Uncomfortable God

[bluebell]

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. 

 

Another big difference is that we believe living prophets are necessary, and they don't.

 

Which brings us back full-circle:  Why are living prophets necessary, if we aren't supposed to follow them as rockpond claims?

[halconero]

The "Left"?  What does that have to do with the blog post?  And who is calling God uncomfortable?

 

Avoid engaging that comment like you avoid the plague. I love BC, but the idea that the person who wrote this article is a left-wing, card-carrying communist, trying to be the vanguard of the proletarian revolution by taking down the opiate-of-the-masses-that-is-Elder-Holland, is something that will take us off track faster than the train that Vladimir Lenin used to get back to Tsarist Russia.

Edited June 10, 2014 by halconero

[bluebell]

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.

 

I guess we do have to hope that, since the Lord is the one who gave us the prophet in the first place and there must be a reason.  If we could get it all just by relying on the Spirit, then His giving them to us would be odd.

[halconero]

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. 

 

The epistle of Peter disagrees with you. In the way that the ark saved Noah's family, Peter says that baptism saves us now. Not because the water washes away sins, he says, but because it is the pledge (the word used can also be covenant) of a clear conscience towards God.

 

In other words, covenants bound up in ordinances are completely necessary for salvation. The post-reformation notion of "Sola Fide" is not so far removed from the "Solus Espiritus" that you propose. Both ignore the linguistic, social, and historical evidence which support a sacrament/ordinance component to salvation.

[jwhitlock]

I found her comments quite ironic.  While accusing Elder Holland of being angry, sarcastic, and condescending, she the proceeded to outdo him in each of those categories in demonstrating her opposition to the leadership of the church.

 

It seemed to me that she doesn't consider those of us who support the leadership of the church to be particularly worthwhile individuals. The epithet of "incestuous" seemed to be particularly ill-advised in that respect.

 

All in all, there was enough poison in her comments to basically invalidate any point she was trying to make. Not particularly impressed.

[rockpond]

Another big difference is that we believe living prophets are necessary, and they don't.

Which brings us back full-circle: Why are living prophets necessary, if we aren't supposed to follow them as rockpond claims?

I've answered that question. But prophets are not perfect and there is only one name by which salvation is possible. One perfect person who came here and showed us the way. He is who we follow.

[rockpond]

I found her comments quite ironic. While accusing Elder Holland of being angry, sarcastic, and condescending, she the proceeded to outdo him in each of those categories in demonstrating her opposition to the leadership of the church.

It seemed to me that she doesn't consider those of us who support the leadership of the church to be particularly worthwhile individuals. The epithet of "incestuous" seemed to be particularly ill-advised in that respect.

All in all, there was enough poison in her comments to basically invalidate any point she was trying to make. Not particularly impressed.

I saw that irony as well. She made some good points but let her emotions create the same tone in her words that she disliked in Elder Holland's. Unfortunate.

[rockpond]

I guess we do have to hope that, since the Lord is the one who gave us the prophet in the first place and there must be a reason. If we could get it all just by relying on the Spirit, then His giving them to us would be odd.

Who would teach us without prophets and the scripture they provide? Who would direct the affairs of the church?

We follow Christ but that doesn't mean we don't need a prophet.

[MorningStar]

I loved that talk from Elder Holland.  I think if he were angry, it comes from the fact that there are quite a few people or groups in the church who are causing division in the church, contributing to tearing down testimonies, etc.  We are supposed to be one. 

[CV75]

The perspective of people who would like the church to move away from some of what they feel is the periphery and back to the core gospel principles.

What's such a big deal about that? I've found that people that live the core Gospel principles find those principles extending further and further into everything they do, making the product of their whole life and personality a blessing to others.

[bluebell]

Who would teach us without prophets and the scripture they provide? Who would direct the affairs of the church?

We follow Christ but that doesn't mean we don't need a prophet.

 

All i'm saying is that if we don't believe we should follow the prophet, then i don't see how it can be claimed that we need one.  

 

What good is scripture from the prophets if we shouldn't follow what the prophets say?  What good is someone to direct the affairs of the church if we are not supposed to follow that director in the direction he is directing?

 

To me, it's like saying, "we follow the traffic laws not traffic lights, that doesn't mean we don't need traffic lights though."  It doesn't make sense.  We can claim that it's the traffic laws that are most important and that that is what we are actually following, but that doesn't mean that when we are out driving, we don't or shouldn't obey the lights.  

[rockpond]

I loved that talk from Elder Holland. I think if he were angry, it comes from the fact that there are quite a few people or groups in the church who are causing division in the church, contributing to tearing down testimonies, etc. We are supposed to be one.

Can you see, from the perspective of the guest blogger, how Elder Holland's talk could be a source of more division rather than more unity? Can you empathize at all with how she feels?

