To Whom Little Is Given, Much Is Criticized

[ERayR]

 

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?

 

And you think you are more in tune and able to hear God's voice in this than they are?  Why?

Edited July 4, 2014 by ERayR

[mormonnewb]

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

Then marriage must be a living hell for you.

Unfortunately, my wife does not agree with me about everything. Even more, she has the temerity to let her "contentious" views be known.

During the early years of our marriage, I didn't like this one bit. I wanted us to have "unity" - to be "of one accord."

For instance, believe it or not, I'm an optimistic type of guy. I generally operate on the principle that "God likes me" and therefore, I will often be tempted to enter into business opportunities without doing the proper (or any) due diligence. My wife is just the opposite and would constantly pepper me with "meddlesome" questions.

As the presiding bread winner in the home, I would be insulted by her importunity. Didn't she trust me? Why couldn't she just "doubt her doubts" and put her faith in me?

As I've matured (slightly), I've come to appreciate her caution. And I've learned to see things through her eyes. Now, whenever I am tempted by some hair-brained scheme, I run myself through her form of questioning. If it passes the Mrs. Newb test, then I know that I'll only lose HALF of my money.

I'm so glad that I was unsuccessful in creating total unity in our household. It has literally saved our HOUSEhold.

[why me]

Then marriage must be a living hell for you.

Unfortunately, my wife does not agree with me about everything. Even more, she has the temerity to let her "contentious" views be known.

During the early years of our marriage, I didn't like this one bit. I wanted us to have "unity" - to be "of one accord."

For instance, believe it or not, I'm an optimistic type of guy. I generally operate on the principle that "God likes me" and therefore, I will often be tempted to enter into business opportunities without doing the proper (or any) due diligence. My wife is just the opposite and would constantly pepper me with "meddlesome" questions.

As the presiding bread winner in the home, I would be insulted by her importunity. Didn't she trust me? Why couldn't she just "doubt her doubts" and put her faith in me?

As I've matured (slightly), I've come to appreciate her caution. And I've learned to see things through her eyes. Now, whenever I am tempted by some hair-brained scheme, I run myself through her form of questioning. If it passes the Mrs. Newb test, then I know that I'll only lose HALF of my money.

I'm so glad that I was unsuccessful in creating total unity in our household. It has literally saved our HOUSEhold.

I was raised in a home where my mom and dad fought all the time. It was not pleasant. So, maybe I enjoy more harmony than contention in a church. I don't need people to be always downing the lds leaders and fighting among themselves about this or that. I would hope that a church that would claim to be revelatory would be at peace enough to listen to what god wants from his church. And I think that that is what the article that I linked to was all about.

 

 You claimed that the lds leaders were wrong about women and the priesthood. If you told your wife that she were wrong over and over again, I can assure that there would be a problem in your home. You need to take up your issue with the person who spoke in the link that I gave. He was vey clear about what he said. In the catholic faith, a home is a domestic church. I would prefer a non-contentious home but also a home where I wouldn't need to challenge my wife at every stage of her decisions. This has nothing to do with creating total unity but with having a non-contentious home and church. And that was the vision of the speaker that I linked to.

[mormonnewb]

You claimed that the lds leaders were wrong about women and the priesthood. If you told your wife that she were wrong over and over again, I can assure that there would be a problem in your home. You need to take up your issue with the person who spoke in the link that I gave. He was vey clear about what he said. In the catholic faith, a home is a domestic church. I would prefer a non-contentious home but also a home where I wouldn't need to challenge my wife at every stage of her decisions. This has nothing to do with creating total unity but with having a non-contentious home and church. And that was the vision of the speaker that I linked to.

Let's be clear. I don't think that our leaders are wrong about EVERYTHING. Off-hand, I can't think of more than 20 things that they should change (on second thought, make that 21 things).

Seriously, I have much more praise to heap upon them than criticism. I might not give voice to those things very often because (1) I wouldn't find a thread on the positive effects of home teaching to be intellectually stimulating; and (2) the Brethren do not suffer from a lack of cheerleaders on this board.

However, rest assured, on the first (and likely, last) time I ever met one of the Brethren, I didn't launch into a list of complaints about the Church. I told him how much I enjoyed his last conference talk (which I did) and made small talk like any decent person would do.

