Uncomfortable God

[smac97]

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

 

Come again?  We are not supposed to listen to prophets?  So you must utterly reject their writings (the scriptures).  

 

We must also reject the Savior's words in Matt. 10:40 ("He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.").

 

We must also reject the Savior's words in 3 Nephi 12:1 ("Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water...").

 

And D&C 1:38 ("(W)hether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.").

 

And D&C 21:5 ("For his (Joseph Smith's) word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.").

 

And D&C 112:20 ("Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you.").

 

Rockpond, I understood you to be a member of the LDS Church.  As such, you cannot be suggesting that we are not supposed to heed prophets.  So what are you saying?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

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

 

Do you really subscribe to this false dichotomy?

 

And on a somewhat related note, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

To be the Lord's mouthpiece.

 

Which you juxtaposed against the Lord?  That is, you presented us with a (false and spurious) choice of listening to either "the prophet" or "Christ."

 

What are you preaching here?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

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.

 

1. You said: "(W)e are supposed to follow the Lord (through the Spirit), not the prophet."

 

2. You said: "But who do we follow, the prophet or Christ?"

 

3. You said "We should listen to ... what the prophet teaches us."

 

4. You said: "We follow Christ but that doesn't mean we don't need a prophet."

 

5. You said: "I still need the prophet. I listen. I heed."

 

Statements 1 and 2 are not compatible with Statements 3, 4 and 5.  I also struggle to reconcile them in any meaningful way with LDS doctrine and discipleship.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 11, 2014 by smac97

[rockpond]

Come again? We are not supposed to listen to prophets? So you must utterly reject their writings (the scriptures).

We must also reject the Savior's words in Matt. 10:40 ("He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.").

We must also reject the Savior's words in 3 Nephi 12:1 ("Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water...").

And D&C 1:38 ("(W)hether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.").

And D&C 21:5 ("For his (Joseph Smith's) word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.").

And D&C 112:20 ("Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you.").

Rockpond, I understood you to be a member of the LDS Church. As such, you cannot be suggesting that we are not supposed to heed prophets. So what are you saying?

Thanks,

-Smac

Did you read what I wrote and then your response in the top paragraph here? I've never suggested such things.

Please note that none of the scriptures you cited used the word "follow".

Of course we are receive, listen to, and heed the prophets. I have not suggested otherwise. In fact, I think I've advocated all of those in this very thread.

[rockpond]

1. You said: "(W)e are supposed to follow the Lord (through the Spirit), not the prophet."

2. You said: "But who do we follow, the prophet or Christ?"

3. You said "We should listen to ... what the prophet teaches us."

4. You said: "We follow Christ but that doesn't mean we don't need a prophet."

5. You said: "I still need the prophet. I listen. I heed."

Statements 1 and 2 are not compatible with Statements 3, 4 and 5. I also struggle to reconcile them in any meaningful way with LDS doctrine and discipleship.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'll try to answer your last three replies with one response.

In the spiritual meaning of the word, we follow Christ. That is discipleship, right?

Prophets and apostles are here to teach, to be the Lord's mouthpiece, to witness, to point us to the one perfect person that we are supposed to be following.

[rockpond]

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!

You don't know me so please refrain from concluding what I do and do not believe about myself. You are incorrect and have misjudged me.

Beyond that, if you wish to dialogue, you'll have to actually respond my questions as I respond to yours. Otherwise you are just preaching your philosophies at me -- and I really have no interest in them. Sorry.

But I did enjoy the "fact" hashtag as a means of somehow certifying your opinion on the matter.

[teddyaware]

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

After reading Cates comments, I'm caused me to wonder if members of the Church, who find themselves going down Cate's path of speaking out in condemnation against the Lord's anointed, ever take a step back for a moment and say to themselves: "Wait a minute, I'm actually speaking ill words against the modern Prophets, Seers and Revelators of the Lord -- something I've never done before. I wonder if the adversary is using his cunning and deceitfulness to carefully lure me down the path of apostasy, the same path that so many others who have rejected the Prophets have traversed? Even though I feel quite right and justified in my criticism, I wonder if what's really happening is that the Prophet I'm criticizing is actually speaking the truth but the devil is attempting to carefully lead me down to hell by coaxing me to turn away from the Prophets, step by step? Perhaps Satan is trying to beguile me into letting go of the iron rod and walk away from the tree of life and its precious fruit, so that he might get me to wander down strange and forbidden paths that lead away from the Lord?"

