Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[stemelbow]

In my opinion, many members are treating the BOM as if it takes the place of the Bible.

Every LDs person I know sees the Bible and BoM as separate. not sure how it could possibly be seen as taking the place of the Bible.

[EllenMaksoud]

It was on my FB feed yesterday!  And it's real, she did it for her Personal Progress in Young Women's.  Don't want to take away from it, but to her it's all about the BoM. 

Well, children only do what we teach them. The front of the BoM says, "A further revelation of Jesus Christ". So, I see it as aumentation of the Bible. To add to your reading pleasure, I also see the Qur'an as word from God.

[canard78]

You found problems with elder hollands April 2014 talk? Really? It was one of the best talks that conference.

I've had two of you ask, I can't "multiquote" on my phone so please see my next post for a reply to you both.

[canard78]

What about Holland's talk from April is incorrect? I think the principles in his talk are some of the most crucial of our day.

Let's start with:

"Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.

Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable” God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even think about breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like “comfortable” doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in?"

I consider this to be a teaching that leads Mormons astray. It encourages an attitude of superiority and pride. It teaches that the Mormon view of God is better and lumps all other beliefs into a patronising dismissal. It shows very little respect for the devoted millions of people who follow a belief and practice that is far from a "village love in." Frankly, I find it offensive and believe it to be based on his personal opinion. I don't see any inspiration in those two paragraphs.

Has the First Presidency reversed its statement about endogamy? If not, how do you know it is a false teaching?

In practice a mixed race couple can be sealed in the temple. There are still references on LDS.org discouraging this. There is a 1947 letter from the first presidency saying mixed race marriage is "repugnant" and "against God's doctrine." The 2013 Race and the Priesthood essay disavows this doctrine, though they are unattributed.

I agree with the 2013 essay, I don't agree with the older policy of teaching that mixed race marriage was a sin. I believe that view is man-made and not of God.

Practice/Doctrine- one could argue this is splitting hairs.

One could. One would be trying to dodge the important difference between "God's doctrine" and "man's practice." Do you really see no difference?

If one is willing to dismiss the church's teachings about marriage, that pretty much opens the door to anything about our doctrine being incorrect. There is no more fundamental principles by which the leaders are standing than those associated with marriage- they have been extremely consistent and clear on this. I think it is extremely dangerous to adopt such attitudes.

Perhaps. But someone might have said the same to a member 60-70 years ago if a member dismissed the church's teaching on inter-racial marriage. I hope I would have been on the side of reason and inclusiveness and not on the side of prejudice.

Leaders have stood by past principles which today have been disavowed. Who's to say that in another 100 years the beliefs you hold so dear won't be another embarrassing footnote in Mormon History?

[Maestrophil]

Let's start with:

"Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.

Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable” God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even think about breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like “comfortable” doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in?"

I consider this to be a teaching that leads Mormons astray. It encourages an attitude of superiority and pride. It teaches that the Mormon view of God is better and lumps all other beliefs into a patronising dismissal. It shows very little respect for the devoted millions of people who follow a belief and practice that is far from a "village love in." Frankly, I find it offensive and believe it to be based on his personal opinion. I don't see any inspiration in those two paragraphs.

 

I personally loved this statement from Elder Holland - I think many people from many denominations would agree with it.  I thought of many people I know that bother me - including my ex-wife - who carry the "God loves me no matter what I do..." as an excuse to justify all kinds of poor and lazy choices.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Maestrophil

[canard78]

I personally loved this statement from Elder Holland - I think many people from many denominations would agree with it. I thought of many people I know that bother me - including my ex-wife - who carry the "God loves me no matter what I do..." as an excuse to justify all kinds of poor and lazy choices.

Can you see the irony in your statement? Elder Holland made a sweeping generalisation. He spoke about "us" and "them" throughout his talk. Those other denominations you speak of. Elder Holland made them part of the "them."

[KevinG]

I would love to see Elder Holland respond to this analysis.  You are reading a lot of assumptions into that talk.  The Rorschach test speaks loudly.

[JLHPROF]

Let's start with:

"Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.

Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable” God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even think about breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like “comfortable” doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in?"

I consider this to be a teaching that leads Mormons astray. It encourages an attitude of superiority and pride. It teaches that the Mormon view of God is better and lumps all other beliefs into a patronising dismissal. It shows very little respect for the devoted millions of people who follow a belief and practice that is far from a "village love in." Frankly, I find it offensive and believe it to be based on his personal opinion. I don't see any inspiration in those two paragraphs.

