An Evening With A General Authority 2015

[DBMormon]

I was in a branch presidency/the branch president 4-5 years ago. My most recent calling was Branch Mission Leader (that was... interesting....)

I don't want to go off on a tangent too much, but in relation to the topic of the thread, I have reached some fairly resolved conclusions (as far as is possible on intangible matters of faith). The issues that Elder Holland says are trivial are really, really not. I spent several years and 1000s of hours studying and pondering these questions. In the end I feel comfortable with the conclusions I've reached. I still have a personal set of beliefs. I'd probably describe myself as a universalist with Mormon origins.

I might describe myself somewhat that way as well

[Hamba Tuhan]

When Elder Holland asks what trivialities could possibly undermine the reality of "the receipt of divine revelation both personally and institutionally" he misses the point.

The very biggest issues and historical pull out the foundation of the claim of "institutional revelation." Without revelation, many of the other aspects he mentions also become unreliable.

 

For what it may be worth, it has been my experience that distrust of institutional revelation is inversely proportional to the experience of personal revelation.

[The Nehor]

For what it may be worth, it has been my experience that distrust of institutional revelation is inversely proportional to the experience of personal revelation.

 

Ding! We have a winner.

[CV75]

I think the leaders are concerned. Although Elder Holland is fundamentally correct, I think he also might be understating the issue....at least in my observation.

A member is taught a version of history about the foundational versions of the church – (for example) the first vision and the translation of the Book of Mormon. The member's testimony is often received spiritually as a result of prayer based on the version taught about these truth claims. The person is taught that the Spirit testifies and confirms truth. When the person discovers a more nuanced version of these events, which in some cases conflicts with the official version, then an epistemological conflict begins. The person naturally asks: how can the spirit testify of something that I was taught was true when it was not really as true as I was taught? Did the spirit really testify to me or was it just wishful thinking? The doubt felt as a result of this questioning, coupled with a feeling of betrayal from the church, often leads the member to harbour serious doubt or loss of faith. I think that is how it unravels quickly.

Assuming the member you describe possessed a “consuming spiritual conviction” of the “eternal first-level truths,” it wouldn’t matter how imperfectly he was taught. When the Spirit testifies that the First Vision happened, it doesn’t matter how many versions we come across later. When the power of the Holy Ghost brings knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true, it doesn’t matter how many versions of its translation we come across. Nuances needn’t get in the way because the spiritual gift of discernment is designed to help us navigate that. Both the still “still small voice” and the serpent can be subtle and nuanced, but their subtlety and nuance is only problematic when we ignore or heed them, respectively.

Why didn’t the member ask, “How can the Spirit testify of something that I was taught so imperfectly? What is the germ of precious truth I should be holding onto?” I think it is natural to get distracted, and we all get distracted by something at some point. I think the inherent fallibility we share with our fellow saints and leaders is one of those things, but far from the only thing.

Doubt and blame are the cascading results of not being vigilant to the doctrine of Christ but they are not insurmountable. This vigilance comes from the “consuming spiritual conviction” of the “eternal first-level truths.” Those that are weak need strengthening by their fellow saints.

[Paddy]

Doubt and blame are the cascading results of not being vigilant to the doctrine of Christ but they are not insurmountable. This vigilance comes from the “consuming spiritual conviction” of the “eternal first-level truths.” Those that are weak need strengthening by their fellow saints.

Matters of the spirit and faith are not that definate which you indicated by the need to prefaced the remark with the assumption of a consuming spiritual conviction. If the person was spiritually convicted then no problem. However you are talking about only one part of the overall spectrum.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Paddy

[Thinking]

I've read most of the posts and I think it's interesting that so many are jumping on the first level truths bandwagon as if the second, third, and fourth level truths don't matter. Are not the truths of the second, third, and fourth level still truths?

[CV75]

Matters of the spirit and faith are not that definate which you indicated by the need to prefaced the remark with the assumption of a consuming spiritual conviction. If the person was spiritually convicted then no problem. However you are talking about only one part of the overall spectrum.

Since you were responding to the OP where Elder Holland used the term "consuming spiritual conviction," I thought it was germane to your remarks.

Where such conviction is lacking, people often buttress their Church participation with an emotional or intellectual substitutes and misinterpret these as faith. People often point out the difference between being religious and being spiritual, and this is an example. When those emotional and intellectual supports fail (which they inevitably will), it is taken to be a faith crisis. Because of a lack of a familiarity with spiritual processes, these solutions get overlooked or even rejected.

Only so much vigilance can be applied to the doctrine of Christ when these substitutes represent the main experience.

[CV75]

I've read most of the posts and I think it's interesting that so many are jumping on the first level truths bandwagon as if the second, third, and fourth level truths don't matter. Are not the truths of the second, third, and fourth level still truths?