[Opinion Slayer]

Did you read the blog post from the OP?  Because she doesn't really seem to be in opposition to any prophet/apostle when it comes to the doctrine of Christ.

 

I think the author is sincerely trying to hear and follow the Lord's voice.

Really?! calling a prophet/apostle angry and sarcastic... and saying the prophets are leading us off course and so on, But then again you are the guy who wrote this-

"I think that we are supposed to follow the Lord (through the Spirit), not the prophet."

I can't come up with a better word than RETARDED to describe that comment. First off YOU can't have the Lords spirit if you don't follow the prophet! How many times does the Lord have to say By my mouth or by my servants it's the same! So when you are criticizing the Lords prophets you are criticizing the Lord. The 15 best people in the world are presiding over this church and every single soul that has made a covenant in the temple to sustain them 100% and not speak ill about them who do will suffer the following fate- D&C 112

 

 24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

 25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

 26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

 

It's scary to think there are so  many members that actually think this kind of talk over the Lords anointed is acceptable...

Edited June 11, 2014 by Opinion Slayer

[rockpond]

All i'm saying is that if we don't believe we should follow the prophet, then i don't see how it can be claimed that we need one.

What good is scripture from the prophets if we shouldn't follow what the prophets say? What good is someone to direct the affairs of the church if we are not supposed to follow that director in the direction he is directing?

To me, it's like saying, "we follow the traffic laws not traffic lights, that doesn't mean we don't need traffic lights though." It doesn't make sense. We can claim that it's the traffic laws that are most important and that that is what we are actually following, but that doesn't mean that when we are out driving, we don't or shouldn't obey the lights.

I'm a follower of a Christ. A disciple (at least I try). I still need the prophet. I listen. I heed. But the Savior is the examplar.

[Palerider]

The epistle of Peter disagrees with you. In the way that the ark saved Noah's family, Peter says that baptism saves us now. Not because the water washes away sins, he says, but because it is the pledge (the word used can also be covenant) of a clear conscience towards God.

 

In other words, covenants bound up in ordinances are completely necessary for salvation. The post-reformation notion of "Sola Fide" is not so far removed from the "Solus Espiritus" that you propose. Both ignore the linguistic, social, and historical evidence which support a sacrament/ordinance component to salvation.

 

Sorry but there is nothing in the scripture you refer to that indicates a formal "pledge" or "covenant" being made. Even in the actual LDS ordinance the participant is not called upon to make any such verbalization. Rather, baptism is the outward manifestation of our inward acknowledgment of Christ as our Redeemer and out intent to be obedient to his commandments. No formal, verbal covenant is made. That would be alot like swearing an oath don't you see? Better to let your communications be yea,yea or nay, nay..........

Edited June 11, 2014 by Palerider

[Palerider]

Really?! calling a prophet/apostle angry and sarcastic... and saying the prophets are leading us off course and so on, But then again you are the guy who wrote this-

"I think that we are supposed to follow the Lord (through the Spirit), not the prophet."

I can't come up with a better word than RETARDED to describe that comment. First off YOU can't have the Lords spirit if you don't follow the prophet! How many times does the Lord have to say By my mouth or by my servants it's the same! So when you are criticizing the Lords prophets you are criticizing the Lord. The 15 best people in the world are presiding over this church and every single soul that has made a covenant in the temple to sustain them 100% and not speak ill about them who do will suffer the following fate- D&C 112

 

 24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

 25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

 26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

 

It's scary to think there are so  many members that actually think this kind of talk over the Lords anointed is acceptable...

 

Please keep preaching to us. You're making great headway............I'm almost heading back to the church right now. 

[Opinion Slayer]

Please keep preaching to us. You're making great headway............I'm almost heading back to the church right now. 

That's a good start. Then we'll focus on a temple recommend next and get you back on track  

[Sky]

Of course there's a need for a prophet. But who do we follow, the prophet or Christ?

 

False dichotomy.  But if I had to choose between the two, it would be the prophet, because if we are honestly following the prophet, we are following Christ.    

 

And Elder Holland spoke the truth.  He may have given the Church a gentle chastisement, but he did it from a place of love.  Prophets don't always tell us what we want to hear.  That was the pattern in the scriptures, too.     

[bluebell]

I'm a follower of a Christ. A disciple (at least I try). I still need the prophet. I listen. I heed. But the Savior is the examplar.

 

I'm a follower of Christ as well.  I just don't know how to follow Christ without also following His prophet.

[rockpond]

Really?! calling a prophet/apostle angry and sarcastic... and saying the prophets are leading us off course and so on, But then again you are the guy who wrote this-

"I think that we are supposed to follow the Lord (through the Spirit), not the prophet."

