Mormondiscussionpodcast On Repercussions Of Priesthood Essay

[Gray]

Bans are common enough through out history. One of the first recorded ones was that only the first born son of a Levite High Priest could hold the Priesthood. Were Nonfirst born son of a Levite High Priest some how less worthy or inferior? Jesus went only to the Jews during his mortal ministry. Were NonJews somehow less worthy or inferior?

 

We don't know why women are denied the Priesthood at this time. But I would assume that it isn't because women are somehow less worthy of inferior.

 

The essay isn't a product of the Church.

 

I have no problem with being out of Africa. Though my genealogy only goes back to 13th Century England. We loose the name in that time.

 

It's quite different to single out one race for a ban (a race, by the way, which we all are related to and which also married into "legitimate" priesthood lines per the scriptures). Singling out one family from the same ethnicity as the rest of the tribe for certain responsibilities doesn't really compare.

 

 

We don't know why women are denied the Priesthood at this time. But I would assume that it isn't because women are somehow less worthy of inferior.

 

Interestingly there is nothing in the scriptures that prohibits a woman from holding the priesthood.

 

 

The essay isn't a product of the Church.

 

 

It was approved by church leadership, which amounts to the same thing.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

I went over this in the previous thread.  But if you believe that simply condemning racism is a disavowal of the ban itself then you do you think that the ban was disavowed in Feb 2012?  Because these are the statements from the church surrounding the statements from Professor Bott that ran in the Washington Post article.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article

 

So would you call these statements a disavowal of the ban?

 

Yes I would!

[Gray]

People who dogmatically insist on uncharitably affixing the label of "racism" years after most people have moved on, can't with any degree of honest self-reflection not view it as race-baiting.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

What's the expiration date for correctly identifying racism as racism?

 

It might help people to move on if there were an official apology. 

[hoo rider]

Perhaps you are right. Beating a dead horse may be productive in that it can build arm strength.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I strongly disagree that Bill is beating a dead horse in his podcast.  I thought his podcast was great and very useful in helping one understand how to deal with "doctrinal" statements from church leaders.  

 

A Winston Churchill quote comes to mind:  "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."    Bill's podcast helped me learn from historical events in the church.  While we (hopefully) will never have another priesthood ban, it seems entirely possible that a church leader may make a statement that is not doctrinal.  It is useful to think about how to deal with such statements.  

[Brian 2.0]

Yes I would!

 

So would you say the the essay is a more detailed statement of the church's position, but it wasn't necessarily a point where the church's position changed? 

 

At some point the church didn't consider the ban was racist (whether or not it was is a different issue), so do you think that the Feb 2012 statements were the point that the church admitted the ban was racist?

[Gray]

So would you say the the essay is a more detailed statement of the church's position, but it wasn't necessarily a point where the church's position changed? 

 

At some point the church didn't consider the ban was racist (whether or not it was is a different issue), so do you think that the Feb 2012 statements were the point that the church admitted the ban was racist?

 

Yes, I think so. 

 

I think the position used to be, racist or not, the ban was of God. 

 

Have they been explicit about it all? No. Probably because there are varying opinions about it among the leadership and the recent statements are a kind of compromise. I expect eventually it will be more explicit, followed by an apology. 

[canard78]

 

 

Blather?  Ignorant?  Thread banned.

 

Thanks mods. I'll leave it at that.

[canard78]

Just so were where you are coming from, do you find the 1949 First Presidency statement and the recent essay to be in agreement or in conflict with one another? Do you see the 1949 statement as stating church doctrine?

 

cdowis won't be joining us for ongoing discussion in this thread.

[Brian 2.0]

cdowis won't be joining us for ongoing discussion in this thread.

Yeah. I posted that before the red ink found him.

[DBMormon]

So then let's go back and discuss how to reconcile the quotes I shared in the previous post in this thread..... anyone?

[Buckeye]

So then let's go back and discuss how to reconcile the quotes I shared in the previous post in this thread..... anyone?

 

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for by way of "reconcile," but here goes. If we assume that the Essay is blessed by our current FP/Q12, then I can't read the 1947 FP Lowry letters and the 1949 FP statement without conclusing that those prophets, seers and revelators mistakenly declared something as the will of the Lord when it was not. I'm not speaking of the ban, of course, but the declarations regarding interracial marriage, pre-existence valiancy, and curse of cain. In 1947-49, those things were officially declared to be truth from God. In 2013-14, they have been disavowed as racist. There's no getting around those facts.

