Blind Obedience Vs Faith Obedience

[Wanderer7]

Canard (my quote function isn't working),
I think you may have missed the point of my post. I'm sorry it wasn't more clear. The point wasn't to state that we should SEEK to be persecuted, but that we WILL be if we are living a godly life, and therefore that popularity with the world is not a test for the correctness of church teachings. People keep saying we need to back off of same-sex marriage because it brought persecution, but that's not what Christ taught. (Blessed are those who are persecuted for my name's sake?). And why does everything the brethren do and support have to be "official" before it's a revelation? Why can't we just trust the brethren to guide the church aright just be cause the church has had views that we personally don't agree with?

And mormonweb,
I don't doubt that Christ would have some stern things to say to me. I don't doubt that He would be merciful to those caught in sin. However, it's the attitude of church members towards sin and the teachings of the prophets that concerns me. I fear our "prophets aren't perfect" teaching has gone way too far. Sure they aren't perfect, but the Lord trusts them with His church. So should we. 

 

Tacenda,

I disagree. We should not back down on resisting ANY evils. We can't pick and choose just because the world doesn't like it. That's what we're signed up for.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Wanderer7

[canard78]

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.

Could I CFR that they review conf talks? Is that before or after they're given?

[mormonnewb]

Could I CFR that they review conf talks? Is that before or after they're given?

Apparently, conference talks can be edited the Monday after conference. Here is an article describing a slight edit after the last conference:

"During the afternoon conference session on Oct. 5, Christofferson said, "Some feminist thinkers view homemaking with outright contempt, arguing it demeans women and that the relentless demands of raising children are a form of exploitation."

The revised version now reads: "Some view homemaking with outright contempt, arguing it demeans women and that the relentless demands of raising children are a form of exploitation."

Slight editing of conference sermons is not uncommon, LDS Church spokeswoman Ruth Todd said Wednesday. "The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent.""

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56982696-180/conference-lds-feminist-thinkers.html.csp

[canard78]

Apparently, conference talks can be edited the Monday after conference. Here is an article describing a slight edit after the last conference:

"During the afternoon conference session on Oct. 5, Christofferson said, "Some feminist thinkers view homemaking with outright contempt, arguing it demeans women and that the relentless demands of raising children are a form of exploitation."

The revised version now reads: "Some view homemaking with outright contempt, arguing it demeans women and that the relentless demands of raising children are a form of exploitation."

Slight editing of conference sermons is not uncommon, LDS Church spokeswoman Ruth Todd said Wednesday. "The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent.""

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56982696-180/conference-lds-feminist-thinkers.html.csp

She says they do it independently. She doesn't say the 15 review and approve or give a tap on the shoulder.

[canard78]

Canard (my quote function isn't working),

I think you may have missed the point of my post. I'm sorry it wasn't more clear. The point wasn't to state that we should SEEK to be persecuted, but that we WILL be if we are living a godly life, and therefore that popularity with the world is not a test for the correctness of church teachings. People keep saying we need to back off of same-sex marriage because it brought persecution, but that's not what Christ taught. (Blessed are those who are persecuted for my name's sake?). And why does everything the brethren do and support have to be "official" before it's a revelation? Why can't we just trust the brethren to guide the church aright just be cause the church has had views that we personally don't agree with?

.

You seem to have missed the point of mine too. Or sidestepped it. You said we wouldn't be popular for backing God's doctrine (or words to the effect).

I asked for evidence that the following IS/WAS God's doctrine:

- Ban on black men having priesthood

- Ban on interracial marriage

- Ban on black men and women attending the temple (even to do youth baptisms)

- Ban on black men and women having presidency/auxiliary callings, even ones where priesthood is not required (e.g. Primary president)

- Claim that all of the above was due to curse of Cain and/or pre-mortal choices. Taught as doctrine

- The prop8 campaign

I am willing to defend God's doctrine. I don't believe any of the above are/were God's doctrine. I see no evidence for it and lots of evidence against it.

[mormonnewb]

She says they do it independently. She doesn't say the 15 review and approve or give a tap on the shoulder.

 

 

Fair enough.  I see no reason to think that all 15 get together for this purpose.  However, it isn't quite "independent" either.  According to the article, the changes were suggested to Elder Christofferson by "church editors."

 

Church editors had suggested to the apostle that "referencing ‘some feminist thinkers’ would inevitably be read by many as ‘all feminist thinkers,’ " Todd explained in a statement. "Elder Christofferson agreed and has simply clarified his intent."

 

This is pure conjecture but I imagine that "church editors" monitor the buzz from the bloggernacle and suggest small changes like this when they would be helpful.  I also imagine that an apostle could express some concern about a particular statement made by another, but I would suspect that this would be reserved for very extreme cases (i.e., an Elder Packer talk ... yes, I'm kidding).  But, once again, I don't think it's a formal process whereby each of the apostles must sign off on every other apostle's talk.

[DBMormon]

Not sure I posted this quote yet but I felt it was pretty superb and adds to the discussion. 

 

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.
"You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.
"Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted." - Joseph Fielding Smith

 

[Wanderer7]

You seem to have missed the point of mine too. Or sidestepped it. You said we wouldn't be popular for backing God's doctrine (or words to the effect).

I asked for evidence that the following IS/WAS God's doctrine:

- Ban on black men having priesthood

- Ban on interracial marriage

- Ban on black men and women attending the temple (even to do youth baptisms)

- Ban on black men and women having presidency/auxiliary callings, even ones where priesthood is not required (e.g. Primary president)

- Claim that all of the above was due to curse of Cain and/or pre-mortal choices. Taught as doctrine

- The prop8 campaign

I am willing to defend God's doctrine. I don't believe any of the above are/were God's doctrine. I see no evidence for it and lots of evidence against it.

You're welcome to accept or reject anything you want as doctrinal. All I'm saying is that acceptance by the world is a poor yardstick.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Wanderer7

[Wanderer7]

Not sure I posted this quote yet but I felt it was pretty superb and adds to the discussion. 

 

What do those quotes mean in context of this story by Wilford Woodruff?

 

A leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

 

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the [living] oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’

 

 

Because I think the danger is to believe that our interpretation of scripture is scripture. I'm sure that God will not contradict Himself, but we might not understand what has been given or what HASN'T been given, and thus be led astray when the prophet reveals something that is new to us. Take, for instance, D&C 76. That threw many people for a loop, including Brigham Young for a while. It's not really contradictory to the Bible, but it's definitely contradictory to the common reading of the Bible at the time. Same with the Godhead, salvation for the dead, plural marriage, etc.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Wanderer7