rockpond Posted June 10, 2014 Author Posted June 10, 2014 If we don't follow the prophet what do we need him for?To be the Lord's mouthpiece.
Popular Post Garden Girl Posted June 10, 2014 Popular Post Posted June 10, 2014 While I think "Cate" made some worthwhile observations that should be considered, she also IMO gave some misleading statements... one in particular I found troubling was that we are teaching that we'd rather have our daughters dead than be defiled...In the years since that personal statement was made, by I believe by Pres Kimball(?), the Brethren have backed away from that particular statement (which was/is not doctrtine)... and I believe that Kimball(?) eventually apologized... at any rate, regardless of what she says, we are not teaching such nonsense... And there were several other statements/opinions asserted that IMO were not representative of the actual position of the Church...And I do not believe she has an understanding of the full extent and impact of LDS Charities' operations and assistance given...let alone individual efforts... not only do I give a full tithe, fast offerings, PEP support, etc., but I also volunteer in my community in numerous charitable and humanitarian efforts... as I'm sure many, many members do to the best of their ability. GG 5
bluebell Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 To be the Lord's mouthpiece.What good is the Lord's mouthpiece if no one is supposed to follow what the mouthpiece says? 2
Buckeye Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 If we don't follow the prophet what do we need him for? I have an earthly father. I respect him a lot. I listen to his counsel. Usually I follow it. But not always. That doesn't mean I have no need for a father. I view the prophet in a somewhat similar sense. The main difference is my father holds an eternal role for me whereas the prophet is a very temporary one. In the grand scheme of things, fathers are much much more important than prophets.
Buckeye Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 What good is the Lord's mouthpiece if no one is supposed to follow what the mouthpiece says? We follow the "good" that comes through a prophet the same as we follow the "good" that comes through the scriptures - as instructed by the spirit. No one is arguing that we never follow the prophet, only that our obedience depends on confirmation by the spirit. The primary value of prophets and scriptures are that they provide a means by which the spirit can individually tutor us. Neither prophets nor scriptures are perfect. Both can, and often do, contain false doctrine. For example, both canonized scripture and prior prophets have taught racism as doctrine from God. When such teachings are given to us and the spirit does not confirm their goodness, we are under no obligation to follow. When the spirit does confirm, then we are obligated. The obligation is not to the book or to the man, but to the spirit itself. Salvation comes only through a personal relationship with God.
mnn727 Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I am now wondering why some people are members if they feel we do not need Prophets and our leaders are so out of touch.Sorry I just don't understand that mentality. Why would you remain LDS if you think this way? 3
BCSpace Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) I thought that this was a very interesting guest post on "Pure Mormonism". I think the author is a little harsh but I understand the place that she's coming from - and I think it is a very important perspective. I also think that Rock's postscript was spot on for the way I feel as well. What do you think? I think the post illustrates is how the Left is always in direct opposition to God. I think it is they who are uncomfortable, not God. Edited June 10, 2014 by BCSpace 1
The Nehor Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I think the post illustrates is how the Left is always in direct opposition to God. I think it is they who are uncomfortable, not God. Uh.....no. 2
Buckeye Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I am now wondering why some people are members if they feel we do not need Prophets and our leaders are so out of touch.Sorry I just don't understand that mentality. Why would you remain LDS if you think this way? I can only speak for myself. I'm not sure exactly how much our leaders are out of touch. I'll estimate 17%. What is your estimate? Why do I remain? This post by Nathaniel Givens sums up my thoughts: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/04/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go/. In short, I haven't found anything better. I'm not particularly looking for something better. And I don't really expect for something better to fall into my lap. But if it did, I hope I would have the integrity to follow it. Wouldn't you? 1
Buzzard Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I read the essay, and some of the comments, though after a while it was broken record time. The problem is, she is both very much right and breathtakingly wrong at the same time. First of all, nearly all the things she is praising other denominations for doing are being done within the church as well. Just because we donate the land and money and ongoing food supplies for another denomination to build and run a homeless shelter doesn't mean we aren't doing anything about the homeless. And when I see other churches campaigning for "social justice", I see them advocating government raising taxes to distribute to the poor. rather than increased charity and donations on a personal level. She is right that the easy way out is to be judgemental, and certainly I and many religious people of all persuasions have fallen into that trap. But while we need to show unconditional love, we are doing a disservice to those who openly and unrepentantly discard the commandments of God if we do not let them know (in a loving way) that the path they are on will lead them to eternal unhappiness and guilt. Christ did not tell the woman caught in adultery that her sins were forgiven, he told her that neither he nor the men who dragged her to his feet were going to stone her, and then he admonished her to "sin no more", holding out the hope of future forgiveness of sin. Likewise, those with whom we take the easy way out, to tell them we love them (good) and accept their behaviors not matter what (not always good), will stand before us at the final judgement and want to know why we didn't warn them that the path they were treading would lead them away from God and straight to hell. And yes, that's what the Baptists say about us. But I don't propose that we march angrily up and down in front of their meetinghouses, and also (this is important) the Baptists and others who fight against the church are wrong. The whole philosophies of men mingled with scripture thing. 1