 

Here's is where I come down. Importantly, very importantly, none of the statements in 1947-49 claimed to be based on a direct revelation from God to those individuals. Likewise, I am unaware of any statement by Brigham or other previous leaders declaring that they personally received a revelation on the subjects. Even the ban itself (which in my reading has not been expressly disavowed) was never declared by Brigham or others to be something revealed to them by God.

 

So what was the mistake? It was a mistake of scriptural interpretation. Brigham misread the verses in the OT, BOM, and POGP. His successors did the same until 1978. That's not insignificant by any means. But it's less significant than if a prophet had said "Thus Saith Jehovah" and then 60 years later that teaching was disavowed. I think we are approaching the time when average church members can accept leaders misreading scriptures. In that world, the curse of cain and pre-mortal valiancy teachings will be treated the same as teachings about a global flood, no american inhabitants other than from Lehi/Mulek/Jared, money measurements the Book of Alma, and many other things.

 

Fortunately, we are not yet faced with a disavowal of something a modern prophet claims was revealed to him (e.g., polygamy). Unfortunately, I'm beginning to realize that I will likely never hear in my lifetime the words "Thus Saith Jehovah."

Edited February 20, 2014 by Buckeye

[Brian 2.0]

Here's is where I come down. Importantly, very importantly, none of the statements in 1947-49 claimed to be based on a direct revelation from God to those individuals.

I don't know. The 1949 First Presidency Statements says this...

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization...."

 

I'm not sure how something could be "direct commandment from the Lord" and not be revelation.

 

You could argue I suppose that the ban itself was the direct commandment of the Lord and that doesn't apply to the rest of the statement when talking about the theories and explanations, but in doing that it's gives the ban a revelatory origin.

 

If we assume that the Essay is blessed by our current FP/Q12, then I can't read the 1947 FP Lowry letters and the 1949 FP statement without conclusing that those prophets, seers and revelators mistakenly declared something as the will of the Lord when it was not.

I've been thinking about this a little lately and inherent in this idea is that prophets, seers, and revelators can make mistakes in declaring somethign from God or not.  So why must the mistake be laid upon the past prophets?  Couldn't one argue by the same logic that the CURRENT prophets, seers, and revelators are the one's making the mistake and caving under the "political correctness" pressure of our day?

[Damien the Leper]

It is a part of the maturation process. Not all of the general membership are prepared and ready to move from the fundamental phase of development, where thinking and being taught in absolutes may be critical, to higher levels of learning and development, where thinking and being taught in general rules may be just as critical--think 1 Cor. 13:11. To each in their own due time. The challenge for some older members is in making the transition from how they learned and thought as a child (spiritual or otherwise), and how they may best think and learn as an adult. Some long-time members can't put off the necessarily rigid and fundamentalist mindset of their childhood, and become more flexible and nuanced-minded men--to use Paul's words, and rather than their faith rightly bending somewhat as a reed, it is broken. And, sadly, they mistakenly assume that the break is due to the object of their faith failing, rather than them failing to mature in faith. The good news is, many who have been broken or damaged in faith have finally completed the transition, and their faith is once again restored and even made better. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wow, Wade. This was amazing. Thank you for writing this.

[DBMormon]

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for by way of "reconcile," but here goes. If we assume that the Essay is blessed by our current FP/Q12, then I can't read the 1947 FP Lowry letters and the 1949 FP statement without conclusing that those prophets, seers and revelators mistakenly declared something as the will of the Lord when it was not. I'm not speaking of the ban, of course, but the declarations regarding interracial marriage, pre-existence valiancy, and curse of cain. In 1947-49, those things were officially declared to be truth from God. In 2013-14, they have been disavowed as racist. There's no getting around those facts.

 

Here's is where I come down. Importantly, very importantly, none of the statements in 1947-49 claimed to be based on a direct revelation from God to those individuals. Likewise, I am unaware of any statement by Brigham or other previous leaders declaring that they personally received a revelation on the subjects. Even the ban itself (which in my reading has not been expressly disavowed) was never declared by Brigham or others to be something revealed to them by God.