In the same way, my wife doesn't disagree with ALL of my ideas. In fact, she generally trusts me to support the household. Yet, for the sake of avoiding contention, she isn't willing to sit by while I trade our life savings for a handful of magic beans (something I've been tempted to do TWICE). And she is right to start temporary strife to prevent lifelong poverty.

Despite the perception to the contrary, those of us who support OW are not TRYING to ruin the Church. For several reasons, we see the existing policy as being unsustainable. And therefore, we have ASKED the Brethren to prayerfully ask for CONTINUING REVELATION about the policy (to which we have never received a response).

If that is too much "contention" for a WORLDWIDE church of 15 MILLION members in more than 100 countries, then we have bigger problems than not ordaining women. As the "one true Church," we don't have the option of, saying, "Love it or leave it." This isn't a country club or a corporation. It is Christ's church and the last time I checked, Christ desired us to make disciples of all the nations (not just the non-contentious ones).

We were warned specifically that the work would be hard and that we would be subject to persecution for His sake. If we are going to suffer the slings and arrows, we should expect a little friendly fire from time to time. "You know the job was dangerous when you took it, Why Me!"

[teddyaware]

Let's be clear. I don't think that our leaders are wrong about EVERYTHING. Off-hand, I can't think of more than 20 things that they should change (on second thought, make that 21 things).

Seriously, I have much more praise to heap upon them than criticism. I might not give voice to those things very often because (1) I wouldn't find a thread on the positive effects of home teaching to be intellectually stimulating; and (2) the Brethren do not suffer from a lack of cheerleaders on this board.

However, rest assured, on the first (and likely, last) time I ever met one of the Brethren, I didn't launch into a list of complaints about the Church. I told him how much I enjoyed his last conference talk (which I did) and made small talk like any decent person would do.

In the same way, my wife doesn't disagree with ALL of my ideas. In fact, she generally trusts me to support the household. Yet, for the sake of avoiding contention, she isn't willing to sit by while I trade our life savings for a handful of magic beans (something I've been tempted to do TWICE). And she is right to start temporary strife to prevent lifelong poverty.

Despite the perception to the contrary, those of us who support OW are not TRYING to ruin the Church. For several reasons, we see the existing policy as being unsustainable. And therefore, we have ASKED the Brethren to prayerfully ask for CONTINUING REVELATION about the policy (to which we have never received a response).

If that is too much "contention" for a WORLDWIDE church of 15 MILLION members in more than 100 countries, then we have bigger problems than not ordaining women. As the "one true Church," we don't have the option of, saying, "Love it or leave it." This isn't a country club or a corporation. It is Christ's church and the last time I checked, Christ desired us to make disciples of all the nations (not just the non-contentious ones).

We were warned specifically that the work would be hard and that we would be subject to persecution for His sake. If we are going to suffer the slings and arrows, we should expect a little friendly fire from time to time. "You know the job was dangerous when you took it, Why Me!"

 

While reading this post, the expression "damning with faint praise" came to mind. It was Alexander Pope, in his 'Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot,' who said:

 

Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,

And without sneering, teach the rest to sneer...

 

 

[ERayR]

Let's be clear. I don't think that our leaders are wrong about EVERYTHING. Off-hand, I can't think of more than 20 things that they should change (on second thought, make that 21 things).

Seriously, I have much more praise to heap upon them than criticism. I might not give voice to those things very often because (1) I wouldn't find a thread on the positive effects of home teaching to be intellectually stimulating; and (2) the Brethren do not suffer from a lack of cheerleaders on this board.

However, rest assured, on the first (and likely, last) time I ever met one of the Brethren, I didn't launch into a list of complaints about the Church. I told him how much I enjoyed his last conference talk (which I did) and made small talk like any decent person would do.

In the same way, my wife doesn't disagree with ALL of my ideas. In fact, she generally trusts me to support the household. Yet, for the sake of avoiding contention, she isn't willing to sit by while I trade our life savings for a handful of magic beans (something I've been tempted to do TWICE). And she is right to start temporary strife to prevent lifelong poverty.

Despite the perception to the contrary, those of us who support OW are not TRYING to ruin the Church. For several reasons, we see the existing policy as being unsustainable. And therefore, we have ASKED the Brethren to prayerfully ask for CONTINUING REVELATION about the policy (to which we have never received a response).