 

I agree with Elder Holland - people want an "easy" religion, or to be more precise a religion that makes them "comfortable".  We see it among ourselves as much as we see it among other denominations.  Something rubs us the wrong way in Mormonism we work to get it exorcised.  Because a teaching or practice "makes me uncomfortable or unhappy it can't be from God."

 

And he is correct, that the majority of Christians who place themselves under the "grace is all that's needed" category are exactly as he describes - God loves me and requires nothing of me but to accept his love.

 

Elder Holland had this one bang on, even among our own members on occasion.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with Elder Holland - people want an "easy" religion, or to be more precise a religion that makes them "comfortable".  We see it among ourselves as much as we see it among other denominations.  Something rubs us the wrong way in Mormonism we work to get it exorcised.  Because a teaching or practice "makes me uncomfortable or unhappy it can't be from God."

 

And he is correct, that the majority of Christians who place themselves under the "grace is all that's needed" category are exactly as he describes - God loves me and requires nothing of me but to accept his love.

 

Elder Holland had this one bang on, even among our own members on occasion.

Elder Holland is not the only one or the first one to express this sentiment.

 

A generation or two earlier, C.S. Lewis said:

 

"By the goodness of God we mean nowadays almost exclusively His lovingness; and in this we may be right. And by Love, in this context, most of us mean kindness—the desire to see others than the self happy; not happy in this way or in that, but just happy. What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, 'What does it matter so long as they are contented?' We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven—a senile benevolence who, as they say, 'liked to see young people enjoying themselves', and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of the day, 'a good time was had by all'. Not many people, I admit, would formulate a theology in precisely those terms: but a conception not very different lurks at the back of many minds. I do not claim to be an exception: I should very much like to live in a universe which was governed on such lines. But since it is abundantly clear that I don't, and since I have reason to believe, nevertheless, that God is Love, I conclude that my conception of love needs correction."

— from The Problem of Pain

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Let's start with:

"Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.

Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable” God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even think about breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like “comfortable” doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in?"

I consider this to be a teaching that leads Mormons astray. It encourages an attitude of superiority and pride. It teaches that the Mormon view of God is better and lumps all other beliefs into a patronising dismissal. It shows very little respect for the devoted millions of people who follow a belief and practice that is far from a "village love in." Frankly, I find it offensive and believe it to be based on his personal opinion. I don't see any inspiration in those two paragraphs.

In practice a mixed race couple can be sealed in the temple. There are still references on LDS.org discouraging this. There is a 1947 letter from the first presidency saying mixed race marriage is "repugnant" and "against God's doctrine." The 2013 Race and the Priesthood essay disavows this doctrine, though they are unattributed.

I agree with the 2013 essay, I don't agree with the older policy of teaching that mixed race marriage was a sin. I believe that view is man-made and not of God.

One could. One would be trying to dodge the important difference between "God's doctrine" and "man's practice." Do you really see no difference?

Perhaps. But someone might have said the same to a member 60-70 years ago if a member dismissed the church's teaching on inter-racial marriage. I hope I would have been on the side of reason and inclusiveness and not on the side of prejudice.

Leaders have stood by past principles which today have been disavowed. Who's to say that in another 100 years the beliefs you hold so dear won't be another embarrassing footnote in Mormon History?

 

In 1947, there would have been consequences to a white person marrying a black spouse that are not present today, namely that one's offspring or descendants would have been ineligible for the priesthood or for temple worship.

 

I'm not aware of any teaching at any time that forbade whites from interracial marrying with, say, Native Americans or Pacific islanders or Asians.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

In 1947, there would have been consequences to a white person marrying a black spouse that are not present today, namely that one's offspring or descendants would have been ineligible for the priesthood or for temple worship.

I'm not aware of any teaching at anytime that forbade whites from interracial marrying with, say, Native Americans or Pacific islanders or Asians.

And how did that warp into being "repugnant." Why was that against doctrine or even case for "death on the spot?"

Two black people in the 1940s could be married and have children. If a white and black person did the same and had children there is no difference in consequences than if the black person had married another black person. Either way, the child would be excluded.

FWIW, I'd consider the entire ban to be an uninspired, man-made practice that was not introduced by revelation. The basis for finding mixed race marriages "repugnant" was based on a false doctrine that wasn't inspired.