 

So what was the mistake? It was a mistake of scriptural interpretation. Brigham misread the verses in the OT, BOM, and POGP. His successors did the same until 1978. That's not insignificant by any means. But it's less significant than if a prophet had said "Thus Saith Jehovah" and then 60 years later that teaching was disavowed. I think we are approaching the time when average church members can accept leaders misreading scriptures. In that world, the curse of cain and pre-mortal valiancy teachings will be treated the same as teachings about a global flood, no american inhabitants other than from Lehi/Mulek/Jared, money measurements the Book of Alma, and many other things.

 

Fortunately, we are not yet faced with a disavowal of something a modern prophet claims was revealed to him (e.g., polygamy). Unfortunately, I'm beginning to realize that I will likely never hear in my lifetime the words "Thus Saith Jehovah."

 

Buckeye I fall here as well.  I see the same thing w/ April 6th being Christ's birthday which we have also declared as Doctrine at times.

[DBMormon]

 

I don't know. The 1949 First Presidency Statements says this...

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization...."

 

I'm not sure how something could be "direct commandment from the Lord" and not be revelation.

 

You could argue I suppose that the ban itself was the direct commandment of the Lord and that doesn't apply to the rest of the statement when talking about the theories and explanations, but in doing that it's gives the ban a revelatory origin.

 

I've been thinking about this a little lately and inherent in this idea is that prophets, seers, and revelators can make mistakes in declaring somethign from God or not.  So why must the mistake be laid upon the past prophets?  Couldn't one argue by the same logic that the CURRENT prophets, seers, and revelators are the one's making the mistake and caving under the "political correctness" pressure of our day?

 

 

yes that now becomes a possible option on the table.  Also inherent in these concepts is the idea that we may still have Doctrines today that are misreadings or misunderstandings of current prophets.  That in essence the Doctrines of Today could be the prejudiced theories of tomorrow.

[DBMormon]

yes that now becomes a possible option on the table.  Also inherent in these concepts is the idea that we may still have Doctrines today that are misreadings or misunderstandings of current prophets.  That in essence the Doctrines of Today could be the prejudiced theories of tomorrow.

 

I also think Buckeye makes a valid point in that it is one think to disavow a Doctrine where we have no Documentation of God Directly stating said Doctrine and another where we Disavow a Doctrine where it is undisputed in our Cannon that God gave it.

Edited February 21, 2014 by DBMormon

[Buckeye]

I don't know. The 1949 First Presidency Statements says this...

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization...."

 

I'm not sure how something could be "direct commandment from the Lord" and not be revelation.

 

You could argue I suppose that the ban itself was the direct commandment of the Lord and that doesn't apply to the rest of the statement when talking about the theories and explanations, but in doing that it's gives the ban a revelatory origin.

 

My point is that President George Albert Smith did not say the ban, or its justifications, were a direct commandment from the Lord to him.  If the ban is eventually disavowed, as its justifications have been, the same principle would apply.  President Smith made a mistake in believing the ban was a commandment from the Lord to some prior prophet.  That's a more palatable mistake than believing something was directly revealed to him.

 

 

I've been thinking about this a little lately and inherent in this idea is that prophets, seers, and revelators can make mistakes in declaring somethign from God or not. So why must the mistake be laid upon the past prophets? Couldn't one argue by the same logic that the CURRENT prophets, seers, and revelators are the one's making the mistake and caving under the "political correctness" pressure of our day?

 

 

Generally speaking, yes.  If past leaders can make mistakes, so can present ones.  It could be argued that scriptural interpretation is more advanced now due to scholarly and scientific advances, and so current leaders are less prone to make the same mistakes as prior leaders.  But that just invites the conclusion that future leaders will have more knowledge and thus be less prone to make the mistakes our current leaders do.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

My point is that President George Albert Smith did not say the ban, or its justifications, were a direct commandment from the Lord to him.  If the ban is eventually disavowed, as its justifications have been, the same principle would apply.  President Smith made a mistake in believing the ban was a commandment from the Lord to some prior prophet.  That's a more palatable mistake than believing something was directly revealed to him.

