Have You Seen The Graphic? Here's The Story.

[rockpond]

That is incorrect. I view the Church leaders as having divine investiture, and thus speak for God. Speaking for God is not the same as being God. Perhaps you may one day grasp the nuanced distinction.

 

 

I think the disagreement has more to do with certain members presuming they can see through the glass darkly far better than Church leaders. Their's is the all-seeing eye of the god of their own making.

 

 

 

Again, I don't worship our current Church leaders as Gods, but as God's authoritative representative on earth. This is how God has set things up and laid the foundation of his earthly kingdom, and it bears no similarity to the gods and self-appointed hierarchies of other members own making.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

So Elder Oaks was speaking for God in that conference address?  Are there any qualifications or does he just need to speak?

[rockpond]

My comment wasn't offered as a counter argument, but as an expression of the futility of engaging in argumentation with certain people. So, no, it was not ad hominem. It was um fructibus fugam (i.e. counter-productivity avoidance), but nice nevertheless.

 

 

I will note that you will invariably see it that way.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You implicitly accused me of placing myself above God.  That is an attack on me, not a response to points I raised in the discussion.  If you weren't responding to the discussion at hand, then you ought to do it in a private message... I think it brings down the level of discourse when we insert that kind of commentary here.

 

If you feel it is futile to debate with me, feel free to avoid my posts.

[Senator]

So Elder Oaks was speaking for God in that conference address?  

 

I think it apparent that the simple answer to that question is, yes.

 

Whether he is actually speaking the mind of God is irrelevant. 

[JDave]

CV75, for some reason I can't quote at the moment.

 

Anyway, I agree with you that Elder Oaks' talk was very clear, and very helpful.  And whether someone can point to a particular verse or not to support it, I agree with the statement he made: "The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood."  I appreciate the description of priesthood keys, authority, and blessings.  I think it provides a definitive statement on the matter.

 

If some member has the same ability as me to understand Elder Oaks' talk, and yet hopes that God has some further plans for this dispensation to allow women confirmations, I allow them that hope without judging them to be double-minded or spiritually unstable.  If they choose to prove they are unstable (such as the OW antics), then I will allow them to prove that instability to me and hope that they find peace somehow within the Church and the gospel.  I will allow equal opportunity for people to have such hopes and also prove they are stable, by focusing of responsibilities and drawing near to Christ, by serving faithfully within the priesthood authority they are already given and being grateful for the priesthood blessings they currently enjoy and seek out.

[wenglund]

So Elder Oaks was speaking for God in that conference address?

 

I have no personal reason to doubt that he was, and far more reason to doubt whether I am in a good position to speak for God or even in a good position to doubt whether Elder Oaks was speaking for God. I humbly trust in God, and will happily wait until He makes it evident one way or the other if or when He sees fit.

 

 

Are there any qualifications or does he just need to speak?

 

Again, at this point I have no personal reason to qualify whether he spoke for God or not, and will humbly trust that he did until God makes it evident one way or the other if or when He sees fit. I am not so prideful as to presume to suppose I need to judge one way or another at this time. My inclination is to listen and learn and grow rather than steady the ark or dispute..

 

But, to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 18, 2014 by wenglund

[rockpond]

I have no personal reason to doubt that he was, and far more reason to doubt whether I am in a good position to speak for God or even in a good position to doubt whether Elder Oaks was speaking for God. I humbly trust in God, and will happily wait until He makes it evident one way or the other if or when He sees fit.

 

 

 

Again, at this point I have no personal reason to qualify whether he spoke for God or not, and will humbly trust that he did until God makes it evident one way or the other if or when He sees fit. I am not so prideful as to presume to suppose I need to judge one way or another at this time. My inclination is to listen and learn and grow rather than steady the ark or dispute..

 

But, to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Fair enough.  My position is that I feel commanded to not "trust in the arm of the flesh" but to seek personal spiritual confirmation of their words.  So my default position is not that they are speaking the will & mind of God but that they are speaking as men until the Spirit tells me otherwise.

[wenglund]

Fair enough.  My position is that I feel commanded to not "trust in the arm of the flesh" but to seek personal spiritual confirmation of their words.  So my default position is not that they are speaking the will & mind of God but that they are speaking as men until the Spirit tells me otherwise.

 

So, your default position is one of distrust and rejection rather than faith in God's chosen leaders. That certainly explains a lot.

 

Said another way, your default position is to ironically place trust and faith in your own fleshy arm until the Spirit tells you to trust in the words of God's earthy spokespersons otherwise.

