the spectrum in setting up false assumptions and imposing them forcefully on others and being unwilling to hear the worth of what the other person has to say simply because it was different then they believed.

[DBMormon]

Please notice it was Tacenda speculating and not Pres. Monson or another church leader who made a statement that Pres. Monson wasn't doing something because of the risk.

Absolutely, I in no way make the assumption that these men are afraid to take a risk.  The recent Race article shows otherwise.

[mormonnewb]

Pure conjecture, which I reject out of hand.

I freely acknowledged that there are several other plausible explanations for Joseph Smith's institution of polygamy, including that it was inspired by The Lord. However, how do you reject "out of hand" the POSSIBILITY that a 30-something MAN might have been motivated by lust?

Take it from someone who was a 30-something man for about a decade, lust is ALWAYS a possibility.

[Yirgacheffe]

I would find that problematic as well. It is not however something I have observed myself among church members whom seem instead to be very happy when they find what they believe are commonalities with others of different beliefs. I don't doubt that it happens in my faith just as it probably happens in all given human nature, however I have never seen a Catholic degrade an idea solely based on who it came from either. I have seen it from members of a few other Christian denominations, very few thankfully. Have seen it from a few atheists as well.

Of course this is a severly flawed communication method we have in message boards but, I see this here in this thread.  What I find most surprising about it is I see it coming from someone I've read for a while now who has in the past expressed views I would say are in line with what Pope Francis is saying and this poster does just what I mentioned, particulary the attributing motivation part.

[DBMormon]

I have a distaste myself for staged photo ops; if he wouldn't be doing something normally, I don't think he should do it so someone can take a picture that looks good.

You don't mean like this do you?

 

Just kidding by the way.... City Creek used to bother me bunches but not anymore.  I was willing to accept additional truth on this issue.

Edited December 27, 2013 by DBMormon

[Stone holm]

Perhaps, part of the problem is that we seem to insist that our prophets serve life terms, regardless of their health. There doesn't seem to be any precedence for this in scripture. For instance, while Moses served to the very end, here is how he was described: "And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated." Deuteronomy 34:7. Perhaps, we should allow our prophets to step down after 30, 40 or 50 years of faithful service to The Lord.

 

There was some discussion as to whether something like this might happen back in the 1970's which is when they introduced the concept of "emeritus" status for some GAs.  As I recall, and my memory is not perfect, the discussion centered around possibly making certain Apostles at a certain age emeritus and taking them out of the line of potentially becoming successors to the Presidency.  There was concern about the lack of vigor in potential successors to Pres. Kimball whose counselors faded into ill health.  I remember the question being asked at a Priesthood Leadership meeting of Elder Packer whether any more counselors would be called to assist Pres. Kimball, and he indicated that they did not call counselors to the Presidency after the President was no longer vigorous.  I believe that was his tactful way of saying that Pres. Kimball was slipping mentally -- although he never said that.

[Stone holm]

Absolutely, I in no way make the assumption that these men are afraid to take a risk.  The recent Race article shows otherwise.

 

I don't necessarily think they are afraid to take a risk (although that might be a reasonable interpretation of my agreement with Tacenda), but I do believe they are risk adverse.  The recent release with respect to race was not much of a risk, launching an attack on unrestrained capitalism as being contrary to the teachings of Christ -- now that would be a risk.

[Yirgacheffe]

But this is not necessarily what Pres. Uchtdorf is saying.  He seems to be saying that we have beliefs.  These beliefs are believed to be true, they are held and defended.  We never consider that said beliefs might be untrue as that never crosses our mind as we are the true Church and all that I believe in is Doctrine and is true.  He seems to suggest we need to be more open to examining our beliefs and be open to rooting out that which is not true.  That we need to recognize some of our beliefs are false.  Robert Kirby once told a large group of LDS  and a room that included many apologists for the faith that "everyone of you in this room believes something that isn't true".  Do we entrench on our beliefs and defend them to the death or are we really willing to listen and be open to changing those.  Are we really open to truth?  Are we really open to our some of views being false ?

Sorry I probably derailed your point by snipping out all of your post but the small part I quoted.  More to your point isn't this something people do in most aspects of their lives even the most mundane, like the proper way to make bbq pork

[DBMormon]

Sorry I probably derailed your point by snipping out all of your post but the small part I quoted.  More to your point isn't this something people do in most aspects of their lives even the most mundane, like the proper way to make bbq pork

Sure.  I fully agree this is not just a Church issue.  That said, I believe having truth claims as our faith does, we are more likely to retrench and defend rather then really listen to what others have to say when they disagree with our beliefs.  We have many rules in our faith that compel us to be defensive of what we perceive is true and less likely to hear others' truths if they conflict with ours.

Edited December 27, 2013 by DBMormon