Have The "apostates" Ever Been Wrong?

[mormonnewb]

Regardless of the issue du jour (e.g., OW, SSM, changes in worthiness interviews, etc.), one of the common refrains is that members should NOT agitate for change. The ASSUMPTION is that the Brethren are perfectly in tune with the Lord's will and therefore, when change is needed, they will receive revelation at the appropriate time. But is that consistent with the revelatory process?

As I understand it, revelation comes through thoughtful consideration that is confirmed by the Holy Spirit through prayer. However, if I don't think of an issue warranting prayerful consideration, how do I receive revelation about it? More importantly, how do the Brethren?

This is why I see a "loyal opposition" being vital to this Church staying on the "cutting edge" of God's will. Unless the Brethren are constantly examining (and re-examining) HF's will for His Church, it is at least POSSIBLE they'll be delayed in getting the next revelation. That is my belief about the 1978 revelation -- we got it abut a decade too late. And while I understand many of you disagree on that point, I'd prefer if you prove me wrong by pointing to ANOTHER instance in which "agitators" tried to lead the Church astray but the Brethren's steady hand saved the day.

For example, was there a group of saints agitating for lifting the WoW on cigarettes, only to later learn that they were deadly? Or was there a group of saints urging the Church to embrace the "free love" of the 70s, only to have the Church's teachings vindicated in the 80s with the AIDS scare?

I can't think of any such movements but I know so little of the Church's history in this regard. Have us "apostates" ever been wrong?

Edited May 30, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Scott Lloyd]

Has the pope ever been a Catholic?

[CV75]

I can't think of any such movements but I know so little of the Church's history in this regard? Have us "apostates" ever been wrong?

In some specific remarks, the devil was right.

[mormonnewb]

Has the pope ever been a Catholic?

I'll bite:

Pope who?

How Catholic was he?

[Whatever joke format fits your punchline]

[jkwilliams]

In some specific remarks, the devil was right.

 

So, now we're devils. Awesome. 

[JLHPROF]

I can't think of any such movements but I know so little of the Church's history in this regard. Have us "apostates" ever been wrong?

 

Well, after the manifesto on polygamy was issued there were a large number of agitators who felt like the manifesto should be ignored and polygamy continued.

Then the 2nd/LIttle Manifesto was issued and there were still agitators (even 2 apostles) who felt polygamy should still continue.

This group indirectly lead to the formation of polygamous groups which the Church promptly excommunicated after the 2nd manifesto.

 

So, were those agitators/apostates wrong?  Was the Church wrong?  Will the agitators eventually get polygamy restored...

[CV75]

So, now we're devils. Awesome. 

Now, now... LOL

[mormonnewb]

Well, after the manifesto on polygamy was issued there were a large number of agitators who felt like the manifesto should be ignored and polygamy continued.

Then the 2nd/LIttle Manifesto was issued and there were still agitators (even 2 apostles) who felt polygamy should still continue.

This group indirectly lead to the formation of polygamous groups which the Church promptly excommunicated after the 2nd manifesto.

 

So, were those agitators/apostates wrong?  Was the Church wrong?  Will the agitators eventually get polygamy restored...

The holdouts for polygamy weren't exactly "agitators," at least, in the sense of trying to push the Church to adopt NEW policies, but I'll give the Brethren "points" for not going back to polygamy. Any more "wins" for the home team on this score?

[Raharu]

Apostates first admit to being wrong when they become apostates. Discovering you were wrong should not carry some awful connotation. A scientist revels in being proven wrong because it means he or she can eliminate what wasn't truth from their lives.

 

I don't like the idea of the word of wisdom or apposing everybody [edited - Watch the language!] everybody as being divine inspiration. STDs have been known about for centuries. Anyone who has taken their first stinging swig of alcohol or choked as they inhaled their first cigarette knows it's not good for you.