Buckeye Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I think the post illustrates is how the Left is always in direct opposition to God. I think it is they who are uncomfortable, not God. Yep. I can't stand those lefty-progressive abolitionists, anti-war doves, and rabble-rousing civil rights types. They have no place in the household of faith. 1
ERayR Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Good point. So I guess the answer to mnn is that some do believe in the early restoration (and so they want to stay members) but also believe that the church has strayed. Joseph Smith jr. was a fallen prophet you know. Also Brigham Young and John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith and Heber J Grant and George Albert Smith and David O. McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith and Spencer W Kimball and Ezra Taft Benson and Gordon B Hinkley and Thomas S. Monson. Harold B. Lee and Howard W. Hunter would have been but they weren't in the office long enough to fall. Perspective is everything. Edited June 10, 2014 by ERayR
ERayR Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 So there is no need for a prophet at all, or any other type of church leader. That way there is no one to tell you when you are wrong. Yep much better.
mnn727 Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) I can only speak for myself. I'm not sure exactly how much our leaders are out of touch. I'll estimate 17%. What is your estimate? Why do I remain? This post by Nathaniel Givens sums up my thoughts: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/04/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go/. In short, I haven't found anything better. I'm not particularly looking for something better. And I don't really expect for something better to fall into my lap. But if it did, I hope I would have the integrity to follow it. Wouldn't you?I've already found the best. I searched for a long time, I am a convert of 20+ years now. I wonder how many members are members because their parents were and they've never known anything else. Edited June 10, 2014 by mnn727 1
Buckeye Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) I've already found the best. I searched for a long time, I am a convert of 20+ years now. That's great. And that explains why you're a member (and me too). Just grant the same privilege to others who decide to leave because they believe they found something better. Edit to add: I wonder how many members are members because their parents were and they've never known anything else. The strong majority (at least of active members), just as with all other faith traditions. People are by nature conservative. Edited June 10, 2014 by Buckeye
mnn727 Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 That's great. And that explains why you're a member (and me too). Just grant the same privilege to others who decide to leave because they believe they found something better. Its not the ones that leave that I an concerned with, its the ones who stay and complain because the Church isn't doing things their way. 1
Popular Post halconero Posted June 10, 2014 Popular Post Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) I think that we are supposed to follow the Lord (through the Spirit), not the prophet. With regards to our personal lives, striving to be devoted to Christ, and gaining a testimony, I agree wholeheartedly. If we're talking about the organization of the Church, the giving and receiving of ordinances, and the directing of its affairs, I believe that such is directed by the Lord through the prophet. Edited June 10, 2014 by halconero 6
bluebell Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 We follow the "good" that comes through a prophet the same as we follow the "good" that comes through the scriptures - as instructed by the spirit. No one is arguing that we never follow the prophet, only that our obedience depends on confirmation by the spirit. The primary value of prophets and scriptures are that they provide a means by which the spirit can individually tutor us. Neither prophets nor scriptures are perfect. Both can, and often do, contain false doctrine. For example, both canonized scripture and prior prophets have taught racism as doctrine from God. When such teachings are given to us and the spirit does not confirm their goodness, we are under no obligation to follow. When the spirit does confirm, then we are obligated. The obligation is not to the book or to the man, but to the spirit itself. Salvation comes only through a personal relationship with God. If prophets and scriptures serve the exact same function, then we would be no different than protestants. Also, salvation also comes thru ordinances (per the will of God) and without the keys which are held by the prophets, such salvation wouldn't be possible. God has connected His gospel to His prophets. Your ideas here seem to disconnect them. Am i misunderstanding you? 1
Buckeye Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Its not the ones that leave that I an concerned with, its the ones who stay and complain because the Church isn't doing things their way. Growing up I was sometimes annoyed with by siblings who complained about how the family was run. I'm sure glad they never left the family. If Christ can make room in the original Q12 for disciples with egos and strong disagreements, I'm sure we can do the same for members in our own wards.
rockpond Posted June 10, 2014 Author Posted June 10, 2014 What good is the Lord's mouthpiece if no one is supposed to follow what the mouthpiece says? We should listen to and pray about what the prophet teaches us. Neither the blog post nor I have suggested otherwise. But we follow the Lord. Hopefully, the prophet is always pointing us in that direction.
rockpond Posted June 10, 2014 Author Posted June 10, 2014 I am now wondering why some people are members if they feel we do not need Prophets and our leaders are so out of touch.Sorry I just don't understand that mentality. Why would you remain LDS if you think this way? Perhaps because they believe in the gospel of Christ and the Restoration. Where else would they go?
