Blind Obedience Vs Faith Obedience

[Paddy]

DB

It is interesting that of all the quotes you used the only one that is remotely canonical is the quote by Woodruff, which makes the other quotes difficult to reconcile. The fact that the woodruff quote is canonical has ensured that greater emphasis is placed on it and has hence led to talks like the 14 fundamentals.

There is a real tension that exists between the quotes you provided and it reflects greatly on how we view the role of the FP and Q12. I don't believe I have reconciled the two sides and yet I seem to be happy with the dichotomy. In other words it doesn't bother me much. I am left wondering if it should??

Edited March 19, 2014 by Paddy

[MiserereNobis]

That's an excellent summary of the Church's teachings on what it means when we are told to "search, ponder and pray". 

 

 

 

Here's how it actually works in a flowchart.  It's fun to pretend that the "No" node leads to a box titled "You don't have to believe it then."  But it doesn't.

 

I like it, especially since it applies to the Catholic Church and not the LDS one.

 

[mfbukowski]

ah well I was a missionary in LA when the whole Prop 22 and as I recall that whole engagement was voluntary. I don't recall hearing about it from the pulpit but only really hearing about it from the membership and who knows what was said was even true

 

we'll see!

Hey- we gotta know a whole lot of people in common since I knew a whole lot of LA missionaries during that period.  Assume you meant prop 8

[Duncan]

Hey- we gotta know a whole lot of people in common since I knew a whole lot of LA missionaries during that period.  Assume you meant prop 8

 

 

Prop 22! I was there 98-2000

[mfbukowski]

Prop 22! I was there 98-2000

Ah, OK I had to look it up to remember what it was.

 

Prop 8 was a much bigger deal as far as church involvement.

[Duncan]

Ah, OK I had to look it up to remember what it was.

 

Prop 8 was a much bigger deal as far as church involvement.

 

for sure!

[Wanderer7]

Soliciting our support of Prop 8 MAY turn out to be something that "leads the Church astray." I suspect that our decision to enter into the fray will permanently brand us as that "homophobic church" and make it almost impossible for some to receive the gospel, just as being branded as a "racist church" makes it very difficult for us to effectively share the Gospel with African Americans. In my view, this was an "unforced error," but let's hope that history proves me wrong (as usual).

 

I fail to see how Prop 8 or the priesthood policies were errors simply because others disapproved. Since when were the Lord's people popular? 

[mfbukowski]

I fail to see how Prop 8 or the priesthood policies were errors simply because others disapproved. Since when were the Lord's people popular? 

Never.

[canard78]

I fail to see how Prop 8 or the priesthood policies were errors simply because others disapproved. Since when were the Lord's people popular?

Got to love a persecution complex.

How about banning inter-racial marriage (as a matter of doctrine)?

How about teaching the ban was due to curse of Cain or pre-mortal lack of valiance?

Excluding black people from auxiliary callings and temple baptisms (priesthood not required for either)? Revealed or not?

Could you perhaps cite a revelation for the ban's introduction rather than 100 years of assumptions which seems more evident. Any revelation for prop8?

[mormonnewb]

I fail to see how Prop 8 or the priesthood policies were errors simply because others disapproved. Since when were the Lord's people popular?

I believe the Great Commission is to go out into the world and create disciples; not to go out to deliberate upset others with our judgmental ways. This idea that we should be social outcasts is not at all helpful to our main mission; nor is it Christlike.

Christ wasn't killed because he stood up to the sinners of His day. He was killed because He stood AGAINST the righteous. He continually pointed out their hypocrisy until they no longer could stand the scrutiny.

If He lived today, WHO do you think he would be castigating in the public square -- the prostitute, singer mother, or gay couple? Or would he be pointing out the hypocrisy of the stake president, priest or rabbi? Sadly, I suspect He would be about as popular with us as He was with the religious people of His day.

And, ironically, He would be loved by the very people that so many of us seek to be unpopular with. Remember, it was the prostitute who washed His feet with her hair while the equivalent of a general authority did not even kiss Him in greeting.

[DBMormon]

The part in red (above) is all that really matters.  When you come right down to it, we have a lot of room to dissent (albeit privately).

 

A helpful paradigm for me is realize that we really only must follow doctrine.  For what is doctrine, I like Elder Christensen's comment that doctrine is taught by all 15 prophets/seers/revelators.  If all 15 are teaching it, you ought to do it.  There seems to be wiggle room for independent thinking if only 1 or 2 are teaching something.  

