Is There Room For Jethro In The Lds Church?

[smac97]

You answered your question; Jethro came to Moses, pulled him aside and spoke to him face to face. What Jethro did not do was get up on a mountain and shout out to the children of Israel and tell them how stupid Moses was and how much better they could organize themselves.  Do you see the difference between Jethro and the individual who leads the OW group?

Jethro also did not confront Moses and demand doctrine changes, saying that "nothing less will suffice."

Jethro also did not protest against Moses on sacred ground during a sacred convocation.

Jethro also did not align himself with excommunicated apostates.

Kate Kelly and her group, on the other hand, has done all of these things.

Perhaps the comparison between Jethro and Kate Kelly has some value after all. Not for their similarities, but for their differences.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

Okay, so maybe we're getting somewhere here.  Helpful suggestions are okay, but not public complaints and criticism (two of my favorites ... for sure).  Okay, I might be able to go with that.

 

Of course, my ignorance of the Prophet's personal itineraries exceeds yours, but my passing familiarity with mathematics tells me that it's impossible for all 15 million members to meet face-to-face with the Apostles.  Fortunately, that isn't necessary because we have "Suggestion Boxes" in each temple, right?

 

Okay, perhaps that's asking a little much.  But seriously, is it encouraged (or at least, not frowned upon) to send suggestions to Church leaders?

 

You are talking about things of which I have no direct experience; however, I have heard many stories about individual members from around the world that have written directly to individual leaders about their own issues.  

 

I suspect the Brethren receive quite a bit of mail or communications from around the world and I would suspect that a large part of it is from the crazy people that are announcing themselves as new prophets and prophetesses with new revelations for the Church to follow. There must be a some form/degree of trying to separate the wheat from the tares.

 

If someone has a issue I would encourage them to write.  I would also encourage them to don't stop at the prophet; write to their regional representatives, their stake president and their bishop. Look at the whole spectrum of leadership.  

[thesometimesaint]

Or are we putting them up as a demi God? Especially when we are told they are imperfect. Where is the suggestion box when you need one.

 

We don't have demigods in our religion, and there is only one God with which we have anything to do with. I respect them as good men who lead this Church. I've found that the best place to start is with the person responsible for making the decision.

[stemelbow]

So we need a leader to show us leaders aren't really needed?

I think all sorts of leaders are needed--I didn't mean to suggest otherwise and going back don't see how that was interpreted from my words. I'm saying one of these days someone's going to come along and break through the barrier that seems to hold us all back.

But I could be wrong.

Edited May 16, 2014 by stemelbow

[smac97]

Okay, so maybe we're getting somewhere here.  Helpful suggestions are okay, but not public complaints and criticism (two of my favorites ... for sure).  Okay, I might be able to go with that.

 

Of course, my ignorance of the Prophet's personal itineraries exceeds yours, but my passing familiarity with mathematics tells me that it's impossible for all 15 million members to meet face-to-face with the Apostles.  Fortunately, that isn't necessary because we have "Suggestion Boxes" in each temple, right?

 

Okay, perhaps that's asking a little much.  But seriously, is it encouraged (or at least, not frowned upon) to send suggestions to Church leaders?

I do not think the Brethren are insulated or unaware of issues in the Church. Elder Oaks' talk during the Priesthood Session of the last General Conference (which talk, I should note, was not listened to by any of Kate Kelly's protesters on Temple Square) was obviously intended to address the issue of women and the priesthood.

I can also attest to this from a recent personal experience. A few weeks ago our stake presidency was reorganized as part of stake conference, which involved a visit from two General Authorities (members of the Seventy). The stake conference included a lunch which I attended with my wife. We were the only people sitting at our table, and one of the Seventy sat down next to me and we had a very nice discussion for the next hour. I raised the issue of the Ordain Women movement, their actions during General Conference, their stated objectives, etc. The Seventy shared his thoughts on the matter. It was clear from his comments that both he and other GAs with whom he associates were very much up to speed on this issue.

So whatever we think about the merits of Kate Kelly's actions, I don't think we need to worry about the Brethren being in the dark on this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

[eddie]

Did Jethro head to Egypt give public interviews, go to Sinai with Moses and tell him he got the 10 commandments wrong in front of all of the children of Israel?

There is a difference between a private conversation with attention focused on an issue out of sincere concern, and a public display designed to bring attention to the individual(s).

People discuss issues and problems with the bishop in ward councils all of the time, lending suggestions to a Ward's presiding authority, but I seldom see them calling them out at the pulpit in Sacrament meeting.

Context and delivery are everything.

Edited May 16, 2014 by eddie

[wenglund]

I think all sorts of leaders are needed--I didn't mean to suggest otherwise and going back don't see how that was interpreted from my words. I'm saying one of these days someone's going to come along and break through the barrier that seems to hold us all back.

But I could be wrong.

 

The only barrier that I see holding me back is me. Certainly, no church leaders are holding me back. Instead, I am having trouble keeping up them.

 

In other words, to me, what-ever hold-up may exist in the Church, it isn't a leadership problem, but a subordinate problem, and there is where the break through is needed. 