If that is too much "contention" for a WORLDWIDE church of 15 MILLION members in more than 100 countries, then we have bigger problems than not ordaining women. As the "one true Church," we don't have the option of, saying, "Love it or leave it." This isn't a country club or a corporation. It is Christ's church and the last time I checked, Christ desired us to make disciples of all the nations (not just the non-contentious ones).

We were warned specifically that the work would be hard and that we would be subject to persecution for His sake. If we are going to suffer the slings and arrows, we should expect a little friendly fire from time to time. "You know the job was dangerous when you took it, Why Me!"

 

My question still stands unanswered. 

 

And you think you are more in tune and able to hear God's voice in this than they are?  Why?

[CV75]

Despite the perception to the contrary, those of us who support OW are not TRYING to ruin the Church. For several reasons, we see the existing policy as being unsustainable. And therefore, we have ASKED the Brethren to prayerfully ask for CONTINUING REVELATION about the policy (to which we have never received a response).

Contention aside, and whoever gets or gets to do the finger-pointing for being contentious (and with whatever degree of contention), excommunication in connection with whatever one might be doing in support of OW certainly has to do with other problems, whether they were contentious or not! People get excommunicated for apostasy, not so much for whether they manifest the spirit of apostasy with a spirit of contention.

 

I think asking the brethren to prayerfully ask” is like saying, “I want you to pray about something for me” with the presumption that the Lord wants you to ask the brethren to pray, and/or that He wants the brethren to pray.

 

If it’s with the attitude that “maybe” the Lord wants one to ask the brethren, or that “maybe” He wants them to pray, then not enough “real intent” has gone into it. The same if it is approached with the attitude of “no harm in asking.” It's lazy and lacks commitment.

 

But “real intent” is a two-edged sword if it is for the wrong thing. See 2 Nephi 4:34-35; D&C 8:10; D&C 10:15; Jacob 7:14; Alma 30:44; Moroni 7:9.

 

I also think asking the brethren to pray about one’s own heartfelt, sincere desire or conclusion is like asking for a sign to support that conclusion, or perhaps worse, asking others to get a sign to support that conclusion.

[Glenn101]

So, let's really put this in perspective. The GA's are correct in most instances, unless they state something that person X disagrees with. Then  person X is right? Multiply person X by the thousands that disagree with the GA's on this or that thing. I go to one web site and read that the church does not do the modesty thing right. I go to another and read that it does not do the Primary thing right. I go to another and read that such and such GA taught false doctrine in a conference talk. In fact, if you really want to see criticism of GA's, check the various web sites after a General Conference and you will find a litany of criticism as various "pundits" chime in on what the GA's got wrong as concerning different bloggers' pet peeves. To listen to the internet of Mormon, one would believe that the GA's get it wrong more, much more, than they get it right. In fact, I remember one poster on this board stating almost exactly that.

 

Or, is it that mormonweb (and those he agrees with or agrees with him) is the only one of the critics that is correct?

 

I happen to think that just maybe the Lord Himself is in charge of His church. He will issue a course correction when necessary. How many times did He chastise Joseph Smith for Joseph's missteps? I have no doubt that God still chastises his leaders for their missteps, whatever they may be. Truly God only has imperfect individuals to work through, and they surely are not perfect in carrying out His instructions. However, if you look at the church, the number of people in it, spread out across the globe, and how well it actually performs with all of those imperfect people at the tiller, it would seem that the GA's get it right more, much more, than they get it wrong.

 

If the Lord wants a policy instituted, it will happen. If He wants one changed, it will happen. Whatever He wants, it will happen. Maybe haltingly, maybe lurchingly at times, but not because of the GA's being so grossly out of tune, but because people are complaining so much and are not "putting their shoulder to the wheel".

 

Glenn

[mormonnewb]

My question still stands unanswered. 

 

And you think you are more in tune and able to hear God's voice in this than they are?  Why?

I'm not more in tune to hear the Lord's voice about church administration, sacred ordinances, temple planning and a thousand other topics. However, when it comes to being able to look beyond social prejudices, I think I have a different prospective that could be useful to a Church that landed on the wrong side of the slavery, civil rights, ERA and gay rights questions.

Now, when I start protesting the language of the baptism covenant, feel free to say, "We got that covered!" But so long as there is a question that the Church MIGHT be wrongfully depriving some members of the priesthood, there is a reason to take that claim seriously.