[jkwilliams]

A good example of agitation for change is the Third Convention in Mexico in the 1930s, when Mexican Saints pushed for the Brethren to allow more local leadership instead of the prior practice of always sending new Anglo leaders from HQ. Many were excommunicated, and others were disfellowshipped, but in the end, most were welcomed back into full fellowship and the sought-for changes were implemented.

[mormonnewb]

A good example of agitation for change is the Third Convention in Mexico in the 1930s, when Mexican Saints pushed for the Brethren to allow more local leadership instead of the prior practice of always sending new Anglo leaders from HQ. Many were excommunicated, and others were disfellowshipped, but in the end, most were welcomed back into full fellowship and the sought-for changes were implemented.

One point for Team Apostate!

[Mystery Meat]

People hate it when this reference is used, but the story about stabilizing the arc is still relevant in our day.

[thesometimesaint]

Regardless of the issue du jour (e.g., OW, SSM, changes in worthiness interviews, etc.), one of the common refrains is that members should NOT agitate for change. The ASSUMPTION is that the Brethren are perfectly in tune with the Lord's will and therefore, when change is needed, they will receive revelation at the appropriate time. But is that consistent with the revelatory process?

As I understand it, revelation comes through thoughtful consideration that is confirmed by the Holy Spirit through prayer. However, if I don't think of an issue warranting prayerful consideration, how do I receive revelation about it? More importantly, how do the Brethren?

This is why I see a "loyal opposition" being vital to this Church staying on the "cutting edge" of God's will. Unless the Brethren are constantly examining (and re-examining) HF's will for His Church, it is at least POSSIBLE they'll be delayed in getting the next revelation. That is my belief about the 1978 revelation -- we got it abut a decade too late. And while I understand many of you disagree on that point, I'd prefer if you prove me wrong by pointing to ANOTHER instance in which "agitators" tried to lead the Church astray but the Brethren's steady hand saved the day.

For example, was there a group of saints agitating for lifting the WoW on cigarettes, only to later learn that they were deadly? Or was there a group of saints urging the Church to embrace the "free love" of the 70s, only to have the Church's teachings vindicated in the 80s with the AIDS scare?

I can't think of any such movements but I know so little of the Church's history in this regard. Have us "apostates" ever been wrong?

 

They are always wrong. There is a long established method of change for both doctrine and policy within the Church and publicly agitating for it isn't it.

Edited May 30, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[mormonnewb]

People hate it when this reference is used, but the story about stabilizing the arc is still relevant in our day.

Can you give me an example from, say, the last 3,000 years?

Edited May 30, 2014 by mormonnewb

[teddyaware]

Regardless of the issue du jour (e.g., OW, SSM, changes in worthiness interviews, etc.), one of the common refrains is that members should NOT agitate for change. The ASSUMPTION is that the Brethren are perfectly in tune with the Lord's will and therefore, when change is needed, they will receive revelation at the appropriate time. But is that consistent with the revelatory process?

As I understand it, revelation comes through thoughtful consideration that is confirmed by the Holy Spirit through prayer. However, if I don't think of an issue warranting prayerful consideration, how do I receive revelation about it? More importantly, how do the Brethren?

This is why I see a "loyal opposition" being vital to this Church staying on the "cutting edge" of God's will. Unless the Brethren are constantly examining (and re-examining) HF's will for His Church, it is at least POSSIBLE they'll be delayed in getting the next revelation. That is my belief about the 1978 revelation -- we got it abut a decade too late. And while I understand many of you disagree on that point, I'd prefer if you prove me wrong by pointing to ANOTHER instance in which "agitators" tried to lead the Church astray but the Brethren's steady hand saved the day.

For example, was there a group of saints agitating for lifting the WoW on cigarettes, only to later learn that they were deadly? Or was there a group of saints urging the Church to embrace the "free love" of the 70s, only to have the Church's teachings vindicated in the 80s with the AIDS scare?

I can't think of any such movements but I know so little of the Church's history in this regard. Have us "apostates" ever been wrong?