By definition, the secondary levels do not have as high a relevance, priority, purity, clarity, power etc. in cultivating that "consuming spiritual conviction." Edited February 13, 2015 by CV75

[The Nehor]

I've read most of the posts and I think it's interesting that so many are jumping on the first level truths bandwagon as if the second, third, and fourth level truths don't matter. Are not the truths of the second, third, and fourth level still truths?

 

Their worries tend to be more about the "We don't know" statements and less about the truths.

[The Nehor]

Since you were responding to the OP where Elder Holland used the term "consuming spiritual conviction," I thought it was germane to your remarks.

Where such conviction is lacking, people often buttress their Church participation with an emotional or intellectual substitutes and misinterpret these as faith. People often point out the difference between being religious and being spiritual, and this is an example. When those emotional and intellectual supports fail (which they inevitably will), it is taken to be a faith crisis. Because of a lack of a familiarity with spiritual processes, these solutions get overlooked or even rejected.

Only so much vigilance can be applied to the doctrine of Christ when these substitutes represent the main experience.

 

In the parable of the sown wheat it doesn't say that the heat will scorch the plants without root right away.

 

Many see the gospel the same way they see propositions like "exercise is good for you" or "hard work is often rewarded". It is something that seems to work. Then when something comes up opposing it they only have their intellectual conviction which can be torn down by intellectual doubts.

 

To be clear these are not terrible people looking for an excuse to leave. Many of them are probably better at living the principles of the gospel then I am but they would be better if they sought the witness they need. To be fair I could do better by emulating their living the principles of the gospel.

 

If my apostasy comes it will probably not come from disbelieving the gospel. It will be because I find it too difficult or, worse, decide that the plan is too cruel and too risky and that God is not who I hoped He was.

[Hamba Tuhan]

However you are talking about only one part of the overall spectrum.

 

Indeed. No doubt amongst others, I would add the following:

 

Action/obedience. In my experience, revelation is less some kind of knowledge and more an invitation to act on what has been revealed and thereby gain a solid, testable, practical knowledge. The Saviour taught that it was in the doing of God's will that people could come to know the truth of doctrine, and John insisted that faith without works dies.

 

One of the young men I helped come back to church left on his mission 2.5 years ago, and I was the one he asked to drive him to the airport (300 km away). On our drive, I pointed out to him that over the next two years people were going to try to convince him that he didn't actually know what he thought he knew. I asked him how he would respond. 'That's easy', he said. 'I'll tell them I know what I know because I have lived it'.

 

I have a hard time accepting that someone can reasonably (1) go to the temple on a Saturday and receive a clear answer to fasting and sincere prayer; (2) start putting that answer into practice on Sunday and immediately see the fruits of it; (3) give a priesthood blessing to a ward member after FHE on Monday and immediately see the fruits of that; (4) wake up Tuesday morning with an impression to check on a home teaching family, ring them, find out they're in need, and meet that need; (5) receive correction during Wednesday night Book of Mormon reading; (6) wake up Thursday morning, begin implementing the changes inspired by the correction, and immediately see the fruit of that; and then (7) on Friday read something online about 'history' and decide that none of what he experienced during the past week was real.

 

Saints who are living below their privileges seem to me to be the first to presume that the prophets of God have been living below theirs.

 

An understanding of history. I'm a professional historian (MA and PhD in history, editor at an academic history journal), and I have yet to discover/read about a supposedly 'difficult issue in Mormon history' that doesn't just look like a standard bit of real-world historical complexity. I rather suspect that a lack of historical literacy and familiarity with rigorous historical enquiry has made 'history' a convenient vehicle for those who wish to sow seeds of suspicion, but I'm not convinced that people's problems are, at root, historical.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Coreyb]

There is no such thing as "doctrine" the way it has been described by both sides on this thread. Doctrine does not equal truth. All doctrine is is a belief that one holds. It is fiction, imaginary, abstract and resides in one persons mind. It cannot be passed from one mind to another by spoken word, text, music, visual art or symbolism without being diluted, added upon, or misunderstood. Everything can be "lost in translation" or "lost in interpretation". All this talk about doctrine being official, "true", "false", eternal, or immutable is utter nonsense and you will be talking past each other for all eternity. Of course a persons doctrine changes. It can change in the same conversation, or speech, or post. The most accurate way in which you might pass your doctrines onto another, I believe, is by physical action, both ritual and moral action. Bodies interacting with other bodies, or materials. This is what Jesus cares about. This is why his "doctrine" is composed of actions. He "came" into the world. He "did" the will of His Father. He "was raised up" on the cross. He wants you to "follow" Him. "Repent", "be baptized", "be filled". "Eat his body and drink his blood". "Liberate" the captives, "visit" the sick etc. you see, action, not doctrine.