[mormonnewb]

Contention aside, and whoever gets or gets to do the finger-pointing for being contentious (and with whatever degree of contention), excommunication in connection with whatever one might be doing in support of OW certainly has to do with other problems, whether they were contentious or not! People get excommunicated for apostasy, not so much for whether they manifest the spirit of apostasy with a spirit of contention.

 

I think asking the brethren to prayerfully ask” is like saying, “I want you to pray about something for me” with the presumption that the Lord wants you to ask the brethren to pray, and/or that He wants the brethren to pray.

 

If it’s with the attitude that “maybe” the Lord wants one to ask the brethren, or that “maybe” He wants them to pray, then not enough “real intent” has gone into it. The same if it is approached with the attitude of “no harm in asking.” It's lazy and lacks commitment.

 

But “real intent” is a two-edged sword if it is for the wrong thing. See 2 Nephi 4:34-35; D&C 8:10; D&C 10:15; Jacob 7:14; Alma 30:44; Moroni 7:9.

 

I also think asking the brethren to pray about one’s own heartfelt, sincere desire or conclusion is like asking for a sign to support that conclusion, or perhaps worse, asking others to get a sign to support that conclusion.

Just to avoid further confusion on my parts, aren't many of the revelations in the D&C specific request to prayers that JS asked The Lord AT THE REQUEST OF OTHERS.

"So and so wants to know whether he should keep giving me money to support this ministry. He should? I thought so too."

"Martin Harris' wife is getting on my last nerve. Are you sure I can't give her just a little peek at the manuscript?"

"Emma said what's good for the goose and is good for the gander and she's gandering in a certain brother's direction. Is it okay for her to take multiple husbands? I didn't think so either."

And before you take offense at the above, I don't know the D&C well enough to be able to quote the language directly and since I don't know speak Elizabethan English (as you can tell, I have enough trouble with modern English), I simply recapped the situation as I best remembereth it.

[mfbukowski]

However, when it comes to being able to look beyond social prejudices, I think I have a different prospective that could be useful to a Church that landed on the wrong side of the slavery, civil rights, ERA and gay rights questions.

I am sure none of the prophets or apostles have heard your opinions from anyone else, and I am glad that you are the guardian of civil rights for the church, and highly value your input.

 

I don't know what we would do without you.

[mormonnewb]

So, let's really put this in perspective. The GA's are correct in most instances, unless they state something that person X disagrees with. Then  person X is right? Multiply person X by the thousands that disagree with the GA's on this or that thing. I go to one web site and read that the church does not do the modesty thing right. I go to another and read that it does not do the Primary thing right. I go to another and read that such and such GA taught false doctrine in a conference talk. In fact, if you really want to see criticism of GA's, check the various web sites after a General Conference and you will find a litany of criticism as various "pundits" chime in on what the GA's got wrong as concerning different bloggers' pet peeves. To listen to the internet of Mormon, one would believe that the GA's get it wrong more, much more, than they get it right. In fact, I remember one poster on this board stating almost exactly that.

 

Or, is it that mormonweb (and those he agrees with or agrees with him) is the only one of the critics that is correct?

 

I happen to think that just maybe the Lord Himself is in charge of His church. He will issue a course correction when necessary. How many times did He chastise Joseph Smith for Joseph's missteps? I have no doubt that God still chastises his leaders for their missteps, whatever they may be. Truly God only has imperfect individuals to work through, and they surely are not perfect in carrying out His instructions. However, if you look at the church, the number of people in it, spread out across the globe, and how well it actually performs with all of those imperfect people at the tiller, it would seem that the GA's get it right more, much more, than they get it wrong.

 

If the Lord wants a policy instituted, it will happen. If He wants one changed, it will happen. Whatever He wants, it will happen. Maybe haltingly, maybe lurchingly at times, but not because of the GA's being so grossly out of tune, but because people are complaining so much and are not "putting their shoulder to the wheel".

 

Glenn

Okay, I see your point here. With so many divergent opinions, we run the risk of the perfect being the enemy of the good. In our individual quests to "perfect" the Church, we create so much contention that it destroys the good. That's a reasonable argument. It doesn't provide a lot of comfort if one happens to be black before 1978 (or a woman today), but I can see the argument that some members need to "take one for the team."

