The New Anti-Mormons Are Lds

[wenglund]

Rather, my point is simply that if the Savior does approach someone with such a mission, then that person better have a law degree (or the correct last name) because those "uneducated 14-year-old boy in a sacred grove" days are over (Elder Ballard explained as much in reassuring us about the stable nature of our leadership).

 

Not surprising, your point ignores the critical precept that the Savior heads this Church, and he has established it according to his will, and has called whom he wishes, in the way that he wishes, and is thus the architect of the current "stable nature of our leadership," and the person ultimately responsible for what you assume to be an impregnable bias in leadership towards law degrees and correct last names, Accordingly, your point is as much a harangue against the Savior as it is those he has chosen. Tsk, tsk!. 

 

With this in mind, it would seem unlikely that he would radically depart from his own chosen administrative course and initiate a rogue mission like what you hypothesize, but on the extremely remote chance that he did, then, unlike with you, because Church leaders are poignantly mindful that this is Christ's Church and he is at its head, the leaders will humbly comply with the Savior's wish just as they have all along, thereby rendering your point mistaken.

 

Anyway, regardless one way or the other, we can count on you to decry whatever is done by Christ through his chosen leaders that is contrary to your approval, though since your seemingly endless discontent seems confined relatively harmlessly (except to yourself) to an obscure discussion board, I suppose we can all live with that and still love and respect you for all the good otherwise that you have to offer. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

I see your point in this case, although I still contend that Paul acted in a way that is unthinkable for a modern Mormon apostle. I just can't imagine, Elder Ballard publicly chastising Pres. Monson for, say, hypocrisy in his teachings on modesty because he sometimes goes swimming in a Speedo.

Of course, as you know, many Biblical scholars have contended that Peter and Paul had significant conflicts in their theology. In fact, Peter is often referred to as the Apostle of the Catholics and Paul as the Apostle of the Protestants. In fact, in doing a TINY amount of research for this thread, I found some discussion as to whether or not Paul was a "false prophet," due to seemingly significant departures in theology.

That being said, there are just as many scholars who come down on your side of the ledger, so it is by no means a settled point. But what is fairly settled is that modern day LDS apostles do not publicly rebuke the President of the Church for ANY reason.

 

I have no first hand knowlege but have been told by someone who is close to the brethren that there is sometimes serious disagrement in their deliberations.  I think that with Peter and Paul we are privy to some classified communication of the kind that is not made public now.

Edited October 15, 2014 by ERayR

[3DOP]

I see your point in this case, although I still contend that Paul acted in a way that is unthinkable for a modern Mormon apostle. I just can't imagine, Elder Ballard publicly chastising Pres. Monson for, say, hypocrisy in his teachings on modesty because he sometimes goes swimming in a Speedo.

Of course, as you know, many Biblical scholars have contended that Peter and Paul had significant conflicts in their theology. In fact, Peter is often referred to as the Apostle of the Catholics and Paul as the Apostle of the Protestants. In fact, in doing a TINY amount of research for this thread, I found some discussion as to whether or not Paul was a "false prophet," due to seemingly significant departures in theology.

That being said, there are just as many scholars who come down on your side of the ledger, so it is by no means a settled point. But what is fairly settled is that modern day LDS apostles do not publicly rebuke the President of the Church for ANY reason.

 

I appreciate your reply.

 

I would not be qualified to say whether LDS Apostles would be as fearless as was Paul in rebuking dissimulation on the part of the President of the Church. But I'll bet LDS teaching would allow that it is even a duty on the part of the other Apostles, especially if the President was doing something that involved not just himself but was leading others astray. I don't think St. Paul needs to do this if it weren't carrying others away into false practices. Why don't you put the question to the LDS here. If the President of the Church was behaving contrarily to Church teaching, dissimulating and leading others to do the same, would it be wrong to correct him publicly?

 

The problem within Mormonism doesn't at all seem however to be a question of the actions of your Apostles, but rather to be doubting what they teach. Can you think of a time when it would have been appropriate for one LDS Apostle to rebuke another for his dissimulation? It seems like you can't know for sure what would happen if a President actually acted like Peter did, leading others into his false behavior. It would take a great hearted spirit, such as Paul had to have the courage to do it. I'll bet it came as a shock. I doubt if it gave rise to instant applause, but to gradual recognition that what was said is true based on what the church really believed. It might have been nearly as unthinkable for that to happen in the Former-day Church as you perceive it to be in the Latter-day Church.