Popular Post BlueDreams Posted June 10, 2014 Popular Post Posted June 10, 2014 I thought that this was a very interesting guest post on "Pure Mormonism". I think the author is a little harsh but I understand the place that she's coming from - and I think it is a very important perspective. I also think that Rock's postscript was spot on for the way I feel as well. What do you think? http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2014/06/uncomfortable-god.html I have tried to read this 3 times now. I personally loved Holland's talk. So I was first surprised that it was that one that she had a problem with. And then I found myself reading more negatively. So I stopped....and I tried again, about another paragraph down, I found myself rolling my eyes. So I stopped. And I tried one more time after BB's comment. There's no way for me to really be considerate of this view. It's extremely difficult for me to get her view and I'm perceiving a number of her concerns as erring on the side of a little self-righteous. And her assumptions go unchecked...ironically often when she's trying to check other people's assumptions. For example: Contrary to cultural mythos, it’s not because we are guilty and hate hard truths. It’s because, as was the case with Job, we’ve lived lives of hard truth and we’ve experienced the complexities of mortality firsthand. We’ve seen beneath the superficial skin of simple dichotomies and have felt the blood of our belief pour from us like water from a sword pierced side. In those forsaken moments, we found God, not a comfortable hand-drawn caricature designed to make us feel superior to others, but a fierce and loving God who demands every last shred of who we are until we are left with no alternative than to cry out “It is finished.” Very few would state that my life has been one that hasn't dealt with, hands on, morally complex situations. And yet I profoundly disagree with her assessment. On top of that, there's an assumption about those who hold a more strident view about these moral questions that she hints on, but never fully states, are somehow free from the experience of living hard truths ore dealing with moral complexities "firsthand." And maybe some haven't. But I've certainly met plenty that have. I'm glad that she finds beauty in her experience, but it often felt like it came at the cost of other's as somehow less of a struggle and "uncomfortable God." Where she feels discomfort with words used by Holland and her section of "loving" people who just want to help "feed the poor, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and imprisoned with more than a plate of cookies and a warm casserole", I find massive discomfort in her description of ....well just about everybody else including her leaders and her ward...one being little more than corporate loving and the other being literally described as doing "incestuous service" while ignoring all the people who really need it. And I absolutely hate when people throw out random starving people as a sign of how bad we are. Absolutely HATE it. I hate the oversimplification of problems and the victim-oriented view of those in poverty that this gives and instead of coming off as somehow enlightened about the world today, to me they come off as woefully halfway there. And the most service and loving oriented ward I knew was a group of affluent people. But their service probably wasn't good enough cuz they have sold their violins to feed a group of homeless folk. And I could go on, but needless to say I just can't find myself reading/commenting on more of it. I'm having to quote Bambi in my head....and it ain't working. With luv (and a little exasperation),BD 9
rockpond Posted June 10, 2014 Author Posted June 10, 2014 I think the post illustrates is how the Left is always in direct opposition to God. I think it is they who are uncomfortable, not God. The "Left"? What does that have to do with the blog post? And who is calling God uncomfortable?
Buckeye Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 If prophets and scriptures serve the exact same function, then we would be no different than protestants. Also, salvation also comes thru ordinances (per the will of God) and without the keys which are held by the prophets, such salvation wouldn't be possible. God has connected His gospel to His prophets. Your ideas here seem to disconnect them. Am i misunderstanding you? The difference between us and protestants is that all of their prophets are dead. I agree that salvation comes through ordinances and that some of the keys for ordinances are held by our current prophets (apparently they don't have keys to perform resurrection or ordain women). But the purpose of those keys and ordinances are to connect us to God, not to the prophets. We no longer teach the salvation comes through having Joseph or Brigham in your line of sealing. And the ordinances themselves do not save. There are no magic words, water, or oil that makes us Christlike. Rather, the ordinances are a means (a crucial one) though which the spirit works to make us Christlike. In all this, though, the spirit is what saves, not the prophets or ordinances. Those are just means to the end. PS - sorry I can't respond more. Gotta run to family outing.
Recommended Posts