I particularly like your argument because it might reinforce my point in the OP (which I have somehow found a way to derail). If pointing out the imperfections of our global leaders is problematic, how is it no less problematic to subject our local leaders and fellow brothers and sisters to even more blistering critiques? Just a few threads over in "The Same 10 People" thread, we are freely sharing stories of dysfunction in our local wards. And while I can see one apostle telling us to "Stop it," I can't see anyone losing their TR or being labeled as an "ark steadier" or "apostate" for doing so.

I analogize it to the drunk who stumbles into a bar to pick a fight. He's dead wrong. However, if he picks that fight with the biggest and toughest guy there, he's not nearly as bad as if he takes a swing at a 98 year old grandmother; even if Granny was "asking for it." Yet, in our culture, it seems that we would be encourage to wipe the floor with Granny rather than so much as give a sideways glance to a GA. Seems a little backwards to me.

NOTE: I realize that there is more than a bit of irony (perhaps, hypocrisy) in ME complaining that others might be too critical. However, in my defense, I've only been Mormon for three years, so I still a have lot of Gentile to work out of me.

[mormonnewb]

I am sure none of the prophets or apostles have heard your opinions from anyone else, and I am glad that you are the guardian of civil rights for the church, and highly value your input.

 

I don't know what we would do without you.

You're welcome

[Glenn101]

Okay, I see your point here. With so many divergent opinions, we run the risk of the perfect being the enemy of the good. In our individual quests to "perfect" the Church, we create so much contention that it destroys the good. That's a reasonable argument. It doesn't provide a lot of comfort if one happens to be black before 1978 (or a woman today), but I can see the argument that some members need to "take one for the team."

I particularly like your argument because it might reinforce my point in the OP (which I have somehow found a way to derail). If pointing out the imperfections of our global leaders is problematic, how is it no less problematic to subject our local leaders and fellow brothers and sisters to even more blistering critiques? Just a few threads over in "The Same 10 People" thread, we are freely sharing stories of dysfunction in our local wards. And while I can see one apostle telling us to "Stop it," I can't see anyone losing their TR or being labeled as an "ark steadier" or "apostate" for doing so.

I analogize it to the drunk who stumbles into a bar to pick a fight. He's dead wrong. However, if he picks that fight with the biggest and toughest guy there, he's not nearly as bad as if he takes a swing at a 98 year old grandmother; even if Granny was "asking for it." Yet, in our culture, it seems that we would be encourage to wipe the floor with Granny rather than so much as give a sideways glance to a GA. Seems a little backwards to me.

NOTE: I realize that there is more than a bit of irony (perhaps, hypocrisy) in ME complaining that others might be too critical. However, in my defense, I've only been Mormon for three years, so I still a have lot of Gentile to work out of me.

 

I do not agree that we should feel free to publicly criticize our local leaders for their imperfections any more than we do our General Authorities. I have been members of dysfunctional wards and branches. And the dysfunction was hardly ever the fault of the leadership. Many of the leaders were poorly equipped by training or experience to deal with that dysfunction, which just about always consisted of back biting, gossip, and criticism of the leadership of the various organizations in the ward or branch and the branch presidency or bishopric itself.

 

I have sat in presidency meetings in sort of a fly-on-the-wall situation as a secretary or some other type of callings with several of those people who endured such criticism and I know how hard they tried to "get it right" in everything they did in their callings. And I have seen them make mistakes. If I saw what I considered to be a mistake by such a leader, I took it up with that leader. I did not publicize my differences. I very seldom found any such who were unwilling to listen and consider my input. And on the same line, I never couched my concerns in terms which said "I am right and the only thing you can do to get yourself on the right side is to accede to my point of view."

 

This is where criticism of the leadership crosses a line that should not be crossed. Take the Ordain Women mission statement for example. It says in part "Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings." (Emphasis mine)

 

And Kate Kelly's little bio on the Ordain Women web site has this to say. "The ordination of women would put us on equal spiritual footing with our brethren, and nothing less will suffice." (Emphasis mine)

 

 

This is publicly telling the brethern, the First Presidency, and the world that Ordain Women is correct and the theFirst Presidency is wrong and that the only way to correct this problem is to ordain women to the Priesthood.

 

That goes way beyond the criticism stage, as I am sure you see.