I can't come up with a better word than RETARDED to describe that comment. First off YOU can't have the Lords spirit if you don't follow the prophet! How many times does the Lord have to say By my mouth or by my servants it's the same! So when you are criticizing the Lords prophets you are criticizing the Lord. The 15 best people in the world are presiding over this church and every single soul that has made a covenant in the temple to sustain them 100% and not speak ill about them who do will suffer the following fate- D&C 112

24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

It's scary to think there are so many members that actually think this kind of talk over the Lords anointed is acceptable...

Can a prophet err? Can an apostle?

Are we to remain silent when we believe that they are in error? Do you believe that's what God wants of us?

[rockpond]

False dichotomy. But if I had to choose between the two, it would be the prophet, because if we are honestly following the prophet, we are following Christ.

And Elder Holland spoke the truth. He may have given the Church a gentle chastisement, but he did it from a place of love. Prophets don't always tell us what we want to hear. That was the pattern in the scriptures, too.

I agree that for the most part we don't have to choose between following Christ and following the prophet. But if we did, I'd choose the Savior over a mortal.

[Tacenda]

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?

Family, friends, fitting in.

[Rain]

It seems she missed this idea: " With admiration and encouragement for everyone who will need to remain steadfast in these latter days, I say to all and especially the youth of the Church that if you haven’t already, you will one day find yourself called upon to defend your faith or perhaps even endure some personal abuse simply because you are a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Such moments will require both courage and courtesy on your part." - Elder Holland

 

That thoughts is what more than half of his talk covers.  He is talking to people who are speaking out against the church and even sometimes abusing those in the church.  This is not a talk about mormons against non mormons.  It is a talk helping those who are going through the persecutions.  

... 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. ...

 

----------------------

 

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.

 

 

 

To the part of your quote at first: I have been noticing just how much these men and women have gone through the last couple of years.  So many have lost children, lost family members to the world, lost spouses etc.  Few have had an easy life.  

 

Since moving here I have felt the Spirit strongly through my bishop.  I have found things here and there that must have been great burdens which he has gone through and must have trained him in hearing the Spirit.  I suspect that many if not all of the general authorities have gone through some of those things.

 

I also agree what you said about the charitable works.  So much of what she said we don't do - we do do.  I don't hear about a lot of it at general conference and things like that, but I do hear about felons (my brother)  and homeless finding jobs from my dad who does that as an at home missionary and a man in our ward who also does in another state. Through my dad I know a lot the church does for the homeless and from the missionaries in our ward who work with several homeless. One woman I know works with abused women and organizes things in her ward and neighborhood to help them. I understand why she might not know about what the church and members do in these cases, but most of the people I know who are serving in these capacities are not open about their service because they don't want to be seen of men.  You just have to get to know them better to know what they are doing.  

[Opinion Slayer]

Can a prophet err? Can an apostle?

Are we to remain silent when we believe that they are in error? Do you believe that's what God wants of us?

Here's the problem with this premise, the arrogance that you and many others have that when it comes to the doctrine of Christ they actually know better than the prophet or that they have a better way of teaching the doctrine or how to lead... It not only shows a lack of faith, trust and humility it shows zero charity by definition.

One of the greatest doctrine of this church is that the living prophet will never lead the church astray so you should never remain silent  when you believe they are in error. You should repent and be anxiously engaged in following their council as if it was Christ himself.

 

The bottom line is this, when the prophet has spoken there is no more debate. Zion is one heart and one mind and if you are not one with the prophet you have no part in Zion #FACT!

[Tacenda]

It seems she missed this idea: " With admiration and encouragement for everyone who will need to remain steadfast in these latter days, I say to all and especially the youth of the Church that if you haven’t already, you will one day find yourself called upon to defend your faith or perhaps even endure some personal abuse simply because you are a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Such moments will require both courage and courtesy on your part." - Elder Holland

That thoughts is what more than half of his talk covers. He is talking to people who are speaking out against the church and even sometimes abusing those in the church. This is not a talk about mormons against non mormons. It is a talk helping those who are going through the persecutions.

To the part of your quote at first: I have been noticing just how much these men and women have gone through the last couple of years. So many have lost children, lost family members to the world, lost spouses etc. Few have had an easy life.

Since moving here I have felt the Spirit strongly through my bishop. I have found things here and there that must have been great burdens which he has gone through and must have trained him in hearing the Spirit. I suspect that many if not all of the general authorities have gone through some of those things.

I also agree what you said about the charitable works. So much of what she said we don't do - we do do. I don't hear about a lot of it at general conference and things like that, but I do hear about felons (my brother) and homeless finding jobs from my dad who does that as an at home missionary and a man in our ward who also does in another state. Through my dad I know a lot the church does for the homeless and from the missionaries in our ward who work with several homeless. One woman I know works with abused women and organizes things in her ward and neighborhood to help them. I understand why she might not know about what the church and members do in these cases, but most of the people I know who are serving in these capacities are not open about their service because they don't want to be seen of men. You just have to get to know them better to know what they are doing.

I can get behind this, probably a big reason I stay!