Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[KevinG]

There is a lot of room between giving an unfavorable talk, believing In a false tradition that is later corrected through revelation, and leading the church into apostasy. Unless the purpose of this discussion is to address Canards favorite list of things prophets did to upset him, I'm wondering what point is really being made.

[Pahoran]

Where have I asked for my musings to be sacrosanct? The question has been asked whether there are times when the counsel of one the church leaders is not something we support or consider to be divine.

I said the same about your post as you said about Elder Holland's talk, and you got huffy.

If you can't bear to discuss that topic then move on. You seem more intent on throwing insults than actually discussing the issue.

What Elder Holland said is demonstrably wrong. It's not only the intangible feelings that lead me to that conclusion but also study and reason.

What Elder Holland said is clearly correct; therefore it is your fault-finding and gainsaying that is wrong.

If you can defend his statement 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."

That's a sweeping, all-encompassing statement. Can you show that this statement is, in all cases, accurate? Or has he made a sweeping generalisation that doesn't actually apply to lots and lots of dedicated religious people.

Do more than sling mud and actually engage in the conversation.

"Sling mud?" Another drama queen, I see.

Since Elder Holland didn't say it applied to "all religious people," the assumption that it's "a sweeping, all-encompassing statement" is your own.

And it's a faulty one.

Actually he said, "it is a characteristic of our age," i.e. a recent phenomenon.

How do I know that he said that?

Because you quoted him thus.

And I have no reason to suppose that you made it up, since it undercuts your argument.

Elder Holland's teaching was true and inspired. Your nit-picking is neither.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeanne]

It really depends on what is meant and understood.

 

It really depends on what is meant and understood.

I am sorry but that is such a non answer.  To any question!

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought of this thread and the accusation that Elder Holland is leading us astray today. In my review of the October general conference, I ran across this statement in a sermon by Elder Lynn G. Robbins:

 

 

Trying to please others before pleasing God is inverting the first and second great commandments (see Matthew 22:37–39). It is forgetting which way we face. And yet, we have all made that mistake because of the fear of men. In Isaiah the Lord warns us, “Fear ye not the reproach of men” (Isaiah 51:7; see also 2 Nephi 8:7). In Lehi’s dream, this fear was triggered by the finger of scorn pointed from the great and spacious building, causing many to forget which way they faced and to leave the tree “ashamed” (see 1 Nephi 8:25–28).

This peer pressure tries to change a person’s attitudes, if not behavior, by making one feel guilty for giving offense. We seek respectful coexistence with those who point fingers, but when this fear of men tempts us to condone sin, it becomes a “snare” according to the book of Proverbs (see Proverbs 29:25). The snare may be cleverly baited to appeal to our compassionate side to tolerate or even approve of something that has been condemned by God. For the weak of faith, it can be a major stumbling block.

 

Of course, I fear that canard78 will simply say that this is yet another example of the General Authorities leading us astray.

 

Ah well, "Let he who has ears to hear. ..."

[CV75]

I am sorry but that is such a non answer.  To any question!

It really depends on what is meant and understood.

[Calm]

It really depends on what is meant and understood.

One has to know what is meant and understood or the answer has a good chance to be meaningless, hit or miss or even worse, the other will assume they know what is meant and understood and draw the wrong conclusion.  All communication depends on what is meant and understood, in complicated discussions this is especially important.

[Vance]

There is a lot of room between giving an unfavorable talk, believing In a false tradition that is later corrected through revelation, and leading the church into apostasy. Unless the purpose of this discussion is to address Canards favorite list of things prophets did to upset him, I'm wondering what point is really being made.

The point being made is that canard78 is morally superior to the leadership in particular and the membership in general. At least that is what it reads like to me.

[CV75]

One has to know what is meant and understood or the answer has a good chance to be meaningless, hit or miss or even worse, the other will assume they know what is meant and understood and draw the wrong conclusion.  All communication depends on what is meant and understood, in complicated discussions this is especially important.

It is also a way to determine whether there is interest in an expansion of what is meant and understood, and (I think) this is shown in exchanges #65 and 73-75.

[USU78]

Now Hear This:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Offenders-Word-Daniel-C-Peterson/dp/0934893357

 

That is all.

[canard78]

The point being made is that canard78 is morally superior to the leadership in particular and the membership in general. At least that is what it reads like to me.

Are you saying that I think I am morally superior or that people are painting me as being so?

Either way, thankfully others have actually engaged with the topic rather than make personal evaluations of my moral values.

On the subject of which, I will reply properly to those points once I've finished work and bedtime stories.

Edited November 3, 2014 by canard78

[canard78]

Now Hear This:

http://www.amazon.com/Offenders-Word-Daniel-C-Peterson/dp/0934893357

That is all.

Was this what you had in mind:

This book reveals the tactics many anti-Mormons employ in attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In clear, straightforward terms, the authors explain the true beliefs of the church and how to see through the word games that critics use to attack it.