 

The sad spectacle of tens of thousands of the Lord's people turning away from the living Prophets has happened in every other Gospel dispensation; and based on Cates rant, and all the positive responses she's getting, it seems quite likely it's going to happen again in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.

Edited June 11, 2014 by teddyaware

[smac97]

Did you read what I wrote and then your response in the top paragraph here? I've never suggested such things.

You suggested that we need not follow the prophet ("(W)e are supposed to follow the Lord (through the Spirit), not the prophet."). You asked: "But who do we follow, the prophet or Christ?" The Saints do not need to entertain a false dilemma of following either the Lord or His servants.

Please note that none of the scriptures you cited used the word "follow".

Oh, get real. You said that we don't need to follow the prophet, or that we must choose between following "the prophet or Christ." Either you are preaching something antithetical to LDS thought or you are mincing words and stirring the pot to antagonize your fellow Latter-day Saints. I'm not sure which one it is, but I dislike both in near equal measure.

Of course we are receive, listen to, and heed the prophets. I have not suggested otherwise. In fact, I think I've advocated all of those in this very thread.

Okay. I guess I'll take you at your word. So you're just mincing words and laying rhetorical traps for your fellow Latter-day Saints. Not cool, man.

Contrary to your proposed (but apparently rhetorical and word-minced) false dilemma, Latter-day Saints believe that following prophets and following Christ are not mutually exclusive options.

Thanks,

-Smac

[halconero]

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..........

 

I should clarify. The pledge is a non-verbal one. The translation that I use for personal study, the New Oxford Annotated Bible, clarifies that in the greek, Peter is teaching that baptism itself is a pledge from God of our salvation.

[rockpond]

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 too see amazing acts of love and service in my ward. There are Sundays where I am just blown away by some of the charity that happens behind the scenes. And even though my calling often prevents me from being able to sit down for the entirety of either lesson in the last two hours of church, I nearly always leave feeling uplifted from my interactions with the saints.

That said, I still share some of the concerns of the blogger about where our emphasis as a worldwide church seems to be placed.

[smac97]

I'll try to answer your last three replies with one response.

In the spiritual meaning of the word, we follow Christ. That is discipleship, right?

Yes.

Prophets and apostles are here to teach, to be the Lord's mouthpiece, to witness, to point us to the one perfect person that we are supposed to be following.

Yes.

So you are just playing word games? Posing questions in bad faith to your fellow Latter-day Saints (I don't know how else to characterize the false dilemma you presented)?

I struggle to understand how your comments ("(W)e are supposed to follow the Lord (through the Spirit), not the prophet." and "But who do we follow, the prophet or Christ?") are edifying or instructive. They seem to be rhetorical "gotchas" intended to either confuse your fellow Saints by creating the appearance of a false dilemma, or else make them feel stupid for not catching on to what appears to be an obscure, confusing and not-very-helpful lesson on the verb "to follow."

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

You suggested that we need not follow the prophet ("(W)e are supposed to follow the Lord (through the Spirit), not the prophet."). You asked: "But who do we follow, the prophet or Christ?" The Saints do not need to entertain a false dilemma of following either the Lord or His servants.

Oh, get real. You said that we don't need to follow the prophet, or that we must choose between following "the prophet or Christ." Either you are preaching something antithetical to LDS thought or you are mincing words and stirring the pot to antagonize your fellow Latter-day Saints. I'm not sure which one it is, but I dislike both in near equal measure.

Okay. I guess I'll take you at your word. So you're just mincing words and laying rhetorical traps for your fellow Latter-day Saints. Not cool, man.

Contrary to your proposed (but apparently rhetorical and word-minced) false dilemma, Latter-day Saints believe that following prophets and following Christ are not mutually exclusive options.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was responding to a post about three pages back. And I was not laying rhetorical traps. I believe it's an important distinction with a scriptural basis as you demonstrated. I was happy to dialogue about that distinction but it seemed that too many here were more interested in going on the attack for their perception that I was saying something apostate.

[rockpond]

Yes.

Yes.

So you are just playing word games? Posing questions in bad faith to your fellow Latter-day Saints (I don't know how else to characterize the false dilemma you presented)?

I struggle to understand how your comments ("(W)e are supposed to follow the Lord (through the Spirit), not the prophet." and "But who do we follow, the prophet or Christ?") are edifying or instructive. They seem to be rhetorical "gotchas" intended to either confuse your fellow Saints by creating the appearance of a false dilemma, or else make them feel stupid for not catching on to what appears to be an obscure, confusing and not-very-helpful lesson on the verb "to follow."