 

As an example, in October 2001 General Conference President Hinckley said that we ought to support the President (meaning President Bush).  If someone decided to vote against Bush at the next election, or participate in an anti-war protest, does anyone really think doing so would affect their standing in the church and/or their eternal salvation?  I don't think it would.  And frankly, I don't think it is/was doctrine to support President Bush.  I take it as a good idea to be used for a short period, with lots of room for disagreement.  

 

How do you find out if all 15 men believe something to be Doctrine?

[Bob Crockett]

I believe the Great Commission is to go out into the world and create disciples; not to go out to deliberate upset others with our judgmental ways. This idea that we should be social outcasts is not at all helpful to our main mission; nor is it Christlike.

Christ wasn't killed because he stood up to the sinners of His day. He was killed because He stood AGAINST the righteous. He continually pointed out their hypocrisy until they no longer could stand the scrutiny.

If He lived today, WHO do you think he would be castigating in the public square -- the prostitute, singer mother, or gay couple? Or would he be pointing out the hypocrisy of the stake president, priest or rabbi? Sadly, I suspect He would be about as popular with us as He was with the religious people of His day.

And, ironically, He would be loved by the very people that so many of us seek to be unpopular with. Remember, it was the prostitute who washed His feet with her hair while the equivalent of a general authority did not even kiss Him in greeting.

I call this a New Age way of looking at the New Testament. People forget that he used whips to clear the temple, foretold that pregnant women would suffer when He came again, entered the Garden of Gethsemane with an armed retinue and the like. I would certainly disagree with the notion that he stood against the righteous. He was using sarcasm when he told the Jews the righteous need not repent.

And all of his friends abandoned him, including the ones you list, by the time he entered Jerusalem the second time.

Certainly He did intend to upset others by condemning the popular ways and the local power structure. He was crucified for upsetting the political power structure.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

How do you find out if all 15 men believe something to be Doctrine?

It isn't what they believe but what they put their names to. The Q12 and FP meet weekly to approve many items including publications, websites, PR efforts, proclamations, opening of new areas. Look to what is on the website. They approved that, including conference talks. If they don't like a conference talk it gets edited.

[jaxenro]

I believe the Great Commission is to go out into the world and create disciples; not to go out to deliberate upset others with our judgmental ways. This idea that we should be social outcasts is not at all helpful to our main mission; nor is it Christlike.

Christ wasn't killed because he stood up to the sinners of His day. He was killed because He stood AGAINST the righteous. He continually pointed out their hypocrisy until they no longer could stand the scrutiny.

If He lived today, WHO do you think he would be castigating in the public square -- the prostitute, singer mother, or gay couple? Or would he be pointing out the hypocrisy of the stake president, priest or rabbi? Sadly, I suspect He would be about as popular with us as He was with the religious people of His day.

And, ironically, He would be loved by the very people that so many of us seek to be unpopular with. Remember, it was the prostitute who washed His feet with her hair while the equivalent of a general authority did not even kiss Him in greeting.

Bit harsh isnt it? Somehow I don't think of President Monson as a Pharisee.

[Tacenda]

Ah, OK I had to look it up to remember what it was.

Prop 8 was a much bigger deal as far as church involvement.

My son was right in the midst of it while serving in the Oakland CA mission. Where I saw all the people protesting right after the vote, outside the Oakland temple. He was somewhat a target, and I was worried for his safety.

I think the church might want to be active in other ways, such as anti hunger, or anti pornography causes from now on.

[mormonnewb]

Bit harsh isnt it? Somehow I don't think of President Monson as a Pharisee.

Neither do I. That's why I didn't use him as an example in my post. As for the rest of it, do you see where we might be a little off base with this whole "we're righteous if the sinners hate us" mentality we sometimes like to adopt?

[MiserereNobis]

Neither do I. That's why I didn't use him as an example in my post. As for the rest of it, do you see where we might be a little off base with this whole "we're righteous if the sinners hate us" mentality we sometimes like to adopt?

 

Yes.  That attitude confirms anyone in their position.  The Westboro Baptist Church, for example, says the fact that they are hated and reviled simply fulfills Jesus's words and proves that they are His true disciples.

[jaxenro]

Neither do I. That's why I didn't use him as an example in my post. As for the rest of it, do you see where we might be a little off base with this whole "we're righteous if the sinners hate us" mentality we sometimes like to adopt?