Classy contribution to the discussion Mr USU Edited November 3, 2014 by canard78

[Maestrophil]

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."

 

I see no irony at all.  I do think is an "us vs. them" proposition.  The "us" in this case is anyone of any denomination who believes that following Christ's commandments is necessary and vital and the "them" being anyone who does not.

 

I do not feel that it is detrimental to civil discourse to draw a line and indicate that there are different approaches to an issue and then take a side.  This kind of reinforces Elder Holland's point to me again - people are so concerned about giving "soft" all inclusive answers that they often refrain from taking a stand or disagreeing. 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Maestrophil

[Vance]

Are you saying that I think I am morally superior or that people are painting me as being so?

From what you have posted in this thread, you have painted yourself to be morally superior.

If that is not your intent, then I suggest that your need to review and reevaluate your writing style.

Either way, thankfully others have actually engaged with the topic rather than make personal evaluations of my moral values.

Oh, right. You can judge others based upon their words but others should refrain from judging you based upon your words.

Again, your attitude of morally superiority is shining through.

Carry on.

[canard78]

Black skin a curse, 2 Nephi 5:21. Foreordination concerning the particular definition and circumstances of our mortality, which is cursed and which by definition involves skin (including its color), Acts 17:26 and Jeremiah 1:5 (and certainly the Lord knows how among the nations skin color becomes a trial and tribulation for some). And whatever we might perceive to be a curse in mortality is swallowed up in the Atonement, Galatians 3:13 (while this is about the law of Moses as schoolmaster, there are many other ways the Lord schools His children in mortality that prove to be just as much a “curse” when rejected -- Alma 29:.

So what you've done here is present some reasons why scripture would support the teaching that black skin is a sign of a curse/divine disfavour and that black skin might reflect conduct in the premortal existence.

Doesn't that position mean that you can't also agree with the following 2013 statement:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse

If your scriptures support a doctrine of black skin being a sign of a cursing then the 2013 is false doctrine. Which one do you choose? They can't both be true.

[USU78]

So what you've done here is present some reasons why scripture would support the teaching that black skin is a sign of a curse/divine disfavour and that black skin might reflect conduct in the premortal existence.

Doesn't that position mean that you can't also agree with the following 2013 statement:

If your scriptures support a doctrine of black skin being a sign of a cursing then the 2013 is false doctrine. Which one do you choose? They can't both be true.

 

Now we're just being disingenuous, intimating things were somehow changed in 2013 when they plainly were made clear in 1978:

 

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

 

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

 

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

 

Clear precedent and clear instruction.

[canard78]

-snip-

Since Elder Holland didn't say it applied to "all religious people," the assumption that it's "a sweeping, all-encompassing statement" is your own.

And it's a faulty one.

Actually he said, "it is a characteristic of our age," i.e. a recent phenomenon.

-snip-

I've cut to the section we can actually discuss.

Elder Holland makes it clear from the start of his talk that he's talking to and about the members of our church, not others:

I say to all and especially the youth of the Church that if you haven’t already, you will one day find yourself called upon to defend your faith or perhaps even endure some personal abuse simply because you are a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He then goes on to compare the "young people" of the church to prophets of old who, like the missionaries in the story, were hated/spat on/persecuted.

He then talks about "characteristic of our age." Our era, the time we live in now, not the times of the past. That covers all religions now being practiced. It doesn't mean recently started religions. Even if it did, it still wouldn't be an accurate description of all of them.

He also says "People want..." The word "people" means: "human beings in general or considered collectively."

He could have said "some people" if he wanted to compare Mormon high demand faith practice to "some" other lower-demand faith practice. He chose not to draw that distinction.

This was never about being a personal attack on him. I put many of his talks in my list if favourites. I just didn't agree with the particular one.

[canard78]

Now we're just being disingenuous, intimating things were somehow changed in 2013 when they plainly were made clear in 1978:

Clear precedent and clear instruction.

Yep, agreed. The 1978 statement from Elder McConkie and the 2013 statement agree (the 2013 is just a bit more explicit).

As Elder McConkie puts it, they spoke with "limited light" previously.

Therefore, a prophet can teach something as "doctrine" in 1940s that actually isn't true or, in other words, is false.

What CV75 was doing was trying to use scripture to support the 1940s prophetic teaching. 1978 and 2013 refute that.

Some might say that actually 1978 and 2013 are not official teachings and that the 1949 statement is right. I wouldn't agree but that's still an option.

What people can't credibly do is say that 1949, 1978 AND 2013 were all True. They can't coexist as true statements.

[canard78]

From what you have posted in this thread, you have painted yourself to be morally superior.

If that is not your intent, then I suggest that your need to review and reevaluate your writing style.

Oh, right. You can judge others based upon their words but others should refrain from judging you based upon your words.

Again, your attitude of morally superiority is shining through.

Carry on.

I see you're still not prepared to discuss or defend the actual topic and would instead prefer to stick with an ad hominem approach while avoiding the issues raised.