 

 

 

Generally speaking, yes.  If past leaders can make mistakes, so can present ones.  It could be argued that scriptural interpretation is more advanced now due to scholarly and scientific advances, and so current leaders are less prone to make the same mistakes as prior leaders.  But that just invites the conclusion that future leaders will have more knowledge and thus be less prone to make the mistakes our current leaders do.

Brigham Young declared "any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."

This to me sounds awfully like Brigham Young calling on his authority as a prophet in the name of his God that this ban is divinely willed. I'm not sure how much more explicit you can get than this? What would it take for you to think that Brigham thought there was a revelation for this?

 

 

 

So then let's go back and discuss how to reconcile the quotes I shared in the previous post in this thread..... anyone?

 

They are not reconcilable. The truth is that our prophets are looking through the same dark glass as the rest of us. 

Edited February 21, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[california boy]

For me, the bigger issue is the concept of continuous revelation being talked about in other threads.  The whole concept and reason the Mormon church stood out amongst ALL of the other churches in existence is the idea that Christ runs the church through His mouthpiece, a prophet of God.  While the church claims to be founded by such a man, what has happened since?  Is there not a prophet that God speaks to and guides His church since Joseph Smith or not?  Has prophet just become a title?

 

If the church is truly the church of Christ, run by Him through revelation, then where was God when Brigham Young erroneous made such a statement?  Or when John Taylor was prophet, or Heber J. Grant or any of the prophets down to Spencer W. Kimball?  Why did it take over 100 years to clarify or change this issue correctly?  Where is God today?  Was Gordon B. Hinkley or Thomas S Monson a prophet of God or do they just hold the title?  If so, what revelations have they received?  Is there not doctrine or policies in the church today that need clarification from God?  Is the church now run solely on inspiration?  If so, how does the Mormon church differ from any other church on the face of the earth?  Claiming to have a prophet of God is an easy thing to do.  Having a prophet that actually receives revelation seems to be a bit more difficult.  Has the Mormon church just become another Christian religion trying to figure out the will of God through interpreting scriptures and prayer through those same dark glasses?

[Gray]

For me, the bigger issue is the concept of continuous revelation being talked about in other threads.  The whole concept and reason the Mormon church stood out amongst ALL of the other churches in existence is the idea that Christ runs the church through His mouthpiece, a prophet of God.  While the church claims to be founded by such a man, what has happened since?  Is there not a prophet that God speaks to and guides His church since Joseph Smith or not?  Has prophet just become a title?

 

If the church is truly the church of Christ, run by Him through revelation, then where was God when Brigham Young erroneous made such a statement?  Or when John Taylor was prophet, or Heber J. Grant or any of the prophets down to Spencer W. Kimball?  Why did it take over 100 years to clarify or change this issue correctly?  Where is God today?  Was Gordon B. Hinkley or Thomas S Monson a prophet of God or do they just hold the title?  If so, what revelations have they received?  Is there not doctrine or policies in the church today that need clarification from God?  Is the church now run solely on inspiration?  If so, how does the Mormon church differ from any other church on the face of the earth?  Claiming to have a prophet of God is an easy thing to do.  Having a prophet that actually receives revelation seems to be a bit more difficult.  Has the Mormon church just become another Christian religion trying to figure out the will of God through interpreting scriptures and prayer through those same dark glasses?

 

I think it should definitely make us rethink our assumptions about the nature of revelation. Hopefully it will empower many of us to apply our own moral reasoning to  social issues. If there is anything that will train us to be gods, it will be doing that rather than simply going with the flow.

[DBMormon]

Do you ever feel like you pose a serious issue.  You state profcient eveidence for your side, you make a case for the consequences for said issue and offer ways in which we can deal with it and move forward.  Yet individuals either not wanting to be vulnerable to the implications or preferring to simply ignore (out of sight out of mind), simply post no responses.  It is strange.

[Buckeye]

Just because something is serious doesn't mean discussion is fruitful.  Most people are coming around to the idea that global warming is real and serious.  I'm one of them.  But I don't engage in discussions on the subject much, particularly on message boards, because I don't have any great solutions.  Discussing the problem just tends to get me depressed. 

[DBMormon]

Just because something is serious doesn't mean discussion is fruitful.  Most people are coming around to the idea that global warming is real and serious.  I'm one of them.  But I don't engage in discussions on the subject much, particularly on message boards, because I don't have any great solutions.  Discussing the problem just tends to get me depressed. 