[mormonnewb]

I have no first hand knowlege but have been told by someone who is close to the brethren that there is sometimes serious disagrement in their deliberations. I think that with Peter and Paul we are privy to some classified communication of the kind that is not made public now.

Classified? Paul wrote about this encounter in an open letter to the congregation in Galatia. This would be the modern day equivalent of an apostle writing an article in The Ensign explaining how he had to rebuke another apostle for hypocrisy. I don't see it happening. Edited October 15, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

I appreciate your reply.

I would not be qualified to say whether LDS Apostles would be as fearless as was Paul in rebuking dissimulation on the part of the President of the Church. But I'll bet LDS teaching would allow that it is even a duty on the part of the other Apostles, especially if the President was doing something that involved not just himself but was leading others astray. I don't think St. Paul needs to do this if it weren't carrying others away into false practices. Why don't you put the question to the LDS here. If the President of the Church was behaving contrarily to Church teaching, dissimulating and leading others to do the same, would it be wrong to correct him publicly?

The problem within Mormonism doesn't at all seem however to be a question of the actions of your Apostles, but rather to be doubting what they teach. Can you think of a time when it would have been appropriate for one LDS Apostle to rebuke another for his dissimulation? It seems like you can't know for sure what would happen if a President actually acted like Peter did, leading others into his false behavior. It would take a great hearted spirit, such as Paul had to have the courage to do it. I'll bet it came as a shock. I doubt if it gave rise to instant applause, but to gradual recognition that what was said is true based on what the church really believed. It might have been nearly as unthinkable for that to happen in the Former-day Church as you perceive it to be in the Latter-day Church.

As luck would have it, we have a similar situation. In Nauvoo, JS was publicly denouncing polygamy but privately practicing it. This has caused confusion among the various sects of Mormonism that continues to this very day.

And yes, there were some "Pauls" who called out JS for his "dissimulation"? And how are they viewed by the faithful? They are apostates and "enemies of the Church." The only ones to retain SOME measure of standing in the Church were those who repented of their Pauliness; not those who wrote letters to the Church a decade later explaining why they were entitled to take the Prophet to task.

[wenglund]

What puzzles me is that the supposedly believing naysayers have much negative to say against the leadership of a divinely headed institution they belong to, yet they have little or nothing negative to say against the leadership of human governments and parties they belong to, headed by well-intended, though mortal doofuses--relatively speaking, such as the current federal administration. It is as though they strain to find fault where faults are less likely, and are loathe to find fault where faults are rampant. What is up with that?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mormonnewb]

What puzzles me is that the supposedly believing naysayers have much negative to say against the leadership of a divinely headed institution they belong to, yet they have little or nothing negative to say against the leadership of human governments and parties they belong to, headed by well-intended, though mortal doofuses--relatively speaking, such as the current federal administration. It is as though they strain to find fault where faults are less likely, and are loathe to find fault where faults are rampant. What is up with that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Do you really think that I'm not critical of the US government? But the last time I checked, we're not on politicaldialogue.com. In fact, threads that stray into the area of politics usually get shut down rather quickly around these parts, Pardner.

But if you meet me at HuffPost, I promise to be 10 times more critical of Obama than I would ever be of our Church leaders. After all, Obama really should know better (I couldn't help myself).

[wenglund]

As luck would have it, we have a similar situation. In Nauvoo, JS was publicly denouncing polygamy but privately practicing it. This has caused confusion among the various sects of Mormonism that continues to this very day.

And yes, there were some "Pauls" who called out JS for his "dissimulation"? And how are they viewed by the faithful? They are apostates and "enemies of the Church." The only ones to retain SOME measure of standing in the Church were those who repented of their Pauliness; not those who wrote letters to the Church a decade later explaining why they were entitled to take the Prophet to task.

 

If you have in mind certain former Church leaders who were numbered among or assenting to the mob at Carthage, then I can see a remote Paulian connection. It is just that Paul assented to mob violence (stoning) of Church members and leader prior to his conversion, whereas the folks you may have in mind assented to mob violence against Church members and leaders following their de-conversion. Neither case strikes me as the kind of rogue behavior worthy of applause.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[teddyaware]

As luck would have it, we have a similar situation. In Nauvoo, JS was publicly denouncing polygamy but privately practicing it. This has caused confusion among the various sects of Mormonism that continues to this very day.