 

So, your experience in the Church appears quite different from my own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

]

I think all sorts of leaders are needed--I didn't mean to suggest otherwise and going back don't see how that was interpreted from my words. I'm saying one of these days someone's going to come along and break through the barrier that seems to hold us all back.But I could be wrong.

And what specifically is that barrier?

If it is the idea that one can't have personal direction from God and must instead have leaders as mediators, I just don't see it. If the barrier you meant is something else, please clarify.

[stemelbow]

The only barrier that I see holding me back is me. Certainly, no church leaders are holding me back. Instead, I am having trouble keeping up them.

 

In other words, to me, what-ever hold-up may exist in the Church, it isn't a leadership problem, but a subordinate problem, and there is where the break through is needed. 

 

So, your experience in the Church appears quite different from my own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

We've trod different paths, for sure. And interacted with different people. But I'm not sure why you think it's all that much different. I didn't say the leadership, per se, is holding anyone back at all. I am saying there is more resource for us all than the leadership. I'm not sure why that is being considered a problematic idea though.

Edited May 16, 2014 by stemelbow

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I thought you meant Jethro Tull with some flute playing during sacrament meeting...

Me too. Ha. So funny.

 

That band was hard core.

[stemelbow]

]

And what specifically is that barrier?

If it is the idea that one can't have personal direction from God and must instead have leaders as mediators, I just don't see it. If the barrier you meant is something else, please clarify.

I didn't say, at least I don't think I did, that we can't have personal direction from God and must instead have leaders as mediators.

Simply put I think our barriers are our assumptions. Our lack of knowing when we think we do know.

[wenglund]

We've trod different paths, for sure. And interacted with different people. But I'm not sure why you think it's all that much different. I didn't say the leadership, per se, is holding anyone back at all. I am saying there is more resource for us all than the leadership. I'm not sure why that is being considered a problematic idea though.

 

My comment wasn't in relation to the notion that there are more resources than just leadership. I agree with you on that, and consider it to have been the case for some time, and didn't feel the need to say more..

 

Rather, I was speaking to your leadership proposition--i.e  "one of these days someone's going to come along and break through the barrier that seems to hold us all back."

 

I would have thought It obvious that this is what I was speaking to given my specific reference to "barriers holding us back" and my silence regarding "more resources."

 

I don't see the barriers and hold back that you evidently do.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 16, 2014 by wenglund

[ERayR]

We've trod different paths, for sure. And interacted with different people. But I'm not sure why you think it's all that much different. I didn't say the leadership, per se, is holding anyone back at all. I am saying there is more resource for us all than the leadership. I'm not sure why that is being considered a problematic idea though.

 

What exactly are you saying?

[stemelbow]

My comment wasn't in relation to the notion that there are more resources than just leadership. I agree with you on that, and consider it to been the case for some time, and didn't feel the need to say more..

 

Rather, I was speaking to your leadership proposition--i.e  "one of these days someone's going to come along and break through the barrier that seems to hold us all back."

 

I would have thought It obvious that this is what I was speaking to given my specific reference to "barriers holding us back" and my silence regarding "more resources."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then I don't know what you're saying. I didn't say anything about leadership there.

Edited May 16, 2014 by stemelbow

[ERayR]

I didn't say, at least I don't think I did, that we can't have personal direction from God and must instead have leaders as mediators.

Simply put I think our barriers are our assumptions. Our lack of knowing when we think we do know.

 

If you are saying what I think you are I would call that part of the learning process.

[stemelbow]

What exactly are you saying?

I am saying there is more resource for us all than the leadership.

[Calm]

I didn't say, at least I don't think I did, that we can't have personal direction from God and must instead have leaders as mediators.Simply put I think our barriers are our assumptions. Our lack of knowing when we think we do know.

And why would we need someone special to show us this? To me it is just a common sense realisation and we can work on correcting inappropriate assumptions by making reality checks with God and those around us.

Sincere question since I don't see anything standing in the way of us dealing with faulty assumptions right now and definitely don't see the need for someone new to come along that has some special insight that no one else has had. Christ filled that role already in my view.

[Calm]

I am saying there is more resource for us all than the leadership.

if you mean this is something not commonly understood among members and that we will even need someone with special insight to show us this as you appear to in your first post...

Again this seems to be saying we all think the leadership is our only avenue of learning, as if we are all ignoring the doctrine of personal revelation.

[Calm]

Then I don't know what you're saying. I didn't say anything about leadership there.

What does this mean then?

"One of these days someone will start to realize....That person will learn......That person will know.....and will be able to move beyond..... That person will learn....."

"Someone come along and show us the way"

Who is "that person" and how is that not leadership?

Edited May 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

I am saying there is more resource for us all than the leadership.

 

And who doesn't know this? 

[wenglund]

Then I don't know what you're saying. I didn't say anything about leadership there.

 

The lead sentence of your brief paragraph that I quoted was: "I think all sorts of leaders are needed--" So, clearly, the subject of that paragraph was leadership. Perhaps you don't know what you are saying, or don't know how to correctly say it.