A good place to begin your search to find validation for you thinking is the scriptures. Search them diligently (there's plenty to search) and make a list of how many times loyal opposition "agitators" were able to get the leaders of the Lord's kingdom on earth to see the light, as it were. In fact, since this loyal agitator concept is a pet theme of yours, why don't you do just that -- search the scriptures for confirmatory examples of the principle you're postulating and then return and report. I make this suggestion respectfully because I believe there must be some scriptural examples of rank and file members of the Lord's kingdom who pressed the leaders to approach the Lord for guidance on some issue or another. Since you have the necessary fire in the belly to pursue such an investigation, please do get to work on it and I will eagerly await your well-researched and documented report. If you do succeed in finding some scriptural examples of this principle in action, this could go a long way toward getting doubters to accept the validity of your thinking.

Edited May 30, 2014 by teddyaware

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Regardless of the issue du jour (e.g., OW, SSM, changes in worthiness interviews, etc.), one of the common refrains is that members should NOT agitate for change. The ASSUMPTION is that the Brethren are perfectly in tune with the Lord's will and therefore, when change is needed, they will receive revelation at the appropriate time. But is that consistent with the revelatory process?

As I understand it, revelation comes through thoughtful consideration that is confirmed by the Holy Spirit through prayer. However, if I don't think of an issue warranting prayerful consideration, how do I receive revelation about it? More importantly, how do the Brethren?

This is why I see a "loyal opposition" being vital to this Church staying on the "cutting edge" of God's will. Unless the Brethren are constantly examining (and re-examining) HF's will for His Church, it is at least POSSIBLE they'll be delayed in getting the next revelation. That is my belief about the 1978 revelation -- we got it abut a decade too late. And while I understand many of you disagree on that point, I'd prefer if you prove me wrong by pointing to ANOTHER instance in which "agitators" tried to lead the Church astray but the Brethren's steady hand saved the day.

For example, was there a group of saints agitating for lifting the WoW on cigarettes, only to later learn that they were deadly? Or was there a group of saints urging the Church to embrace the "free love" of the 70s, only to have the Church's teachings vindicated in the 80s with the AIDS scare?

I can't think of any such movements but I know so little of the Church's history in this regard. Have us "apostates" ever been wrong?

 

As pointed out by JLHPROF, polygamy is a good example. There is also a large group of people in the church that think it is in semi-apostasy - see Rock Waterman and Denver Snuffer. While those types don't tend to hang out here too much they are active in other parts of the internet. I know I have some relatives that advocate for no birthcontrol, are anti public school (wresting church sources to support their position) anti-doctor (quoting Brigham Young) etc. The church has not yielded to the influence of these types.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[mormonnewb]

As pointed out by JLHPROF, polygamy is a good example. There is also a large group of people in the church that think it is in semi-apostasy - see Rock Waterman and Denver Snuffer. While those types don't tend to hang out here too much they are active in other parts of the internet. I know I have some relatives that advocate for no birthcontrol, are anti public school (wresting church sources to support their position) anti-doctor (quoting Brigham Young) etc. The church has not yielded to the influence of these types.

These are good examples! In my view, the Brethren have rightly resisted these "troublemakers." LOL

My only question is that do they reach the OW-level of "agitation" that so greatly agitate the true saints -- changes in doctrine? For example, I assume that the "birthers" are calling for doctrinal change (or perhaps, clarification) that NO saint may use birth control. However, I don't imagine that the homeschoolers want the Church to pull ALL Mormons out of the public schools or that the "pro-death" Mormons want the Church to go "all Christian Science"? I would guess that these two latter groups only really want Church "validation" for their views and not a doctrinal reversal. Or have I guessed wrong ... Again?

[mormonnewb]

How about Genesis 21:10-12?

Wow! Just 10 chapters into the book! This could turn out to be a very long assignment, teddyaware!