 

No one is the church is "above the law", but there is a way, an order, to do things without creating schisms and undermining the leadership, whether it be a local Primary president, a bishop, a stake president, a General Authority, or whatever. This is unsatisfactory to so many because so many of us never get out of the instant gratification stage of our progression. It reminds me of the J.G. Wentworth commercials where he is offering to buy the structured settlements of people who do not want to wait to get their money over a long period of time and are proclaiming that "It's my money and I want it now!". Of course, by getting their money "now" they are going to get far less than if they stayed with their structured settlements and will have a bigger tax bite by getting it all at once.

 

Creating schisms and undermining leadership is the end result in all of the public criticism, no matter how well meaning or deeply felt, of church leadership, policies, doctrines,etc. by members of the church. Truly, they have the legal right to do so. And those who publish their criticisms will be rewarded by having a gaggle of like thinkers chime in with comments on their blogs of "Right On" and "You nailed it" and "You put into words things I have been feeling but did not know how to say." But, is that the way the Lord wants them to do it??? Isn't that the thing we all should be looking at, the thing we should be seeking? The Lord's will in the matter???

 

It is the perception by some that the church has "come down on the wrong side" of some issues. I am not going to debate any of that right now. However, I would be chary of proclaiming such myself because I want very much to see things the way the Lord sees them.

 

Maybe it would help if you would read Section 121 of the Doctrine and Covenants and really pray about that. You may come away with a slightly different perspective.

 

 

 

Glenn

 

[CV75]

Just to avoid further confusion on my parts, aren't many of the revelations in the D&C specific request to prayers that JS asked The Lord AT THE REQUEST OF OTHERS.

"So and so wants to know whether he should keep giving me money to support this ministry. He should? I thought so too."

"Martin Harris' wife is getting on my last nerve. Are you sure I can't give her just a little peek at the manuscript?"

"Emma said what's good for the goose and is good for the gander and she's gandering in a certain brother's direction. Is it okay for her to take multiple husbands? I didn't think so either."

And before you take offense at the above, I don't know the D&C well enough to be able to quote the language directly and since I don't know speak Elizabethan English (as you can tell, I have enough trouble with modern English), I simply recapped the situation as I best remembereth it.

CFR for your three “examples” – you’ll have to be more explicit / specific; but from what I can gather from your muddy anamnesis, to repeat the lost pages episode would simply be stupid.

 

The references I listed indicate that if the prophet is to work with someone on formulating a question for the Lord, he would have to ascertain that: they were not asking amiss; they did not ask to that which they ought not; it was not a test of his position on their issues or to temp him to provide a sign; all involved have real intent for the Lord’s will.

 

Show me some scriptures that support your position that all a group of people have to do is keep asking a prophet to pray about its heartfelt desire (irrespective of the references I listed) and that he will do, or is obligated to do, their bidding.

[CV75]

I analogize it to the drunk who stumbles into a bar to pick a fight. He's dead wrong. However, if he picks that fight with the biggest and toughest guy there, he's not nearly as bad as if he takes a swing at a 98 year old grandmother; even if Granny was "asking for it." Yet, in our culture, it seems that we would be encourage to wipe the floor with Granny rather than so much as give a sideways glance to a GA. Seems a little backwards to me.

It is revealing that you compare those who criticize or contend with anyone to a drunk. Doesn't that tell you something about where they are coming from (read the references I gave you).

[mormonnewb]

It is revealing that you compare those who criticize or contend with anyone to a drunk. Doesn't that tell you something about where they are coming from (read the references I gave you).

Yes, it does say something about those of us who take swipes at Church leaders. But it says SO MUCM MORE about those who take swipes at Kelly, Dehlin and the rest of the grannies out there.

[mormonnewb]

CFR for your three “examples” – you’ll have to be more explicit / specific; but from what I can gather from your muddy anamnesis, to repeat the lost pages episode would simply be stupid.

 

The references I listed indicate that if the prophet is to work with someone on formulating a question for the Lord, he would have to ascertain that: they were not asking amiss; they did not ask to that which they ought not; it was not a test of his position on their issues or to temp him to provide a sign; all involved have real intent for the Lord’s will.

 

Show me some scriptures that support your position that all a group of people have to do is keep asking a prophet to pray about its heartfelt desire (irrespective of the references I listed) and that he will do, or is obligated to do, their bidding.

I'll CFR the first example for you. While I disagree with you on many issues, I respect your intellect and knowledge of Church history, so I'm quite confident you can find the revelations allowing JS to show the manuscript to Mrs. Harris (and her kinfolk) and the revelation that Emma shall not take a second husband.