And yes, there were some "Pauls" who called out JS for his "dissimulation"? And how are they viewed by the faithful? They are apostates and "enemies of the Church." The only ones to retain SOME measure of standing in the Church were those who repented of their Pauliness; not those who wrote letters to the Church a decade later explaining why they were entitled to take the Prophet to task.

The whole "Paul was a rogue and an enemy of the Peter" spiel is complete and utter nonsense. This false narrative is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of some who are looking to justify their own contrarian attitudes and behaviors toward the Church and its duly constituted leaders.

Paul's epistles clearly indicate he was team player who expected, and even commanded the Church members at large in the name of the Lord to place themselves under the leadership and discipline of the duly constituted presiding authorities of the Church, most especially the Apostles and Prophets (both of these leadership positions spoken of by Paul in the plural) who stood at the head of the organization. The following words of Paul amply bear this out:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12)

 

And rather than being a rogue, Paul was commanded by revelation from the Lord to go up to Jerusalem to make known to the leaders of the Church his manner of teaching and ministry that he might receive "the seal of approval" from those who stood at the head of the Church...

1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. (Galatians 2)

 

So rather than being allowed of God to function as an independent rogue, Paul was commanded by revelation from God to go up again (his second visit) to Jerusalem so as to present to the Church leaders the manner of his preaching and ministry and inform them of his labors so as to gain the leaders' sustaining vote that Paul might continue to labor with confidence, certain he was going about the work of the Lord in a manner the General Authorities looked upon with favor, "lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." But, happily, Paul's ministry did receive the official approval of the General Authorities.

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision (these are Paul's words, doesn't sound like Peter's enemy to me), the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Prior to this important, divinely-arranged meeting with the General Authorities, Paul functioned in his ministry mainly under the imprimatur of local Church authorities, although several years earlier he spent 15 days in council with Peter (the Church President) and James. The fact that the New Testament amply testifies Paul served under both local and general Church leaders, and that he needed their approval, should put to rest the heresy that Paul was a rogue and an enemy of Peter. In fact, Peter solemnly testifies to the exact opposite:

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things (the same things Peter taught); in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3)

So just as it was in the days of Peter and Paul, the unlearned and unstable self-styled modern rogues also misuse Paul's writings to justify their own erroneous teachings.

Edited October 15, 2014 by teddyaware

[wenglund]

Your understanding has certainly been collored by your personal perspectives.

 

ALERT: Use of the word "colored" in relation to people of African decent may put you at high risk for PC wrath, even in cases of unintentional double entendre. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 15, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Do you really think that I'm not critical of the US government? But the last time I checked, we're not on politicaldialogue.com. In fact, threads that stray into the area of politics usually get shut down rather quickly around these parts, Pardner.

But if you meet me at HuffPost, I promise to be 10 times more critical of Obama than I would ever be of our Church leaders. After all, Obama really should know better (I couldn't help myself).

 

It is comforting to learn that you are an equal opportunity naysayers. LOL

 

BTW, what is your screen name at HuffPost so I can LIKE all your revilings against the Obama Administration.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

I appreciate your reply.

 

I would not be qualified to say whether LDS Apostles would be as fearless as was Paul in rebuking dissimulation on the part of the President of the Church. But I'll bet LDS teaching would allow that it is even a duty on the part of the other Apostles, especially if the President was doing something that involved not just himself but was leading others astray. I don't think St. Paul needs to do this if it weren't carrying others away into false practices. Why don't you put the question to the LDS here. If the President of the Church was behaving contrarily to Church teaching, dissimulating and leading others to do the same, would it be wrong to correct him publicly?

 

The problem within Mormonism doesn't at all seem however to be a question of the actions of your Apostles, but rather to be doubting what they teach. Can you think of a time when it would have been appropriate for one LDS Apostle to rebuke another for his dissimulation? It seems like you can't know for sure what would happen if a President actually acted like Peter did, leading others into his false behavior. It would take a great hearted spirit, such as Paul had to have the courage to do it. I'll bet it came as a shock. I doubt if it gave rise to instant applause, but to gradual recognition that what was said is true based on what the church really believed. It might have been nearly as unthinkable for that to happen in the Former-day Church as you perceive it to be in the Latter-day Church.

 

While very uncommon it has been known to happen in the First Quorum of Seventy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Lee