[canard78]

Elder Holland is not the only one or the first one to express this sentiment.

A generation or two earlier, C.S. Lewis said:

Lewis's statement is with an entirely different tone. For a start he says "we" - it's an inclusive tater than divisive statement. The same cannot be said for Elder Holland's talk.

He sets these two paragraphs up by whipping up the Mormon persecution complex (we're hated and spat upon).

[Silhouette]

I find the discussion about mixed-race marriages interesting. I am married to a Chinese man. I am Caucasion. We've never had an issue as far as Church goes, but we have been subjected to ugly comments and threats while we are out doing something away from the house.

[stemelbow]

I find the discussion about mixed-race marriages interesting. I am married to a Chinese man. I am Caucasion. We've never had an issue as far as Church goes, but we have been subjected to ugly comments and threats while we are out doing something away from the house.

That kind of stuff makes me angry.

[Scott Lloyd]

And how did that warp into being "repugnant." Why was that against doctrine or even case for "death on the spot?"

 

I'm not defending the entire letter (which, by the way, appears to be in the nature of personal correspondence rather than general or institutional statement or teaching and, until fairly recently, was somewhat obscure). I'm only pointing out that marrying a black person in 1947 would have had implications for a white member of the Church that are not present today.

 

And I don't see any occurrence in the letter of the phrase "death on the spot." I think you are conflating it with something else.

 

Two black people in the 1940s could be married and have children. If a white and black person did the same and had children there is no difference in consequences than if the black person had married another black person. Either way, the child would be excluded.

 

But from the standpoint of a white or Native American or Asian or Pacific Islander or any non-black member of the Church, there would have been serious implications pre-1978 to marrying a black person that are not present today.

 

FWIW, I'd consider the entire ban to be an uninspired, man-made practice that was not introduced by revelation.

 

 

 

Well, that's your own undoctrinal opinion that, as far as I know, is not binding on others.

 

 

The basis for finding mixed race marriages "repugnant" was based on a false doctrine that wasn't inspired.

 

See above.

 

By the way, what happened? I thought you had placed me "on ignore"?

Edited October 31, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Lewis's statement is with an entirely different tone. For a start he says "we" - it's an inclusive tater than divisive statement. The same cannot be said for Elder Holland's talk.

 

The two statements are virtually identical in tone, though separated by a couple of generations in vernacular. Both are saying, quite correctly, that, in Lewis's terms, the conception of a senile grandfather-in-heaven who doesn't care what the young folks do so long as they are having a good time needs correcting. And in this, I see Elder Holland as speaking the truth in love, not being divisive.

 

And he is certainly not a shepherd leading sheep astray. That is a pernicious falsehood.

 

He sets these two paragraphs up by whipping up the Mormon persecution complex (we're hated and spat upon).

 

What worthless tripe!

Edited October 31, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

I'm not defending the entire letter (which, by the way, appears to be in the nature of personal correspondence rather than general or institutional statement or teaching and, until fairly recently, was somewhat obscure). I'm only pointing out that marrying a black person in 1947 would have had implications for a white member of the Church that are not present today.

Implications, certainly, but against God's doctrine? If you do something a prophet calls repugnant and against God's doctrine would the prophet consider it a sin to do anyway. There's a difference between accepting consequences and sinning.

And I don't see any occurrence in the letter of the phrase "death on the spot." I think you are conflating it with something else.

I know, I was quoting another prophet who lead people astray on multiple occasions:

http://journalofdiscourses.com/10/25

But from the standpoint of a white or Native American or Asian or Pacific Islander or any non-black member of the Church, there would have been serious implications pre-1978 to marrying a black person that are not present today.

See above. Accepting consequences are different to doing something against God's will/sinning.

Well, that's your own undoctrinal opinion that, as far as I know, is not binding on others.

See above.

Not binding on others at all. For those who believe the ban was of divine origin I'd make a simple request. Show me any evidence at all of a revelation to introduce it. There is none.

By the way, what happened? I thought you had placed me "on ignore"?

I missed you. No-one "dialogues" quite like you do

[Kenngo1969]

In my opinion, many members are treating the BOM as if it takes the place of the Bible.

You're entitled to your opinion, but Doctrine & Covenants 84:54-58 doesn't put the Saints under condemnation for their neglect of the Bible.  Their neglect of the Book of Mormon, on the other hand ...