By the way, I got this explanation from the Church's history site, so hopefully it passes muster.

http://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-martin-harris?lang=eng

"Bolstered by this miraculous and faith-affirming experience, Harris renewed his efforts to provide financial support for the Book of Mormon publication. Joseph Smith had talked to several printers in Palmyra and Rochester, New York. He hoped to convince Egbert B. Grandin of Palmyra to print the book, and Harris took up the negotiations. Grandin’s price was $3,000 for the unusually large printing of 5,000 copies, but he would not buy the type or begin the job until Harris or Smith had “promised to insure the payment for the printing.”. In order to do this, Harris would have to impart essentially all of the property to which he had a legal right.

This moment of decision would sound the depth of Martin Harris’ faith in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Seeking guidance, he spoke with Joseph, who received yet another revelation. Known today as Doctrine and Covenants 19, the revelation admonished Harris, “Thou shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it freely to the printing of the book of Mormon.” On August 25, 1829, he mortgaged his property to Grandin as payment for the publication. His neighbors were amazed that their sensible friend would “abandon the cultivation of one of the best farms in the neighborhood” to underwrite the publication."

If I read this correctly, Martin Harris came to JS and said, "Are you sure God wants me to sell my farm to pay for this book printing?" JS then went to The Lord and received the revelation in D&C 19. So what's wrong with a large group of women approaching our current prophet with a similar request? If Pres. Monson comes back with D&C 139 saying, "We checked. No priesthood, but thanks for asking," you have a much stronger case that OW is filled with "drunken" rabble rousers. But until that point, it seems like OW is following in the footsteps of the earliest saints. If Martin Harris could ask for reassurance for a measly $3,000, shouldn't a few thousand women be able to get reassurance about something as important as the priesthood of God?

[ERayR]

I'm not more in tune to hear the Lord's voice about church administration, sacred ordinances, temple planning and a thousand other topics. However, when it comes to being able to look beyond social prejudices, I think I have a different prospective that could be useful to a Church that landed on the wrong side of the slavery, civil rights, ERA and gay rights questions.

Now, when I start protesting the language of the baptism covenant, feel free to say, "We got that covered!" But so long as there is a question that the Church MIGHT be wrongfully depriving some members of the priesthood, there is a reason to take that claim seriously.

 

Jut so I don't make a mistake and get the wrong side of things,  the prophet is mostly right except on the things you disagree with.  Can I have a quick contact number to get in touch with you so that I will know when he is in error?

[mormonnewb]

Jut so I don't make a mistake and get the wrong side of things,  the prophet is mostly right except on the things you disagree with.  Can I have a quick contact number to get in touch with you so that I will know when he is in error?

No need for my contact info. Rather than asking someone else for truth, you can actually THINK it out in your own mind and then pray for confirmation through the Holy Spirit. I was skeptical about it when the missionaries first told me about how Mormons ascertain truth, but I find it surprisingly effective. Also, as a side benefit, I find the thinking part exhilarating.

Seriously, how is this not the way that any sentient human being thinks? I'm right and those who disagree with me are wrong. Maturity and humility (two things I've only heard of) might inform one that he shouldn't impose his views of right and wrong on others. However, I find it unfathomable that I could come to MY OWN conclusion that I thought was WRONG.

Now, I'm willing to concede that others are in positions of authority and therefore, I might have to a acquiesce to their "mistaken" views. I might have to pay taxes for wars I don't support. Or I might have to substitute coffee for a kidney-damaging amount of Coca Cola. But unless persuaded by something other than "Because I said so," I will still THINK that I'm right.

Do you agree with EVERY doctrine/policy/program of the Church?

[ERayR]

No need for my contact info. Rather than asking someone else for truth, you can actually THINK it out in your own mind and then pray for confirmation through the Holy Spirit. I was skeptical about it when the missionaries first told me about how Mormons ascertain truth, but I find it surprisingly effective. Also, as a side benefit, I find the thinking part exhilarating.

Seriously, how is this not the way that any sentient human being thinks? I'm right and those who disagree with me are wrong. Maturity and humility (two things I've only heard of) might inform one that he shouldn't impose his views of right and wrong on others. However, I find it unfathomable that I could come to MY OWN conclusion that I thought was WRONG.