Thanks,

-Smac

Like I said, I didn't bring it up. I just responses to questions asked. I'm sorry you felt I was trying to confuse - that was not my intent. It's a tangent (IMO) to the topic of the thread so I kept trying to reply to questions asked of my but not derail the thread.

Maybe you could give me a little benefit of the doubt instead of these accusations that I'm trying to trick people. I think I've tried hard to be a kind and reasonable person in my interactions here. I thought you had interacted with me enough to know that but I suppose it's been a while since you and I have dialogued.

Edited June 11, 2014 by rockpond

[Opinion Slayer]

You don't know me so please refrain from concluding what I do and do not believe about myself. You are incorrect and have misjudged me.

Beyond that, if you wish to dialogue, you'll have to actually respond my questions as I respond to yours. Otherwise you are just preaching your philosophies at me -- and I really have no interest in them. Sorry.

But I did enjoy the "fact" hashtag as a means of somehow certifying your opinion on the matter.

I know plenty about you by what you have written. Your words define your character very easily to me and I'm not incorrect and I haven't misjudged you at all.

 

I answered your question. "Do prophets err?" No, not when they are leading the church and to dispute the prophet is blasphemy by definition. Look it up...

 

And you must lack in reading skills because I have never asked you a question in my statements. I have just stated facts through scriptural teachings of living and dead prophets not my philosophies pal! But here is a question for you, show me a statement I have made that is not doctrinal? Good luck;)

 

Insulting posters=thread ban

[mnn727]

 

 

Never mind, I read it wrong

Edited June 11, 2014 by mnn727

[Vance]

I don't get it.

First there was this.

. . . because her concerns are the concerns of many other devoted latter-day Saints who see their Church being virtually stolen out from under them; transformed into something alarmingly different than it was in the beginning -indeed, different even than in recent memory.

And later there was this,

I was saddened by how targeted his words seemed at certain groups within the church who are grappling with tough issues. Loaded words like "advocacy," "patriarchal," "provincial," and "bigoted" sprinkled throughout the talk seemed to point squarely at families who lobby for civil rights for their gay children, women who struggle with the hierarchical inequity in Church structure, . . .

So, these people are wanting the Church to go back to the way it was in the beginning, by embracing the homosexual agenda (which is anathema to God's purposes) and giving women the priesthood (like they had it in the beginning?????)

???????????????????

[rockpond]

I know plenty about you by what you have written. Your words define your character very easily to me and I'm not incorrect and I haven't misjudged you at all.

 

I answered your question. "Do prophets err?" No, not when they are leading the church and to dispute the prophet is blasphemy by definition. Look it up...

 

And you must lack in reading skills because I have never asked you a question in my statements. I have just stated facts through scriptural teachings of living and dead prophets not my philosophies pal! But here is a question for you, show me a statement I have made that is not doctrinal? Good luck;)

 

Your statements about me have gone way beyond what I've written and now you are insisting on falsehoods about me.  I won't engage here with someone who's willing to take that road.

Edited June 11, 2014 by rockpond

[rockpond]

I don't get it.

First there was this.

And later there was this,

So, these people are wanting the Church to go back to the way it was in the beginning, by embracing the homosexual agenda (which is anathema to God's purposes) and giving women the priesthood (like they had it in the beginning?????)

???????????????????

 

I think she's suggesting more of a return to the core gospel principles.  ETA:  Probably better stated -- I think she's suggesting a move away from some of the periphery.

Edited June 11, 2014 by rockpond

[CV75]

I think she's suggesting more of a return to the core gospel principles.  ETA:  Probably better stated -- I think she's suggesting a move away from some of the periphery.

In relation to the mission of the Church throughout the world, there is no periphery, only appendages that tie back to the core principles. “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).”

 

That they are only appendages does not mean they do not tie back to the true vine to abide and bring forth much fruit (John 15), but that they rely on the true vine and the keys He has delegated. Herein is the Father glorified.

 

In order to gather, we need to extend ourselves into the periphery to reach all the children of God and to establish the Church more perfectly in areas where it is weak.

[BlueDreams]

I think she's suggesting more of a return to the core gospel principles.  ETA:  Probably better stated -- I think she's suggesting a move away from some of the periphery.

