To Whom Little Is Given, Much Is Criticized

[The Nehor]

So the Prophet is the one person on earth WITHOUT agency? The rest of us are free to obey or rebel, but the Prophet has no autonomy? Or are you saying that HF will "remove" (kill) the Prophet for disobeying? And if so, your evidence of this is what ... That no Prophet has been struck by lightning over the pulpit?

In my days, I've met many liars who have said, "If I'm lying, may God strike me dead." Not one of them died in my presence, but I wouldn't call that "proof" of their truthfulness.

 

I most certainly would not deny the Prophet his agency. Yes, I am saying God would kill him if necessary. The Prophet can still be wrong, have opinions, whatever but if he starts to lead the church astray God will take him. My evidence of this is a prophet saying so.

 

Of course God does not strike down people who do that. If he did we would give every liar the ability to command God. I doubt God would use lightning. There are much better ways. If a prophet died due to their apostasy we probably would not be able to tell.

 

It is of course possible that the Prophet could be tried for his membership. The procedure is in the Doctrine and Covenants (though I am unclear whether it is for any member of the First Presidency or just counselors) but I think that would only be used if he were sinning in other ways, not leading the Church astray.

 

This if of course not a denial of agency. Agency is not a promise that you can "get away" with anything. If he wants to God could kill me for getting snippy with my boss last week. He chose not to so far. That is the advantage of being God. You can do what you want or what needs to be done. Why did Korah get swallowed by the earth and Kate Kelly just got a disciplinary hearing? I have no idea.

[Kenngo1969]

Don't worry.  I have no delusions that we could ever be Baptists.  I'm just trying to get us up to the level of the Methodists

 

And that is my point.  The Mormon Church was not Baptist or Methodist when you joined, and you knew it, so why are you trying to turn them into Baptists or Methodists now?

 

I don't think he's tried to get any of us to turn into anything other than what we are. perhaps giving us things to consider in our individual paths in trying to become better. But surely I haven't read everything from him, so I could be mistaken.

 

In some respects, perhaps we do follow "our individual paths" in life, but in other, very important respects, shouldn't we all be on the same path ("I say unto you, Be One, and if ye are not One, ye are not Mine" (Doctrine & Covenants 38:27))?  Isn't there something in the scriptures about all men like sheep having gone astray, and every man walking in his own path, and worshiping the image of his own god (see Isaiah 53:6 and Doctrine and Covenants 1:16)?

[ERayR]

 

 

 

In some respects, perhaps we do follow "our individual paths" in life, but in other, very important respects, shouldn't we all be on the same path ("I say unto you, Be One, and if ye are not One, ye are not Mine" (Doctrine & Covenants 38:27))?  Isn't there something in the scriptures about all men like sheep having gone astray, and every man walking in his own path, and worshiping the image of his own god (see Isaiah 53:6 and Doctrine and Covenants 1:16)?

 

The admonition to be one is for the saints.  The ones who have accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ and partaken of the holy sacraments administered by the priesthood.

[Kenngo1969]

The admonition to be one is for the saints.  The ones who have accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ and partaken of the holy sacraments administered by the priesthood.

Agreed, which proves my point: there has been a lot of [attempted] "own-path walking" and "after-the-image-of-his-[or-her]-own-god worshipping" lately ... even in the Church of Jesus Christ ... a la John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, et al.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[mormonnewb]

Agreed, which proves my point: there has been a lot of [attempted] "own-path walking" and "after-the-image-of-his-[or-her]-own-god worshipping" lately ... even in the Church of Jesus Christ ... a la John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, et al.

"But while the Atonement is meant to help us all become more like Christ, it is not meant to make us all the same. Sometimes we confuse differences in personality with sin. We can even make the mistake of thinking that because someone is different from us, it must mean they are not pleasing to God. This line of thinking leads some to believe that the Church wants to create every member from a single mold—that each one should look, feel, think, and behave like every other. This would contradict the genius of God, who created every man different from his brother, every son different from his father. Even identical twins are not identical in their personalities and spiritual identities." -- Pres. Uchtdorf, April 2013 GC

[why me]

If the sunday church members were the same as the internet members, we wouldn't have a church. On the internet, some of the lds are downing the church, its leaders, its members etc. And then on sunday look all happy and peaceful. But imagine what the church would be if it resemble the dialogue on the internet. Quite an unpeaceful church full of contention and disagreement. This is why if I were an investigator today, and if I would read what the members would write about the church, I would stay clear of it and nicely tell the missionaries that it is not a church for me and if they asked why, I would just say that too many members are being critical of their leaders and so, how can these leaders be from god if the lds members are so critical of them and their policies.