 

Your pride-based default position is radically divergent from the gospel and foundation of the Church of humble faith that the Spirit has led me to believe in, but again to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 18, 2014 by wenglund

[rockpond]

So, your default position is one of distrust and rejection rather than faith in God's chosen leaders. That certainly explains a lot.

 

Said another way, your default position is to ironically place trust and faith in your own fleshy arm until the Spirit tells you to trust in the words of God's earthy spokespersons otherwise.

 

Your pride-based default position is radically divergent from the gospel and foundation of the Church of humble faith that the Spirit has led me to believe in, but again to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

No distrust.  No rejection.  I listen.  I sustain.  I seek confirmation from the Spirit.

 

I don't assume that what they speak is automatically the will of the Lord -- they are still mortals and are fallible.  They, the prophets and apostles themselves, have taught me that I am not to assume that everything they speak is eternal truth.

[JDave]

rockpond,

I would also suggest, though perhaps less stridently, that you rethink your default position.  I think sustaining the leaders means that we assume they are speaking truth and we seek the Spirit to confirm that.

[rockpond]

rockpond,

I would also suggest, though perhaps less stridently, that you rethink your default position.  I think sustaining the leaders means that we assume they are speaking truth and we seek the Spirit to confirm that.

 

I used to do that.  But when I realized that they sometimes don't speak truth*, it came as too crushing of a blow to my faith.  I can't go back to that way of thinking.

 

* Truth here is referring to "eternal truth" and/or "will of God" type truth.  I am not accusing them of lying.  They are great men, doing their best to magnify their callings and priesthood office.

[wenglund]

No distrust.  No rejection.  I listen.  I sustain.  I seek confirmation from the Spirit.

 

I don't assume that what they speak is automatically the will of the Lord -- they are still mortals and are fallible.  They, the prophets and apostles themselves, have taught me that I am not to assume that everything they speak is eternal truth.

 

You clearly said that you were commanded by God not to trust, and yet now you say it isn't about distrust. Which side of your fleshly mouth should I trust is your default position?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

You clearly said that you were commanded by God not to trust, and yet now you say it isn't about distrust. Which side of your fleshly mouth should I trust is your default position?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I trust them to be serving faithfully in their calling & office.  If I didn't have trust, I wouldn't spend two weekends a year listening to them or weeks afterwards reviewing & studying their messages.  If I didn't trust them, I wouldn't plan sacrament meetings and lessons around their talks.

 

But when it comes to trusting what is and is not eternal truth -- there is only one source.

[wenglund]

I used to do that.  But when I realized that they sometimes don't speak truth*, it came as too crushing of a blow to my faith.  I can't go back to that way of thinking.

 

I don't know that trading one fundamentalist extreme for another will ultimately work any better for you faith, but I wish you well in your chosen faith journey.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

I don't know that trading one fundamentalist extreme for another will ultimately work any better for you faith, but I wish you well in your chosen faith journey.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Well, it's allowed me to stay in the church.  I couldn't continue living the "fundamentalist extreme" that seems to be your position.  But if it works for you -- please stay with it.

[Senator]

You clearly said that you were commanded by God not to trust, and yet now you say it isn't about distrust. Which side of your fleshly mouth should I trust is your default position?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Your just full of ridicule today.

 

 

 

 

[Oh, the irony of what I just said]

[wenglund]

I trust them to be serving faithfully in their calling & office.  If I didn't have trust, I wouldn't spend two weekends a year listening to them or weeks afterwards reviewing & studying their messages.  If I didn't trust them, I wouldn't plan sacrament meetings and lessons around their talks.

 

But when it comes to trusting what is and is not eternal truth -- there is only one source.

 

I agree that there is ultimately but one source, though there are various channels, and many more receivers.

 

Where you and I apparently differ is in the extent of our faith and trust (or lake thereof) in certain channels as compared with our faith and trust in our own personal selfs as receivers. By your own words, your default position distrust the leaders of the Church and in turn place inordinate amounts of trust in yourself as a receiver, whereas my faith and trust is the inverse. Whether you realize or acknowledge it or not, your default position put far greater faith in your own arm of flesh as a receiver than it does in the supposed arm of Church leaders as a channel (I would hardly consider mouth pieces of God as "arms of flesh"). This is pride rather than humility, pure and simple.You need to own up to it.

 

Either way, to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

I agree that there is ultimately but one source, though there are various channels, and many more receivers.