 

I get it Buckeye, but people are so willing to butt heads at times with what I say, I am just surprised at the silence from the Conservative LDS.  

 

Mike Tannehill did a recent interview with the podcast "Infants on Thrones"  (episode has lots of vulgar language so listen at your own risk)  But Mike says essentially what I have said except he makes a different conclusion.  He think the Brethren have gone astray in approving this article and he holds to the old theories as still Doctrine.....  

http://infantsonthrones.com/the-unintentional-racist/

[Kevin Christensen]

For me, the bigger issue is the concept of continuous revelation being talked about in other threads.  The whole concept and reason the Mormon church stood out amongst ALL of the other churches in existence is the idea that Christ runs the church through His mouthpiece, a prophet of God.  While the church claims to be founded by such a man, what has happened since?  Is there not a prophet that God speaks to and guides His church since Joseph Smith or not?  Has prophet just become a title?

 

If the church is truly the church of Christ, run by Him through revelation, then where was God when Brigham Young erroneous made such a statement?  Or when John Taylor was prophet, or Heber J. Grant or any of the prophets down to Spencer W. Kimball?  Why did it take over 100 years to clarify or change this issue correctly?  Where is God today?  Was Gordon B. Hinkley or Thomas S Monson a prophet of God or do they just hold the title?  If so, what revelations have they received?  Is there not doctrine or policies in the church today that need clarification from God?  Is the church now run solely on inspiration?  If so, how does the Mormon church differ from any other church on the face of the earth?  Claiming to have a prophet of God is an easy thing to do.  Having a prophet that actually receives revelation seems to be a bit more difficult.  Has the Mormon church just become another Christian religion trying to figure out the will of God through interpreting scriptures and prayer through those same dark glasses?

D&C 1 expressly declares and defines "mine authority, and the authority of my servants."  I have posted on the topic more times than I can count.  D&C 1 expressly declares that revelation is non-exclusive the the LDS (D&C 1:18, 34), and the revelation that comes to the LDS is imperfect and incomplete, that "inasmuch as they have erred, it shall be made known" and that seeking knowledge is a precondition to revelation (verse 26), and that when it comes, it doesn't come all at once, in the manner of divine puppetry (verse 28).

 

Where was God, for instance, in the New Testament, when Peter declared, against Jesus's prediction of the upcoming crucifixion,  "Be it far from thee Lord: This shall not be unto thee" (Matt 16:22)?  The answer, of course, is that God was talking to Peter trying to prepare him to be able to receive and comprehend the information.   Why, we wonder, why aren't we born all at once, with full knowledge and abilities.  Wouldn't that save a lot of mistakes?

 

Prophets do not become boxes with a single input, Divine Omniscience, and a single output, Divine Omniscience. Back in RBBM 2, I had this:

 

Joseph himself said, "A prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such."³⁸ The Book of Mormon itself argues that on some matters a prophet might suppose he understood, and not ask, and therefore not receive revelation (see 3 Nephi 15:15-23 on the matter of other sheep). Even revelation may not be all-encompassing. Nephi says of Lehi's experience of a vision, "so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water" (1 Nephi 15:27). Nephi writes of himself "And now, if I do err, even they did err of old" (1 Nephi 19:6).

Alma is especially instructive on the nature and extent and sources for prophetic knowledge:

Now as to this thing I do not know. . . . But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me. (Alma 7:8-9)

Now I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know. . . . Now when this time cometh no one knows. . . . Now, whether there shall be one time, or a second time, or a third time, . . . it mattereth not; for God knoweth all things; and it sufficeth me to know in this case . . . what becometh of the souls of men is the thing which I have inquired diligently to know; and this is the thing of which I do know. . . . Behold it has been made known unto me by an angel. . . . Now, whether . . . I do not say; let it suffice, that . . . I do not say that . . . but behold, I give it as my opinion." (Alma 40:3-5, 9, 11, 19-20)

 

Anomally, Kuhn observes, emerges against a background of expectation.  People keep complaining about the prophets not living up to their expectations, and I keep asking, where exactly did you get your expectations?  Are they realistic?  Or perhaps do they happen to depict earlier stages of the Perry Scheme, rather than the far more realistic, tolerant, and robust description that appears in the scriptures? 