[Nevo]

To say people that leave are dismissing or tossing aside the larger issues is not a fair assessment.   Breaking down the trivial issues often lead you to apply the same critical thinking to the larger issues.

 

Right, but I think part of Elder Holland's message is that applying "critical thinking" to the larger issues isn't enough. Divorced from faith, humility, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, exclusive reliance on critical thinking will have a tendency to lead us to "look beyond the mark." The search for truth requires both study and faith. As the apostle Paul taught, "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:11, 14). If the gospel is reduced to a mere intellectual exercise, it may well be perceived as wanting.

 

A few years ago, Elder Holland introduced his son David as the keynote speaker at a BYU Church History Symposium. Elder Holland's introduction can be seen on YouTube here. In the course of his remarks, Elder Holland paid tribute to his son's integrity as one "will not say what he does not believe. Nor will he ever act in a way contrary to his convictions. His is a faith fashioned in the furnace of piercing, rock-ribbed examination, and the devotion of one who loves God so deeply that to disappoint him would be the most painful penalty a man could pay in this life." Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it sounds as if David—now an accomplished scholar and historian—faced some challenges to his faith along the way and came out the other side. I thought it was something to see an apostle pay tribute to hard-won, examined faith.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Nevo

[omni]

I might describe myself somewhat that way as well

Count me in too!

[rockpond]

1) Almost from the very beginning, it has been common knowledge in the Church that the prophet Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage. So the lie you say you were told by your young men's leader has nothing to do with the Church at large. Painting the entire Church with the broad brush claim of systemic lying about Joseph Smith's polygamy, all because of the alleged lie of your young men's leader, is as unfair as it is ridiculous. Anger clouds reason.

2) You need to understand that it was very logical for pre-Official Declaration 2 LDS apologists to presume blacks were being denied the priesthood because of their lack of faithfulness in the preexistence. Why? because Alma 13 testifies that the faithful in the premortal world are rewarded for their faithfulness by being made recipients of the priesthood power while in mortality. So the logical flip-side of this same Book of Mormon doctrine is that the priesthood would be denied to those on earth who were less valiant in the premortal world. So then, the pre-1978 LDS apologists should be charitably cut some slack because in the light of the Book of Mormon their presumptions of premortal unworthiness were perfectly logical and consistent with LDS scripture. But the fact is that since 1978 black male members HAVE BEEN able to hold the priesthood, so the perfectly logical and reasonable pre-1978 application of Alma 13 to the priesthood ban has since that time been cast into some doubt.

But remember, in spite of what some wishful thinkers want to believe, the Church hasn't walked away from the legitimacy of the priesthood ban and for the need of a special revelation to end the ban. So aside from the once-presumed logical and scripturally presumed reason for the institution of the priesthood ban being called into question, nothing else has changed with regard to the ban. In its recent official statement on this subject, the Church stands by the need for a special revelation to end the ban. There would have been no need for a revelation to end the priesthood ban if there were no legitimate ban in the first place. And it's important to understand that the leaders who were present at the time the 1978 revelation was given have most solemnly testified that they did indeed receive a powerful revelation on that happy day -- a revelation as great as the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

The spiritually immature will always gag and choke on the meatier doctrines and principles of the Restore Gospel. Even so, of late the Church has made an attempt to masticate that Gospel meat for easier digestion. But in spite of the Church's best efforts, some are still choking. It will ever be so.

I'm not sure what implication you are attempting to make with your final paragraph, but having a different interpretation than you does not make someone spiritually immature.

[wtrdog]

The very fact that you have to start with the insults tells me you aren't serious about an adult conversation. Irony.

What insults?!?

[wtrdog]

If you want your arguments to have credibility, you should at least take the time get your facts straight.

Blacks were never banned from the church.

If you think otherwise, please provide a reference.

Yes they were. I personally know a man who served a mission to Brazil in 1960s. He was not allowed to teach or baptize black people. Not just avoiding certain people, but I'm talking about denying baptism to individuals and families who had been wanting to be baptized for years. He even knew a bishop who had his blessings revoked because someone in the stake accused him of being part black. The missionaries had color charts, like a palette card you'd get from the paint center at Home Depot, that they would use to determine whether they could teach an investigator or not. Sorry, you're a shade too brown.

[wtrdog]

Either way you are a moron.

Why not just cut to the chase and say, "You are not welcome at church"? It would certainly be more polite, lol

[The Nehor]

Why not just cut to the chase and say, "You are not welcome at church"? It would certainly be more polite, lol

 

What makes you think morons are not welcome at our church?

[carbon dioxide]

Right, but I think part of Elder Holland's message is that applying "critical thinking" to the larger issues isn't enough. Divorced from faith, humility, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, exclusive reliance on critical thinking will have a tendency to lead us to "look beyond the mark." The search for truth requires both study and faith. As the apostle Paul taught, "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:11, 14). If the gospel is reduced to a mere intellectual exercise, it may well be perceived as wanting.