 

Where you and I apparently differ is in the extent of our faith and trust (or lake thereof) in certain channels as compared with our faith and trust in our own personal selfs as receivers. By your own words, your default position distrust the leaders of the Church and in turn place inordinate amounts of trust in yourself as a receiver, whereas my faith and trust is the inverse. Whether you realize or acknowledge it or not, your default position put far greater faith in your own arm of flesh as a receiver than it does in the supposed arm of Church leaders as a channel (I would hardly consider mouth pieces of God as "arms of flesh"). This is pride rather than humility, pure and simple.You need to own up to it.

 

Either way, to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

I question my ability as "receiver" constantly, but are we not supposed to be developing our ability to receive the Comforter to teach us truth?  I am always working on that.

 

If I consider their words to be those of God when they are actually speaking as men, I have trusted in the arm of flesh.

 

It was a nice place to be when I believed that the 15 were always mouth pieces of God.  Simpler times.  I didn't one day make the decision to lose that belief.  It was ripped from me, by the same men who I believed to be mouth pieces of God.

[canard78]

“Give a critic an inch, he'll write a play.” (John Steinbeck)

 

The “divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood” is found in the scriptures I mentioned above, and throughout our canon. Do a word search on lds.org of various male nouns and pronouns and priesthood.

 

“Withholding” is a matter of perspective—it can be something that is due or merely something that is desired.  The scriptures testify of God’s plan, which is first what He wants to give us (that which is due on conditions of righteousness) and secondly what He inspires us to desire (also on conditions of righteousness). The scriptural pattern is no more a withholding of priesthood office to women as it is a withholding of relief society or primary office to men (all fall under the purview of the keys).

 

Similarly, note how “desire” is used in OD-2. The “promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” are “that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood” indicates that the priesthood was due, and so the desire thus divinely inspired. There have never been such promises, scriptural or elsewhere, that all our sisters may receive priesthood conferral and office.

 

OK, CFR. Show me the actual reference that says women can never be ordained to a priesthood office. There's nothing in the references in your previous post.

[canard78]

This certainly holds true for members who believe in prophets and apostles to lead the Church more than they believe in themselves.

 

However, when certain members position themselves above the leaders, and thus above God, the question remains open until the Church and leaders and God eventually bow down to them.

 

If you haven't figured out already, I think you will find that rockpond and several other participants to be entirely unyielding in their contra-positions, and deaf to what others of us may say say in support of the Church and God.

 

This make some sense since, if they are disinclined to listen to Church leaders and God more than to themselves, then they have far less reason to listen to us lowly members.

 

Now, they may claim to defer to God, and in some respects this is true since they evidently worships gods of their own making--i.e. themselves. So much for the first of the ten commandments.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You were doing so well. I'd even agreed with a lot of what you'd said on a previous comment. Then you just become obnoxious. It's little wonder that people who come to this board with questions turn around and look elsewhere when there are offensive comments like yours lingering like an unwanted, 3-hour old, unchanged nappy (daiper for the Americans).

 

"Some members" simply lose confidence in the leaders' ability to speak for God. I'm certainly not putting myself above God, nor am I putting myself above the leaders even. Instead I'm willing to listen to other people (including leaders), consider their words and then ultimately petition God directly for guidance.

 

Do you really believe that when a prophet speaks it as if God is speaking? When? How often?

[wenglund]

Well, it's allowed me to stay in the church.  I couldn't continue living the "fundamentalist extreme" that seems to be your position.  But if it works for you -- please stay with it.

 

It isn't a fundamentalist extreme to allow for some measure of fallibility in church leaders, and even more so for the general membership. Rather, it is a part of spiritual maturation.

 

It is also not fundamentalist to put supposed mistakes of leaders into perspective along with all that they have gotten right. This, too, is a part of spiritual maturation.

 

Unlike with you, my faith hasn't experienced a crush blow, but has actual grown and strengthened in light of and perhaps in spite of the supposed mistakes of Church leaders.

 

Such is the test of faith--it can either be a crushing blow or a way of strengthening, with the difference oft resting on the pride or humility of person being tested. Faith is not crushed in humility.

 

And, while I am pleased that you found a way to stay in the Church, it isn't a particularly lasting and fulfilling way to stay, and it is yet at risk of being crushed again.

 

In order to have lasting and edifying faith, it requires shifting from pride to humility, or rather shifting trust and faith more to God's chosen leader than in oneself, which comes from maturing towards a more flexible and balanced perspective rather than a rigid and fundamentalist perspective.