 

Whatever the case, even if the alleged barriers holding us all back that you have in mind, aren't leadership related, but supposedly our assumptions (i.e. our not knowing what we think we know--whatever that means), I don't personally see it that way. Again, for myself, I am having difficulty keeping up with where I have pragmatically progressed in the gospel, and am constantly being stretched rather than held back. 

 

But, to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[sethpayne]

I was just reading the story of Jethro's visit to Moses in the wilderness.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/18?lang=eng

 

I couldn't help but to wonder if Jethro could have made it as a Mormon.  As you remember, Jethro was Moses' father-in-law.  After just ONE DAY amongst the Israelites, Jethro pulled Moses aside and said:

 

"What you are doing is not good.  You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out.  The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone.  Listen now to me and I will give you some advice ... select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens."

 

This was obviously sage advice and somewhat mirrors how things are run in our church today, as priesthood functions are delegated to general authorities, area authorities, district leaders, stake presidents, bishops, etc.  Yet, who in our current church could feel free to speak so frankly to the Prophet?

 

When Sister Kelly from OW had the "nerve" to ask that the Apostles pray for a revelation about extending the priesthood to women ("What you are doing is not good.  The work is too heavy for you men ..."), many members were up in arms.  They cried in one loud voice, "How dareth thou suggesth that the Prophet asketh the Lordeth for revelation?  He has not appointed thee to the task of leading His Church."  In fact, that is the dominate cry on this board whenever anyone has the "temerity" to suggest even the slightest change to how we do things.

 

Just last week, we went round and round because someone had the "unmitigated gall" to suggest that we not have grown men alone in the rooms talking about sex with children.  Immediately, the "faithful" saints were up in arms.  "Heretic!"  "Heathen!"  "Ark steadier!"

 

So perhaps someone can explain to me why Jethro, the Priest of Midian, an outsider, could come out to the wilderness and start barking orders to God's Prophet and yet, long-time members of this Church are flirting with outer darkness if they so much as SUGGEST that the Prophets pray for guidance to add a half-note to a verse in a hymn.  "Who put you in charge of the Lord's meter?"

 

Seriously, what am I missing?  What has changed in this dispensation that has caused the Lord to rest all of his inspiration in 15 men?  Is there not a place in Zion for a Jethro or at least, an Ellie May? (Be still my heart)

 

This is a very interesting observation and insight.  Thank you for sharing.  Provides some food for thought.

[sethpayne]

I do not think the Brethren are insulated or unaware of issues in the Church. Elder Oaks' talk during the Priesthood Session of the last General Conference (which talk, I should note, was not listened to by any of Kate Kelly's protesters on Temple Square) was obviously intended to address the issue of women and the priesthood.

 

 

Whew!  Good thing the text/audio/video of Elder Oaks was made available mere hours after it was delivered.  Kind of makes your jab at these women a little, shall I say, silly.

 

Unless, of course, I'm missing your point.  Are you trying to marginalize these women because they may not have heard the address live?  Somehow attempting to invalidate the concerns/arguments of these women by pointing out some obscure point indicates that you don't have full confidence in simply addressing arguments, rather than people.  Much easier to dismiss these silly women and their wickedness.

 

Is there moral superiority of hearing GC addresses live?  If so, I guess I can see why the Saints in Utah -- and the rest of the US -- are such shining emblems of Christlike charity, kindness, and love.

 

(Of course, given that KSL broadcasts GC live we have no way of knowing whether these women heard it live -- perhaps even on their smartphones using I Heart Radio etc...)

Edited May 16, 2014 by sethpayne

[stemelbow]

And why would we need someone special to show us this? To me it is just a common sense realisation and we can work on correcting inappropriate assumptions by making reality checks with God and those around us.

I'm not saying anyone special. And if one person breaks through, that person may not even be noticed, even if others follow suit.

Sincere question since I don't see anything standing in the way of us dealing with faulty assumptions right now and definitely don't see the need for someone new to come along that has some special insight that no one else has had. Christ filled that role already in my view.

Yes, Christ was, most likely, devoid of fault assumptions. But our problem remains, it seems, our assumptions get in our way in attempting to follow Him.

I'll have to go back to the example of priesthood ban. It was assumed for decades upon decades, it seems, that revelation suggested blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence. But it seems to be clear now that was merely assumption, resulting from people suggesting they know that which they don't know. I tend to think we'll always have this, unless we learn as God expects us. And we won't do that, unless we accept that He has many tools to teach and guide. And we may think we do realize that, but I tend to think there is so much more out there for us to figure out, and that he has tried to get to us. We've simply missed it.

[stemelbow]

if you mean this is something not commonly understood among members and that we will even need someone with special insight to show us this as you appear to in your first post...

Again this seems to be saying we all think the leadership is our only avenue of learning, as if we are all ignoring the doctrine of personal revelation.

Well I've tried and have failed it seems. I'm not trying to suggest all members do that. Perhaps members generally rely too heavily on the leadership. Perhaps members generally live to insularly. Whatever the case it does sometimes feel like we're not accepting all that God is trying to get to us. That there is more. That we are assumed too much and in so doing have shut out His voice to a certain extent. You see, we can hear some and still miss other parts.