[JLHPROF]

These are good examples! In my view, the Brethren have rightly resisted these "troublemakers." LOL

My only question is that do they reach the OW-level of "agitation" that so greatly agitate the true saints -- changes in doctrine? For example, I assume that the "birthers" are calling for doctrinal change (or perhaps, clarification) that NO saint may use birth control. However, I don't imagine that the homeschoolers want the Church to pull ALL Mormons out of the public schools or that the "pro-death" Mormons want the Church to go "all Christian Science"? I would guess that these two latter groups only really want Church "validation" for their views and not a doctrinal reversal. Or have I guessed wrong ... Again?

 

Well, I can't speak for the birthers or homeschoolers.  But the polygamists certainly have doctrinal differences beyond just wanting validation.  They believe that when Brigham Young said only polygamists would receive exaltation he was telling the truth.  The feel like the Church took away their ability to reach the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  When they agitated back in the 20's & 30's they sincerely felt their very eternal lives were at stake. They definitely wanted a doctrinal reversal, or perhaps a doctrinal restoration.

That was a pretty high level of agitation that has kept polygamist groups from disappearing for over a century since.

[mormonnewb]

Well, I can't speak for the birthers or homeschoolers.  But the polygamists certainly have doctrinal differences beyond just wanting validation.  They believe that when Brigham Young said only polygamists would receive exaltation he was telling the truth.  The feel like the Church took away their ability to reach the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  When they agitated back in the 20's & 30's they sincerely felt their very eternal lives were at stake. They definitely wanted a doctrinal reversal, or perhaps a doctrinal restoration.

That was a pretty high level of agitation that has kept polygamist groups from disappearing for over a century since.

Yes, agreed. And that's why they get a half point for the Brethren. However, as they are arguing from the standpoint of resisting change (going back to polygamy), they aren't quite like OW, SSM proponents, etc.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

A good place to begin your search to find validation for you thinking is the scriptures. Search them diligently (there's plenty to search) and make a list of how many times loyal opposition "agitators" were able to get the leaders of the Lord's kingdom on earth to see the light, as it were. In fact, since this loyal agitator concept is a pet theme of yours, why don't you do just that -- search the scriptures for confirmatory examples of the principle you're postulating and then return and report. I make this suggestion respectfully because I believe there must be some scriptural examples of rank and file members of the Lord's kingdom who pressed the leaders to approach the Lord for guidance on some issue or another. Since you have the necessary fire in the belly to pursue such an investigation, please do get to work on it and I will eagerly await your well-researched and documented report. If you do succeed in finding some scriptural examples of this principle in action, this could go a long way toward getting doubters to accept the validity of your thinking.

Well, in addition to Sarah, we have Abraham agitating with God to change his mind on Sodum and Gomorrah. We have the Daughters of Zelophehad. We have Jethro and Moses (changing the administration of the kingdom), with have Moses with God (getting Aaron as a spokesman), we have the Gentile woman begging Christ (even the dogs get crumbs from the master's table), we have Paul agitating Peter on Gentile circumcision, we have Emma with Joseph on the WOW, just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I searched the scriptures I could come up with many more.

[JLHPROF]

Yes, agreed. And that's why they get a half point for the Brethren. However, as they are arguing from the standpoint of resisting change (going back to polygamy), they aren't quite like OW, SSM proponents, etc.

 

Oh, you're talking about "progressive" change.  The difficulty with that doctrinal viewpoint is determining what is actually progression.  While there is always further truth and light to be had on a subject, at some point the benchmark has to be set as unalterable, where more information can be revealed, but changes to already revealed truth would be apostasy.

 

Take SSM - If God has revealed through prophets that he does not approve of homosexuality and that marriage should be between a man and a woman, then even if the agitators achieve the change they seek it is not progression (further truth) but apostasy (movement away from truth).