Now, I'm willing to concede that others are in positions of authority and therefore, I might have to a acquiesce to their "mistaken" views. I might have to pay taxes for wars I don't support. Or I might have to substitute coffee for a kidney-damaging amount of Coca Cola. But unless persuaded by something other than "Because I said so," I will still THINK that I'm right.

Do you agree with EVERY doctrine/policy/program of the Church?

 

Did you miss the part about that being personally for you and your stewardship?  I must have missed your calling as advisor to the prophet and social conscience for the Church.

[ERayR]

Do you agree with EVERY doctrine/policy/program of the Church?

 

No but I know that it is not my calling to publicly criticize.  Besides I have most often found the wisdom in the decisions of those brethren. Most often my view and vision is quite limited.

[why me]

Do you agree with EVERY doctrine/policy/program of the Church?

In the seventies I took issue with the chasity rule. I thought that it was stupid. For the life of me, I could not undrstand why I should not have sex with some of the beautiful girls out there. What harm would it do between two consenting young adults?  No one would get hurt especially if we used birth control. And during that time, premartial sex was a big no, no. It was all be ye perfect stuff and avoid the very appearence of evil. I thought that was stupid too. So, yea, I disagreed with the leaders about those issues.And with the guys that I knew, I could have had quite a few brothel doors opened to me in the new york city area.

 

But in the early 80s the HIV scare came and also the herpes scare. And then, I thought that the leaders showed great wisdom in advising us young adults about how we should wait until marriage. Now, I have learned to listen more carefully to what they have to say. I lived in a very high HIV area and I am grateful for the advice that I received. Sometimes we need to wait to see the wisdom of the policies.

 

I am also trying to decide if you are just being a contrarian because you enjoy getting a rise out of people. In your views I see the same with exmembers and critics of the lds church so you seem to find more common ground with them, which is okay, of course.  

Edited July 6, 2014 by why me

[Glenn101]

In the seventies I took issue with the chasity rule. I thought that it was stupid. For the life of me, I could not undrstand why I should not have sex with some of the beautiful girls out there. What harm would it do between two consenting young adults?  No one would get hurt especially if we used birth control. And during that time, premartial sex was a big no, no. It was all be ye perfect stuff and avoid the very appearence of evil. I thought that was stupid too. So, yea, I disagreed with the leaders about those issues.And with the guys that I knew, I could have had quite a few brothel doors opened to me in the new york city area.

 

But in the early 80s the HIV scare came and also the herpes scare. And then, I thought that the leaders showed great wisdom in advising us young adults about how we should wait until marriage. Now, I have learned to listen more carefully to what they have to say. I lived in a very high HIV area and I am grateful for the advice that I received. Sometimes we need to wait to see the wisdom of the policies.

 

I am also trying to decide if you are just being a contrarian because you enjoy getting a rise out of people. In your views I see the same with exmembers and critics of the lds church so you seem to find more common ground with them, which is okay, of course.  

 

 

The benefits from keeping the law of chastity go much further than those that are physical, as you probably have already found out. It is those spiritual benefits that are hard to explain to someone who does not seek spiritual confirmation but only lives in the physical world. What are the benefits that one gains from paying a full tithing? Not all full tithe payers become rich, but continue to struggle financially, lose their jobs, etc. The physical benefits of the Word of Wisdom are now pretty apparent to most of the world, but I believe that the spiritual benefits far outweigh those physical benefits.

Specifically:

Those who keep the Word of Wisdom shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;" nad have been given a promise by the Lord "that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them."

 

Just my two cents worth,

Glenn

[CV75]

Yes, it does say something about those of us who take swipes at Church leaders. But it says SO MUCM MORE about those who take swipes at Kelly, Dehlin and the rest of the grannies out there.

No, it just says something about the drunks—they take swipes at leaders and grannies. And as you pointed out, grannies can be drunks.

 

 

I'll CFR the first example for you.

The most obvious problem in using Martin Harris as a model for OW to “ask” is that he was not a “group”. The next most obvious problem is, he had been in a close working relationship with Joseph. Another big problem is that was asking about what more was required of him, not about what he could get in the way of greater power and authority.

 

Just show me some scriptures that support your position that a group follows God’s will by persistently asking a prophet to fulfill its own organization's mission and aims. It didn't work for Balak (Moabites) and I don't think it works today.