[EllenMaksoud]

You're entitled to your opinion, but Doctrine & Covenants 84:54-58 doesn't put the Saints under condemnation for their neglect of the Bible.  Their neglect of the Book of Mormon, on the other hand ...

I am so busted. OK, I have to get to work.

[CV75]

Today leaders make statements about marriage or dress standards or the role of prophets. How do we know they're not they're not just as false as either the 1949 or 1954 teaching by a prophet.

Just because things change, or even get disavowed, does not make either the former or the latter state false. I think the important thing is to follow the living prophets in the right spirit. They tend not to condemn their predecessors when they make changes. While some may take this to be self-serving, I think it is the Christlike thing to do (for example, He fulfilled the law of Moses and changed it into the Gospel without condemning it).

 

Assuming something that has changed simply because it was false offers no added value toward discovering truth--for example, if the Mosaic Law is perceived to have been "false," the virtue in its fulfillment gets devalued and the full truth in Christ may be overlooked.

 

So the teachings of today's prophets may change, but that does not make them false. The basis for concluding a modern teaching is false has to be based on other criteria. We do have some guidance on that. And if God is reported to have made an exception for someone, that does not make the general teaching false.

[JLHPROF]

Just because things change, or even get disavowed, does not make either the former or the latter state false.

 

Now tell the leaders today that you agree with Brigham Young on Adam-God and that God is progressing in knowledge.

 

[Buzzard]

All in all, if I had to be misled,  I'd rather be led astray by the leaders of the LDS church than by the leaders of any other denomination.  I'd rather have to make a slight course correction to get back on the right path than to do a complete 180.

[JLHPROF]

All in all, if I had to be misled,  I'd rather be led astray by the leaders of the LDS church than by the leaders of any other denomination.  I'd rather have to make a slight course correction to get back on the right path than to do a complete 180.

 

That's what the scriptures say too.

[canard78]

Just because things change, or even get disavowed, does not make either the former or the latter state false. I think the important thing is to follow the living prophets in the right spirit. They tend not to condemn their predecessors when they make changes. While some may take this to be self-serving, I think it is the Christlike thing to do (for example, He fulfilled the law of Moses and changed it into the Gospel without condemning it).

Assuming something that has changed simply because it was false offers no added value toward discovering truth--for example, if the Mosaic Law is perceived to have been "false," the virtue in its fulfillment gets devalued and the full truth in Christ may be overlooked.

So the teachings of today's prophets may change, but that does not make them false. The basis for concluding a modern teaching is false has to be based on other criteria. We do have some guidance on that. And if God is reported to have made an exception for someone, that does not make the general teaching false.

Compare the following:

1)

1949: Black skin is a sign of a curse/black people are the seed of Cain

2013: Black skin is not a sign of a curse or divine disfavour

2)

1949: The position of Black people should be understood in the context of the doctrine that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has a determining effect on the conditions and circumstances of mortality

2013: Black skin does not reflect actions in a premortal life

Is black skin a sign of a curse, or not?

Does black skin reflect actions in the premortal life or not.

On the one hand you have a 1949 statement of doctrine from the first presidency. On the other you have an unsigned and unattributed essay; the publication of which is said to have been approved be the first presidency and quorum of the 12.

Joseph Fielding Smith said:

Now, brethren, I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1972/04/eternal-keys-and-the-right-to-preside?lang=eng

The President... (will never)... send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord.

And

The first presidency... (will never)... send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord.

So was it the 1949 or the 2013 statement that was contrary to the mind and will of the Lord. They are two contradictory statements. They can't both be the mind of the Lord.

1949 source: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

[janderich]

The very teaching that the prophet will not lead us astray, leads us astray. And it is taught over and over again. Take Carol F. McConkie's words from this last conference. She said, 

When we heed the words of the prophets, we build our homes and our lives upon an eternally sure foundation, “the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, … that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to … misery and endless wo.

This is a twisting of scripture. It does not say that when we build our lives on the prophets words we are building on an eternally sure foundation. No, it says that we must build upon the "rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ".

 

In many instances the prophets words are the words of Christ, but in some instances they are not. A person who tries to build their lives on "every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of the prophet" will start to find their foundation crumbling when they hear about some of Brigham Young's statements, or about Joseph's polyandry, or about race and the priesthood, etc., etc. And the very words of the current or prior prophets will be the pick used to crumble their false foundation and lead them down to "misery and endless wo".