 

Or the OW - If the order of priesthood that God has revealed through the prophets states that ecclesiastical offices can only be held by males (a gender specific role) then even if OW convince the Church to ordain them to the priesthood it would not be progression (further truth) but apostasy (movement away from truth).

 

Progressive agitation is a dangerous path if established eternal truth has already been revealed.  If there is no established truth then further revelation should be sought.  We will end up like the 116 pages after Joseph pestered the Lord to change his mind - lost.

 

Even if it is our goal and our fondest desire, it doesn't make the change into progression.

Edited May 30, 2014 by JLHPROF

[teddyaware]

Well, in addition to Sarah, we have Abraham agitating with God to change his mind on Sodum and Gomorrah. We have the Daughters of Zelophehad. We have Jethro and Moses (changing the administration of the kingdom), with have Moses with God (getting Aaron as a spokesman), we have the Gentile woman begging Christ (even the dogs get crumbs from the master's table), we have Paul agitating Peter on Gentile circumcision, we have Emma with Joseph on the WOW, just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I searched the scriptures I could come up with many more.

Please do. But there are problems with some of your examples.

1. Wives of leaders (like presidential first ladies) are almost unavoidably going to engage with their husbands in some "pillow talk;" and for this reason wives of prophets hardly seem to fit the bill as loyal opposition agitators from the rank and file membership of the Church (remember, Emma was president of the Relief Society, hardly an outsider).

2. Peter and Paul occupied positions at the highest level of leadership in the Church. So some wrangling between General Authorities is par for the course (think Ezra Taft Benson and Hugh B Brown). This example does not at all fit the bill.

3. Abraham, the Father of the Faithful, is hardly an example of a loyal opposition agitator. After all, he was one of the greatest prophets in sacred history. He most certainly was not an agitating rank and file outsider.

4. Moses, the great prophet and supreme earthly leader of the children of Israel, pleading with the Lord for help in his ministry also hardly fits the bill. Prophets, no doubt, do things of this sort all the time.

I could go on but I have to pick up my wife in New York City. I'll be away from the board for at very least 2 hours. But please do search for some bonafide examples of loyal opposition agitators who succeeded in getting their way.

All the best...

Edited May 30, 2014 by teddyaware

[BlueDreams]

Can you give me an example from, say, the last 3,000 years?

 

A good chunk of the D&C?....There were quite a few moments in the early history where members tried to move things as they saw fit....and the brethren/prophet corrected it....and it helped maintain the overall church body and shaping of the overall church. I can't think of specific references. But the story of the guy who thought he could do a better job receiving revelation. But I'm blanking....section 43 maybe as well. You could view Martin Harris as a point JS should have been more assertive and sure in correcting him.

 

 On your OP...My assumption in stating that members shouldn't agitate (in the way that OW has done so) is not as you mentioned. I don't believe the Brethren are any more perfectly in tune than any other prophet/apostle. What I don't believe is that OW's assumptions that they know the objective to the true desire of the Lord, better than the Apostles. It is their insistence and inability to envision or be open to an answer from the Lord that isn't female ordination that is my premise for the problem of agitation. It's not, there's a general problem that we would like to understand better and see change in. But more so, I know what needs to change (at least in part) and I want you to pray and change it to accommodate this.  

 

To me, revelation does come from from genuine inquiry. But the way it's been presented sounds more like boxing in and hedging any other voice than the one they want to hear because they believe it's the best way. And that's just not how revelation should be done.

 

Regardless of the issue du jour (e.g., OW, SSM, changes in worthiness interviews, etc.), one of the common refrains is that members should NOT agitate for change. The ASSUMPTION is that the Brethren are perfectly in tune with the Lord's will and therefore, when change is needed, they will receive revelation at the appropriate time. But is that consistent with the revelatory process?

As I understand it, revelation comes through thoughtful consideration that is confirmed by the Holy Spirit through prayer. However, if I don't think of an issue warranting prayerful consideration, how do I receive revelation about it? More importantly, how do the Brethren? 

 With luv,

Bd