[USU78]

Yep, agreed. The 1978 statement from Elder McConkie and the 2013 statement agree (the 2013 is just a bit more explicit).

As Elder McConkie puts it, they spoke with "limited light" previously.

Therefore, a prophet can teach something as "doctrine" in 1940s that actually isn't true or, in other words, is false.

What CV75 was doing was trying to use scripture to support the 1940s prophetic teaching. 1978 and 2013 refute that.

Some might say that actually 1978 and 2013 are not official teachings and that the 1949 statement is right. I wouldn't agree but that's still an option.

What people can't credibly do is say that 1949, 1978 AND 2013 were all True. They can't coexist as true statements.

 

I suppose if one is a Fundamentalist, that's true enough.

 

If, on the other hand, one is a follower of Abraham, one can have two mutually exclusive thoughts in one's head at the same time, and not lose heart, even though it breaks one's heart.

 

G-d requires more of us than Fundamentalist simple-mindedness.

[Scott Lloyd]

He then talks about "characteristic of our age." Our era, the time we live in now, not the times of the past. That covers all religions now being practiced. It doesn't mean recently started religions. Even if it did, it still wouldn't be an accurate description of all of them.

 

 

No, no, no!

 

"Characteristic of our age" means it happens with substantial frequency and scope, enough that it could be said to be common in our age. It doesn't mean everyone behaves like this. It doesn't mean that all religions (except Mormonism) behave in this way. It's not even necessarily referring to religion at all, although there are probably some that it could be applied to.

 

And he doesn't limit it to our age. He just says it's characteristic of our age.

 

I showed how C.S. Lewis noticed the same thing in his day, though I daresay things have grown worse in the intervening generations.

 

He also says "People want..." The word "people" means: "human beings in general or considered collectively."

 

It means people who behave in the way he describes, not all people. I see it as being an "if the shoe fits, wear it" sort of observation.

 

He could have said "some people" if he wanted to compare Mormon high demand faith practice to "some" other lower-demand faith practice. He chose not to draw that distinction.

 

 

 

"Some" is implied in the phrasing and context. We are not bound by your interpretation, despite how insistently you apply it.

 

This was never about being a personal attack on him. I put many of his talks in my list if favourites. I just didn't agree with the particular one.

 

 

Well, it strikes me as a personal attack.

 

He has made a very astute observation, one that we would do well to heed. He does not deserve to be accused of leading the Latter-day Saints astray. On the contrary, he is to be commended for giving timely warning -- coupled with assurance and encouragement to those who would buck the trend that he identifies.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

Well, it strikes me as a personal attack.

 

It was.

 

And it was a classic example of making one an "offender for a word."

 

Self-righteous fundamentalist thinking.

[Pahoran]

I've cut to the section we can actually discuss.

Elder Holland makes it clear from the start of his talk that he's talking to and about the members of our church, not others:

He then goes on to compare the "young people" of the church to prophets of old who, like the missionaries in the story, were hated/spat on/persecuted.

He then talks about "characteristic of our age." Our era, the time we live in now, not the times of the past. That covers all religions now being practiced.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow from anything he said. You simply made it up. He's not talking about "religions," but about people.

It doesn't mean recently started religions. Even if it did, it still wouldn't be an accurate description of all of them.

Good thing he never suggested or implied that it was, then.

He also says "People want..." The word "people" means: "human beings in general or considered collectively."

It can mean that, but the primary meaning is "more than one person." It's the normal plural of "person."

He could have said "some people" if he wanted to compare Mormon high demand faith practice to "some" other lower-demand faith practice. He chose not to draw that distinction.

And he could have said "all people" if that's what he meant, but he didn't.

This was never about being a personal attack on him. I put many of his talks in my list if favourites. I just didn't agree with the particular one.

And you had to grossly distort it in order to find something to attack.

Sad, really.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And you had to grossly distort it in order to find something to attack.

Sad, really.

Regards,

Pahoran

This is exactly what is going on in this thread.

[canard78]

Nope, it was not a personal attack. The OP asked for times when we had heard something from leaders that wasn't agreed with. I gave an example.

You've all distorted my comments into a personal attack because apparently you've conflated "I don't agree with you" with "I want to attack and undermine you."

Some of the language that many of you have used about me is an attack. I've not once used similar language about Elder Hollands talk.

[canard78]

I suppose if one is a Fundamentalist, that's true enough.

If, on the other hand, one is a follower of Abraham, one can have two mutually exclusive thoughts in one's head at the same time, and not lose heart, even though it breaks one's heart.

G-d requires more of us than Fundamentalist simple-mindedness.

It's not "fundamentalist simple-mindedness." It's logical reasoning to say that if prophet A said "X is true doctrine" and Prophet B said "X is not true doctrine" that one of the prophets is wrong and teaching untrue doctrine. Can we call it false doctrine, or is that too inflammatory?

I'm not sure what your Abraham heart breaking reference was about.