 

And if it is the church of god, why can't its members be peaceful about their church and its direction. This would be my investigator logic.

Edited July 4, 2014 by why me

[ERayR]

"But while the Atonement is meant to help us all become more like Christ, it is not meant to make us all the same. Sometimes we confuse differences in personality with sin. We can even make the mistake of thinking that because someone is different from us, it must mean they are not pleasing to God. This line of thinking leads some to believe that the Church wants to create every member from a single mold—that each one should look, feel, think, and behave like every other. This would contradict the genius of God, who created every man different from his brother, every son different from his father. Even identical twins are not identical in their personalities and spiritual identities." -- Pres. Uchtdorf, April 2013 GC

 

Speak for yourself, I make a concerted effort not to judge ones personality but do reserve the right to question actions and utterances that are non doctrinal opposed to the Church.  I could care less whether someone comes bearded with purple hair just as long as they don't start telling me the brethren are wrong for not ordaining women. etc.

[mormonnewb]

If the sunday church members were the same as the internet members, we wouldn't have a church. On the internet, some of the lds are downing the church, its leaders, its members etc. And then on sunday look all happy and peaceful. But imagine what the church would be if it resemble the dialogue on the internet. Quite an unpeaceful church full of contention and disagreement. This is why if I were an investigator today, and if I would read what the members would write about the church, I would stay clear of it and nicely tell the missionaries that it is not a church for me and if they asked why, I would just say that too many members are being critical of their leaders and so, how can these leaders be from god if the lds members are so critical of them and their policies.

And if it is the church of god, why can't its members be peaceful about their church and its direction. This would be my investigator logic.

.

As you can imagine, my reaction was just the opposite. "What a thoughtful people who are still learning how to love one another despite the differences. I've got to get me some of that!"

I guess it takes all kinds to make a Church.

[mormonnewb]

Speak for yourself, I make a concerted effort not to judge ones personality but do reserve the right to question actions and utterances that are non doctrinal opposed to the Church. I could care less whether someone comes bearded with purple hair just as long as they don't start telling me the brethren are wrong for not ordaining women. etc.

The Brethren are wrong for not ordaining women. (I'm sorry, but you left yourself wide open for that one).

[Kenngo1969]

The Brethren are wrong for not ordaining women. (I'm sorry, but you left yourself wide open for that one).

Quite likely, they would be ... if this were their Church; but, since it's not, they're not ... if you've followed where I've drifted.

[Kenngo1969]

T

 

"But while the Atonement is meant to help us all become more like Christ, it is not meant to make us all the same. Sometimes we confuse differences in personality with sin. We can even make the mistake of thinking that because someone is different from us, it must mean they are not pleasing to God. This line of thinking leads some to believe that the Church wants to create every member from a single mold—that each one should look, feel, think, and behave like every other. This would contradict the genius of God, who created every man different from his brother, every son different from his father. Even identical twins are not identical in their personalities and spiritual identities." -- Pres. Uchtdorf, April 2013 GC

The Oneness endorsed by the Lord in Doctrine and Covenants scripture I quoted isn't what President Uchtdorf is addressing here. Strictly as a practical matter, it would be difficult (and not desirable) for a Church that aspires to be a worldwide Church, as this one does, to achieve the kind of (undesirable) uniformity President Uchtdorf is talking about.  Kate Kelly wasn't excommunicated for her belief or how she feels; she was excommunicated for openly persisting in a course of action which is in direct opposition (if not in defiance) of the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders, and for attempting to win "converts" to her cause. 

Edited July 4, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Speak for yourself, I make a concerted effort not to judge ones personality but do reserve the right to question actions and utterances that are non doctrinal opposed to the Church.  I couldn't [edit and emphasis added by Kenngo1969] could care less whether someone comes bearded with purple hair just as long as they don't start telling me the brethren are wrong for not ordaining women. etc.

With one minor edit, I agree with you.

[why me]

.

As you can imagine, my reaction was just the opposite. "What a thoughtful people who are still learning how to love one another despite the differences. I've got to get me some of that!"