 

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. 

 

For decades and in vain, it seems, I've been pointing out that an insistence on perfection has the inevitable effect of making imperfection, and only that, appear decisive.  So it also seems to me that such a powerful rhetorical advantage is simply to good to dillute by way of removing such a beam from one's one eyes. 

 

 

Transition 1.  The person can make the transition by modifying dualism  drastically to where one no longer trusts authority to have any answers, and they think it will be a long, long time before they will; therefore, there is really no way to be judged by them.  Bitterness sets in, as it seems as if rewards don't come by hard work and rightness, but by good expression and arbitrary factors.  With an inability to distinguish between abstract thought and "bull", disillusion settles and blinds the person to where they become dangerously cynical and take advantage of any opportunity to get gain.

 

Transition 2.  The person could decide that, if there are so many different answers a depending on individual perspective, that it is impossible for any true judgment; therefore anything goes.  All is of equal value.  To have an opinion makes it right.

 

And a bit further along:

 

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate).  He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness.  He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

 

If the person at this point doesn't retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING.  His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement.  He may reconsign agency to some possible event.  If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with.

 

Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE.  He becomes apathetic.  His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life.  This drifting with insecurity about "goodness" of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement.  He starts to rely on impulse.  THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION.  "For the students reporting their recovery of care,...their period of alienation appears as a time of transition.  In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world's appearance.  It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith.  In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside." (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.)

 

I argued at length in my essay, Sophic Box and Mantic Vista, in Interpreter vol 7 that the LDS scriptures clearly nudge and direct us towards Position 9.  But of course, most people aren't there yet, and that has the effect of raising a mist of darkness, to that people loose sight of where they ought to be going. So, holding to the rod helps far more than getting embarressed and ashamed when people mock and point.

 

Why put my trust in a person who is not absolutely perfect?  (As if, my ability to discern another's imperfections automatically puts me closer to God, perhaps even on the throne myself.) Well, truth be told, I don't.  God doesn't ask me to.  Jeremiah 17:5-8, for instance, talks about what happens to those who trust the arm of the flesh.  What God does ask me to do is to Sustain those he calls as prophets, bishops, Stake Presidents, and whatever.

  Check a good dictionary for "sustain."

 

1. to keep up; maintain prolong.

2. to supply as with food or provisions.

3. to hold up, support

4. to bear, endure

5. to suffer; experience: “She sustained a broken leg.”

6. to allow: to admit, to favor

7. to agree with; confirm

If I permit myself to consider the full range of meanings for the word “sustain” I can also see a full range of options to employ in dealing with other LDS members in all their varieties of temperament, maturity, and level and quality of knowledge.  I have no problem sustaining the leadership of the church, because I trust the Lord knows his business in calling them.

 

Just so, if I take seriously Jesus's explicit definition of what is doctrine (3 Nephi 11:31-39), and what is not doctrine (verse 40), I'm able to build on a rock, rather than a sandy foundation.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

 

Edited February 22, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[DBMormon]

Kevin, What do you make of these quotes in reconciling them.  And as a backdrop before I post them, I see part of the problem is the effort our institution makes to make itself come off as mistake free.  We rarely acknowledge mistakes and certainly even more rarely are specific about them.  I agree that D&C one makes a much more flexible paradigm for us to live in but I don't feel like leaders really want us to see the Church in that light.

 

Quote number one - The scripture you share -

 "inasmuch as they have erred, it shall be made known"

 

 

Compare that with these

 

When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working
against the Lord and his cause.George Franklin Richards, Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24; Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985

 

 

It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true.Dallin H. Oaks, 'Criticism,' Latter‑day Saint Student Association fireside in the Salt Lake Tabernacle

 

 

This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.

 

 

 

There are others and yes I don't see this as apples to apples in most cases.  But sometimes to really get down to making errors known as D&C 1 implies we have to be critical of the opinions and who said them of the past.  How do we get to a living by D&C 1 when the Church would rather us stay silent on the matter.  I for one can never again be an echo chamber.

 

I value your thoughts Kevin and look forward to them.

Edited February 22, 2014 by DBMormon