 

In other words, it requires a default position of humility, where one of the struts of Christ's church is more inclined to defer to the foundation than to himself.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Rockpond, you're a better man than I !!

[frank_jessop]

It isn't a fundamentalist extreme to allow for some measure of fallibility in church leaders, and even more so for the general membership. Rather, it is a part of spiritual maturation.

It is also not fundamentalist to put supposed mistakes of leaders into perspective along with all that they have gotten right. This, too, is a part of spiritual maturation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is laughable.

You, along with others shout "anti-mormon mag, anti-mormon mag" from the roof tops because a reporter made a mistake or should be we say "supposed mistake".

Yet you bend over backwards to dismiss mistakes opps "supposed mistakes of leaders" and claim it is sign of your spiritual maturity. How utterly ridiculous. I can see now, why no one was willing to tackle the question I posed about the error of the reporter v the mistakes of the presiding authorities.

It appears I was correct in that dismissing the reporter it is a matter of convenience rather than a matter of principle.

Edited April 18, 2014 by frank_jessop

[rockpond]

It isn't a fundamentalist extreme to allow for some measure of fallibility in church leaders, and even more so for the general membership. Rather, it is a part of spiritual maturation.

 

It is also not fundamentalist to put supposed mistakes of leaders into perspective along with all that they have gotten right. This, too, is a part of spiritual maturation.

 

Unlike with you, my faith hasn't experienced a crush blow, but has actual grown and strengthened in light of and perhaps in spite of the supposed mistakes of Church leaders.

 

Such is the test of faith--it can either be a crushing blow or a way of strengthening, with the difference oft resting on the pride or humility of person being tested. Faith is not crushed in humility.

 

And, while I am pleased that you found a way to stay in the Church, it isn't a particularly lasting and fulfilling way to stay, and it is yet at risk of being crushed again.

 

In order to have lasting and edifying faith, it requires shifting from pride to humility, or rather shifting trust and faith more to God's chosen leader than in oneself, which comes from maturing towards a more flexible and balanced perspective rather than a rigid and fundamentalist perspective.

 

In other words, it requires a default position of humility, where one of the struts of Christ's church is more inclined to defer to the foundation than to himself.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

If this is how you feel (what I bolded above) than you and I are closer than you may think because that's a good description of where I am.

 

And, my faith has come out much stronger after the crisis.

 

As for you continuing to call me prideful, you don't know me.  I'd ask that you kindly stop leveling the personal accusations.

[Calm]

So, your default position is one of distrust and rejection rather than faith in God's chosen leaders.

That isn't what he said. Listening and seeking confirmation before making a decision is not distrusting or rejection, it is a position of patience and exploration and caution, but if he hasn't made a decision yet and won't until he has a confirmation there is no way that can be termed a default position of rejection.

And I think realizing that our leaders do at times, many times, speak their own opinion and therefore assuming that the Spirit will confirm when they speak with the Spirit is something that I think follows our teachings rather well…"search, ponder and pray" is not equivalent by a long shot imo to 'assume they are correct and seek out the Spirit to confirm if it is wrong'.

PS: even if the Spirit doesn't confirm the words as the words that God wants one to hear, that doesn't mean he rejects it automatically, that just means he uses a different standard to evaluate it.

Edited April 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

I question my ability as "receiver" constantly, but are we not supposed to be developing our ability to receive the Comforter to teach us truth? 

 

 

Yes, but through humility and not pride, and through the channels God has established.

 

There is little hope of being an effective receiver if we lack faith and trust in the channels through with the "Comforter" is want to work, or where we place greater trust and faith in our own self as a receiver than we do the channels God has set up for us to develop to that end.

 

Said another way, we are supposed to become Gods, but we wont ultimately get to that lofty station by reliance more so on our own selves instead of upon the vehicle God has provided for us to make the journey.

 

Granted, metaphorically, there is an outside chance that we may be able to swim across the Atlantic ocean, but what would be the point when there is a proven and reliable 747 at hand?

 

It is not coincidental that in the grand scheme of things children have parents and teachers rather than being left to mature to adulthood on their own. Children not only need role models, but guides and helps and exemplars to reach the desired end.

 

And, even when children become parents, in their maturity they are better able to recognize and acknowledge their limitations and need for reliance and inter-dependence on others and the wisdom in deferring to those more experienced and in authority.

 

Same goes for Church members. Except we become as little children...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-