 

A few years ago, Elder Holland introduced his son David as the keynote speaker at a BYU Church History Symposium. Elder Holland's introduction can be seen on YouTube here. In the course of his remarks, Elder Holland paid tribute to his son's integrity as one "will not say what he does not believe. Nor will he ever act in a way contrary to his convictions. His is a faith fashioned in the furnace of piercing, rock-ribbed examination, and the devotion of one who loves God so deeply that to disappoint him would be the most painful penalty a man could pay in this life." Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it sounds as if David—now an accomplished scholar and historian—faced some challenges to his faith along the way and came out the other side. I thought it was something to see an apostle pay tribute to hard-won, examined faith.

Would not surprise me.  I spend a semester in the same dorm hall with David.  He was a fine man even back then. 

[Danzo]

Yes they were. I personally know a man who served a mission to Brazil in 1960s. He was not allowed to teach or baptize black people. Not just avoiding certain people, but I'm talking about denying baptism to individuals and families who had been wanting to be baptized for years. He even knew a bishop who had his blessings revoked because someone in the stake accused him of being part black. The missionaries had color charts, like a palette card you'd get from the paint center at Home Depot, that they would use to determine whether they could teach an investigator or not. Sorry, you're a shade too brown.

reference please? That blacks were officially denied membership? Not rumor.

You do know who elder martins was, I hope?

Edited February 13, 2015 by Danzo

[Avatar4321]

Better then the veiled disingenuous sniping you seem to prefer.

If it made no sense then you were a moron for trying to rebut it by talking drivel. If you misunderstood and it did make sense you are still a moron. Either way you are a moron.

I don't believe you.

I could but I see no reason to. Pearls and swine and all that.

Of of course. I keep detailed records of them all and how confident I feel percentage-wise. I don't believe for a second that you honestly believe I have all this recorded and no one else does either. If you claim not to be disingenuous we can pull this up as proof otherwise. I submit this as exhibit B that you are a moron.

Having heard Apostles and Prophets declare real revelation with full surety I do not doubt their confidence in any way.

Our leaders are under no obligation to share every revelation or spiritual experience they have with us. They never claimed they had such an obligation. It is amazing that only critics and enemies of the church seem to demand it. Almost as if they are not acting in good faith......

Yeah it would.

It is amazing that they demand every instance of revelation while ignoring the revelation we have and not seeking their own Edited February 13, 2015 by Avatar4321

[Avatar4321]

What makes you think morons are not welcome at our church?

They most certainly are. They are entitled to learn the truth of the gospel like everyone else.

[Avatar4321]

Indeed. No doubt amongst others, I would add the following:

 

Action/obedience. In my experience, revelation is less some kind of knowledge and more an invitation to act on what has been revealed and thereby gain a solid, testable, practical knowledge. The Saviour taught that it was in the doing of God's will that people could come to know the truth of doctrine, and John insisted that faith without works dies.

 

One of the young men I helped come back to church left on his mission 2.5 years ago, and I was the one he asked to drive him to the airport (300 km away). On our drive, I pointed out to him that over the next two years people were going to try to convince him that he didn't actually know what he thought he knew. I asked him how he would respond. 'That's easy', he said. 'I'll tell them I know what I know because I have lived it'.

 

I have a hard time accepting that someone can reasonably (1) go to the temple on a Saturday and receive a clear answer to fasting and sincere prayer; (2) start putting that answer into practice on Sunday and immediately see the fruits of it; (3) give a priesthood blessing to a ward member after FHE on Monday and immediately see the fruits of that; (4) wake up Tuesday morning with an impression to check on a home teaching family, ring them, find out they're in need, and meet that need; (5) receive correction during Wednesday night Book of Mormon reading; (6) wake up Thursday morning, begin implementing the changes inspired by the correction, and immediately see the fruit of that; and then (7) on Friday read something online about 'history' and decide that none of what he experienced during the past week was real.

 

Saints who are living below their privileges seem to me to be the first to presume that the prophets of God have been living below theirs.

 

An understanding of history. I'm a professional historian (MA and PhD in history, editor at an academic history journal), and I have yet to discover/read about a supposedly 'difficult issue in Mormon history' that doesn't just look like a standard bit of real-world historical complexity. I rather suspect that a lack of historical literacy and familiarity with rigorous historical enquiry has made 'history' a convenient vehicle for those who wish to sow seeds of suspicion, but I'm not convinced that people's problems are, at root, historical.

This is what I understand too. And I think it's overlooked by too many.

[KevinG]

reference please? That blacks were officially denied membership? Not rumor.

You do know who elder martins was, I hope?

I do. He was a classmate of mine in graduate school. Brilliant and kind man. More people should read his books.