I guess it takes all kinds to make a Church.

Let me put it this way: as someone who also attends the catholic church, if I saw devout catholics constantly being critical of the pope, and this was happening over and over again on the catholic boards, I would have to wonder a little why these devout catholics had a chip on their shoulder. And if I saw it in the catholic church as I attended, I would want no part of that faith. A house divided is not the lord's  house. So, regardless of how they are trying to love one another, being critical of a church's leader or leaders over and over again would have to make me wonder why that person or people are members of the catholic church or any church that they may be a member of and critical of it. Eventually, people need to discover the peace that the gospel should bring in their lives and a church should help to fulfull that peace.

 

For example, your statement that the bretheran were wrong about women and the priesthood is an interesting comment. And if 60 percent of the mormons would believe as you do, I would say that the lds church has a serious problem because the membership is losing faith in their leaders, leaders who claim to be acting for heavenly father on this earth. But of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion and respect your opinion but....if many active members would have the same thought...well....the church is in trouble because the criticism never stops at just one issue. Once faith in the leadership is lost with one issue, more will issues will pop up to be critical of. And if these issues would come up in sunday in meetings, and contention would develop and bad feelings, I don't think that I would enjoy attending unless I wanted to be entertained by the bickering. For after all, the lds church does claim to be the lord's church.

 

Here is an interesting talk from 1989, one which I remembered:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/the-canker-of-contention?lang=eng

 

 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2014 by why me

[why me]

The Brethren are wrong for not ordaining women. (I'm sorry, but you left yourself wide open for that one).

 

A view from the golden age of 1989:

 

Leaders of the Church

 

Leaders of the Church are targets for attack by those who stir contention. This is true even though not a single leader has called himself or herself to a position of responsibility. Each General Authority, for instance, chose another path to pursue as his life’s occupation. But the reality is, as with Peter or Paul, each was surely “called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority.” (A of F 1:5.) With that call comes the commitment to emulate the patterns of the Prince of Peace.

That goal is shared by worthy servants of the Master, who would not speak ill of the Lord’s anointed nor provoke contention over teachings declared by ancient or living prophets.

Certainly no faithful follower of God would promote any cause even remotely related to religion if rooted in controversy, because contention is not of the Lord.

Surely a stalwart would not lend his or her good name to periodicals, programs, or forums that feature offenders who do sow “discord among brethren.” (Prov. 6:19; see also Prov. 6:14.)

Such agitators unfortunately fulfill long-foretold prophecy: they “take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed.” (Ps. 2:2.)

Yet, mercifully, the anointed pray for those who attack them, knowing the sad fate prophesied for their attackers. (See D&C 121:16–22.)

Throughout the world, Saints of the Lord follow Him and His anointed leaders. They have learned that the path of dissent leads to real dangers. The Book of Mormon carries this warning:

“Now these dissenters, having the same instruction and the same information … , having been instructed in the same knowledge of the Lord, nevertheless, it is strange to relate, not long after their dissensions they became more hardened and impenitent, and more wild, wicked and ferocious … ; giving way to indolence, and all manner of lasciviousness; yea, entirely forgetting the Lord their God.” (Alma 47:36.)

How divisive is the force of dissension! Small acts can lead to such great consequences. Regardless of position or situation, no one can safely assume immunity to contention’s terrible toll.

Thomas B. Marsh, once one of the Twelve, left the Church. His spiritual slide to apostasy started because his wife and another woman had quarreled over a little cream! After an absence from the Church of nearly nineteen years, he came back. To a congregation of Saints, he then said:

“If there are any among this people who should ever apostatize and do as I have done, prepare your backs for a good whipping, if you are such as the Lord loves. But if you will take my advice, you will stand by the authorities.” (Journal of Discourses, 5:206; see also Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, May 1984, pp. 81–83.)

Of course the authorities are human. But to them God has entrusted the keys to His divine work. And He holds us accountable for our responses to the teachings of His servants. These are the words of the Lord:

“If my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place.

“But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest.” (D&C 124:45–46.)

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/the-canker-of-contention?lang=eng

 

And here we have the problem for those who attack the leaders of the lds church, especially among those who say they love the church.

 

Edited July 4, 2014 by why me

[carbon dioxide]

The Brethren are wrong for not ordaining women. (I'm sorry, but you left yourself wide open for that one).