 

What are those and how does she see that being implemented? I saw more criticism than actual suggestion as to what that would look like and entail. And half the things she saw around in other churches....are actually in our church as well and many of which are very robust programs. Others are very differently built....the church focuses more heavily on local initiatives that incorporate those who know the communities best to decide for themselves what's most needed. So most of these initiatives will be unseen but far more effective in many ways. And LDS humanitarian services has literally almost no overhead costs....which is unheard of with programs that efficiently fit niches and err on the side of sustainability. And the service done by individuals is unnecessarily divorced from the church's organization and "core gospel principles" in action. So much of the church has been pigeon holed with absolutely little acknowledgement to what it is and does have and how what it has, really really works.

 

But I'm more curious about what you felt were the most salient points for you from this article. And what exactly is periphery to you about Holland's talk?  

 

With luv,

BD

[stemelbow]

All I know is I read the blog then read some of the comments here and wondered if we read the same thing. I kept reading the comments and felt I missed something. So I went back to read the blog and came back here to read more comments about it. All I know is I'm getting something quite different then some other posters here.

I don't agree wholly with the blog post but I do agree with some of the things said. I didn't get the level of sarcasm nor condescension that she did from Elder Holland's talk, but I appreciate her point, whether it includes Elder Holland's talk as an example or not.

Things more pertinent to God than promoting modesty to four-year-olds in a Church magazine, things more awe-inspiring than a God who can only conjure warm fuzzies as a witness, things more restorative than endless hours in the pews. And our children are listening. Our children will have no memory of an uncorrelated church. They will see only another religious institution, patting itself on the back in the tradition of Pharisee forebears. A religion proclaiming its chosenness from within its insulated walls.

and

Its attendance is growing as more and more frustrated church members across all Christendom relinquish the bondage of certainty and embrace the hope and mystery that is the incomprehensible love of God. It swells with every realization that all men are our brothers and that being chosen is a call to action not an award for merit or the election of a lucky birth. The seats at the feast fill steadily as God fills us with faith in our fellowmen and empathy born of the solidarity of mortal sojourn and we are unified in the Eucharist of abandoning the fear that God will stop loving us "if".

I say, yep. I see what she's saying.

[MorningStar]

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?

I can sort of see, but I think they're forgetting that there are times to "reprove with sharpness".  There are a lot of members in the church who need to be corrected when it comes to pushing their own agenda. 

[Glenn101]

I have read Elder Holland's talk and Cate's take on it. The talk is spot on. It is not the apostles and prophets that are falling away from what the Church taught in the beginning.

 

here we have a person who holds herself up to be the paragon of virtue, of discipleship.

"There is a cost of discipleship. I know it. I’ve paid it. I pay it every single day. And having traversed my own wine press, however incomparable to that of my exemplar, I found a God who was radically more interested in my ability to love my neighbor in spite of his or her fallen state than to draw lines which exclude. I found a God whose love is transformative and whose love, when manifest through me, is a corrective force needing little, if any, accompanying condemnation.  Precisely because I found that God, I found Elder Holland’s words a harsh and demoralizing oversimplification of what I and so many others have experienced:"

 

Then she goes on to excoriate everyone and everything that she know in the church, practically:

"At my church, 90% of what we do is incestuous service; we make dinners for each other, we visit the sick within our own congregations, we go to the temple for our own families. On occasion, we have a community service "project" or the Relief Society makes prescribed hygiene and newborn kits from downloadable patterns available on the Church website. We rarely see the faces of those who most need our service. As a congregation, we are so insulated. So aloof. So free to simply donate money as we plan our next family vacation, shop for a new "modest" dress, or call a plastic surgeon to schedule a mommy makeover. "

 

I am not going to make any judgment on her comments. They pretty much speak for themselves.

 

I will say that that I do not know the church that and the people that she describes.

 

I will also say that she completely missed the point of Elder Holland's talk.

 

Glenn

[MorningStar]

Another thing I appreciate about the talk is that it is really hard to live and state our beliefs because it offends people, but he reminds us that that has always been the cost of discipleship.  It is very hard to do, but that doesn't mean Heavenly Father is going to change and tell people what they want to hear.  As I talked to interfaith friends in my youth, they would often tell me on one hand how Mormons don't follow the Bible, but at the same time they would say that they didn't really need to avoid certain sins because they believe and that's enough.  I wondered how on earth that was following the Bible and it's a good example of how some people want a God who doesn't ask them to do anything difficult.  I had a friend who was very interested in the church until he realized he would have to give up doing drugs.  Initially he was very excited, but he didn't want to change.  And now we have members of the church who would rather push for a change in our beliefs than be uncomfortable.