I think there can be a sense of smugness about some members of the Church but then again they are only human. I also see a sense of smugness about some of the detractors as well.

[jaxenro]

I do differ that Christ was killed because He stood against the "righteous". Ther was nothing righteous about the priests that caused his physical death and I think the comparison to today's GA's a bit overblown

[MiserereNobis]

I do differ that Christ was killed because He stood against the "righteous". Ther was nothing righteous about the priests that caused his physical death and I think the comparison to today's GA's a bit overblown

 

How about this:  Christ stood against those who appeared righteous.  The whited sepulchres of the world.  He seemed to have much more mercy for the poor and sinful.  The rich moneymakers got driven out of the temple and the powerful religious authorities received some pretty harsh words from him.

[mormonnewb]

I call this a New Age way of looking at the New Testament. People forget that he used whips to clear the temple, foretold that pregnant women would suffer when He came again, entered the Garden of Gethsemane with an armed retinue and the like. I would certainly disagree with the notion that he stood against the righteous. He was using sarcasm when he told the Jews the righteous need not repent.

And all of his friends abandoned him, including the ones you list, by the time he entered Jerusalem the second time.

Certainly He did intend to upset others by condemning the popular ways and the local power structure. He was crucified for upsetting the political power structure.

So do we agree or disagree? My point is that Christ was far more interested in confronting the hypocrisy of the so-called "righteous" and than the wickedness of the sinners.

The very examples you cite point to this. Christ used whips to drive the money changers out of the TEMPLE; not to drive the prostitutes out of the brothel. He brought an armed retinue to Gethsemane in anticipation of a confrontation with religious leaders; not tax collectors and thieves.

And as for Christ being killed for political insurrection, that's like saying that JS was killed for destruction of private property. Sure, it might have been the official "charge" on his death warrant, but it isn't the reason that the religious leaders wanted him dead. In fact, if I remember correctly, the original plot was hatched after the whole money changer incident in the temple; not after a Tea Party rally.

[mormonnewb]

I do differ that Christ was killed because He stood against the "righteous". Ther was nothing righteous about the priests that caused his physical death and I think the comparison to today's GA's a bit overblown

To be clear, I mentioned that the man in the story was the "equivalent of a GA." I was simply trying to put his relative rank and position into a modern context. I was not trying to impugn our current GAs, but rather to emphasize that the man in the story was not just a rank-and-file member in the pews.

As for the "righteous," I think we should remember that the Pharisees were the commandment keepers of Judaism. In Mormon parlance, they were all "worthy" members who held valid TRs. In other words, they weren't "wicked."

I don't think that Jesus gave them such a hard time because they were "worse" than the tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. I think He was confronting their pridefulness. I also suspect that He held them to a higher standard because they should have "known better."

I imagine that if He were here today, it would be similar. He would be confronting us "worthy" folks about our pridefulness. I also suspect that, while He would not be pleased with the "wicked," He would reserve His harshest criticism for those of us who should know better.

Of course, whenever I try to put myself into the mind of Christ, I'm walking out on a VERY shaky limb, so I'll just stop here.

[jaxenro]

Posting is an imperfect medium lets say we are probably closer than further apart and in person would probably converse and agree

Christ seemed to reserve a special scorn for hypocrites more than those who fell via human frialities

[MiserereNobis]

Christ seemed to reserve a special scorn for hypocrites more than those who fell via human frialities

 

Which is one reason why Dante placed the sins of the flesh (lush, gluttony, etc) in a lesser place than sins of pride.  In his Purgatorio, pride is the first sin of the 7 deadly sins to be cleansed, while lust is the last.  This means that pride is a greater sin than lust.

 

Sometimes I think we attack human frailties (lust, gluttony, etc) because they are so much easier to point at then the sins of the spirit (pride, envy, etc).  They are easier to see, so to speak.  And then, the kicker might be that the sins of the spirit goad us on to point out the sins of the flesh in others.

 

Yikes!  Thank God for penance and forgiveness

[hoo rider]

How do you find out if all 15 men believe something to be Doctrine?

 

In my opinion - if they are teaching something without qualifiers in a public meeting, especially a public meeting for the entire church, then they believe it is doctrine.

 

I look for qualifiers to determine whether it might not be doctrine and/or apply to everyone.  For example, if they start with the phrase "I believe" then that indicates it is a personal opinion.  As another example, if they say "In our family..." then they are talking about something that they have found useful, but isn't a commandment for all to follow.