Jesus Christ is wrong for not ordainng women.  Does not Jesus recognize that it is the 21st century?  Jesus needs to stop living in the past and get with the times.

Edited July 4, 2014 by carbon dioxide

[ERayR]

The Brethren are wrong for not ordaining women. (I'm sorry, but you left yourself wide open for that one).

 

And you are President and Prophet, Seer and Revelater mormonnewb?  That would be fine if you are running a social club and taking direction from opinion polls but when you are leading God's Church then it is probably better to take direction from him whose Church it is.

Edited July 4, 2014 by ERayR

[ERayR]

With one minor edit, I agree with you.

 

Spell check just doesn't catch it all. 

[mormonnewb]

Jesus Christ is wrong for not ordainng women. Does not Jesus recognize that it is the 21st century? Jesus needs to stop living in the past and get with the times.

And which of the Brethren is Jesus? And do they know that? Because not ONE of them has ever claimed to be the Savior, and the day they do, I'm out of here!

[why me]

And which of the Brethren is Jesus? And do they know that? Because not ONE of them has ever claimed to be the Savior, and the day they do, I'm out of here!

It does have to do with revelation and whether or not one was received. In this case, OW got a resounding no to women and the priesthood at this time. Why would the bretheren claim to be jesus when revelation is just that revelation. I think that you must know that the lds church claims to be a revelatory church.

 

Like I have said before, it is a shame that christ did not ordain women apostles. If he did, we would not be having this debate. But alas, he ordained 12 men for better or for worse. Perhaps this would make jesus imperfect after all since a perfect being who is god would have included women. And then we have paul, another man who seems to dominate the new testament. However, if one believes in the church then one must wait for a revelation for women ordaination. The catholics would tell their flock to pray to a saint for intercession. Or pray to god. We can all pray to god....we just need to accept his answer.

 

I don't know...what do you think?

Edited July 4, 2014 by why me

[ERayR]

And which of the Brethren is Jesus? And do they know that? Because not ONE of them has ever claimed to be the Savior, and the day they do, I'm out of here!

 

No they are not him nor to they claim to be.  What they do claim is that they get direction from him for the guidance and direction of his church.  That is what you are denying and refusing to acknowledge.

Edited July 4, 2014 by ERayR

[The Nehor]

The Brethren are wrong for not ordaining women. (I'm sorry, but you left yourself wide open for that one).

 

Everyone is fallible including the prophets and apostles.....except me on this one point.

[ERayR]

Everyone is fallible including the prophets and apostles.....except me on this one point.

 

As long as you agree with me.

[mormonnewb]

It does have to do with revelation and whether or not one was received. In this case, OW got a resounding no to women and the priesthood at this time. Why would the bretheren claim to be jesus when revelation is just that revelation. I think that you must know that the lds church claims to be a revelatory church.

Like I have said before, it is a shame that christ did not ordain women apostles. If he did, we would not be having this debate. But alas, he ordained 12 men for better or for worse. Perhaps this would make jesus imperfect after all since a perfect being who is god would have included women. And then we have paul, another man who seems to dominate the new testament. However, if one believes in the church then one must wait for a revelation for women ordaination. The catholics would tell their flock to pray to a saint for intercession. Or pray to god. We can all pray to god....we just need to accept his answer.

I don't know...what do you think?

If I understand properly, Jesus only ordained Palestinian Jews but we seemed to have no problem extended that call to white guys from Utah. Perhaps, the purpose of CONTINUING revelation is for the prophets to CONTINUE along the path of opening the riches of the Gospel to ALL of God's children.

Just a thought ...

[mormonnewb]

No they are not him nor to they claim to be. What they do claim is that they get direction from him for the guidance and direction of his church. That is what you are denying and refusing to acknowledge.

On the contrary, I fully accept that they get GUIDANCE through the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit has to work through MEN -- imperfect beings who also have their own opinions, prejudices, etc.

This is something that the leaders themselves acknowledged in the recent Blacks and the Priesthood essay. Over the years, they claimed that they received revelation as to the rationale for the ban, only to later acknowledge that these revelations had been affected by "prevailing attitudes of the times."

If it happened before, is it POSSIBLE that it could happen again?

[omni]

Then just what are you implying?

 

That theses are fallible men, and as great as they may be, they can still make errant decisions and policies.  Power without proper checks and balances can change even the best among us.