Kate Kelly Lost Appeal To First Presidency. Her Husband Is Resigning From The Church

[bluebell]

But the leaders have been obstinately wrong in the past as well. Official statements from the First presidency have been disavowed as error, even. So even if the church or any of it's leaders say, "we have asked the Lord about ordaining women and He has said no", there is still plenty of room to disagree. After all, as far as I can see, no one believes that the method of continuing revelation is fool proof, neither the method of personal revelation. Its likely error creeps into our lives unbeknownst to us all the time.

 

I'm not aware of anywhere the Brethren have said "thus saith the Lord" and then later that has been proven wrong, but I certainly might not be aware of everything.  Can you share some examples?

[DJBrown]

But the leaders have been obstinately wrong in the past as well. Official statements from the First presidency have been disavowed as error, even. So even if the church or any of it's leaders say, "we have asked the Lord about ordaining women and He has said no", there is still plenty of room to disagree. After all, as far as I can see, no one believes that the method of continuing revelation is fool proof, neither the method of personal revelation. Its likely error creeps into our lives unbeknownst to us all the time.

 

Can anybody provide an example from the scriptures of God sustaining people for not following the prophets?

[smac97]

It comes down to whether or not your feel the LDS leadership is infallible or not.

I don't think this is a question of infallibility at all.

The official position of the Church is leaders are not infallible, but plenty of members treat them as such.

I'm not sure about that. Deference to the Brethren, a presumption that they are generally in communion with God, is not the same as thinking that the Brethren are infallible.

Some think the Church, as in the leaders of the Church, have been wrong in certain circumstances in the past, and they are correct. So it's possible current LDS leadership is wrong about whether or not women can be ordained.

I'm not sure there's much value in saying something is "possible." There are vast differences between a .05% chance of something being true and 50%, or 50% and 99.7%.

In any event, I can accommodate this possibility and still maintain the presumption given above.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

I'm not aware of anywhere the Brethren have said "thus saith the Lord" and then later that has been proven wrong, but I certainly might not be aware of everything.  Can you share some examples?

Do I have to find an instance of the phrase "thus saith the Lord" for consideration here?

I'd be eager to see the last time one of the Brethren have said "thus saith the Lord" and have not been quoting canonical scripture.

But something that has been shared here many times recently is the 1949 statement from the 1st Presidency. It doesn't say "thus saith the Lord" but, I don't know why that phrase needs to be used to support my point. The 1st Presidency declared a teaching, in an official way, that we now consider to have error in it. I think we'll find this will happen again. The Church will, inevitably be wrong and we'll need to do some fixing.

[smac97]

And I think this is the arena where the disagreement often centers upon. Do we just bow our heads and follow or do we speak our conscience trusting that God works in each of us?

I don't think "God works in each of us" to publicly speak out against His appointed servants, to publicly accuse local leaders of being "cowardly" and "unchristlike," to accuse the First Presidency of propagating an "inequitable" process against Kate Kelly, to threaten to sue a stake president, to encourage others in the Church to "raise hell" in the Church, to protest on sacred ground during a sacred convocation, and so on.

Sustaining the Brethren must mean something.

In different circumstances different people approach this differently, it seems to me.

And some approaches are compatible with maintaining good standing in the Church, and some approaches are not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

And I think this is the arena where the disagreement often centers upon. Do we just bow our heads and follow or do we speak our conscience trusting that God works in each of us? In different circumstances different people approach this differently, it seems to me. When it comes to OW, most just go right along with the Church's lead. When it comes to daily scripture study, or something, most members don't put their heads down and follow. Back when birth control debates were strong (almost laughable now) members didn't just put their heads down and follow. They simply decided birth control was best for them, until the Church decided to come out with that type of language too.

When my conscience conflicts with the United counsel of the brethren my first thought is that my conscience is out of tune and not the brethren.

[stemelbow]

Can anybody provide an example from the scriptures of God sustaining people for not following the prophets?

A couple of things come to mind, immediately. When Lehi and family were having a difficult time, Lehi got to the point of murmuring and complaining. Nephi objected. Lehi quickly corrected himself. But that works, it seems to me. Paul also disagreed with Peter. It seems Paul's voice won out, at least.

[stemelbow]

In any event, I can accommodate this possibility and still maintain the presumption given above.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's fine. After all, While I think this way, I never have been an OW supporter.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A couple of things come to mind, immediately. When Lehi and family were having a difficult time, Lehi got to the point of murmuring and complaining. Nephi objected. Lehi quickly corrected himself. But that works, it seems to me. Paul also disagreed with Peter. It seems Paul's voice won out, at least.

And this is analogous to KK how?

[stemelbow]

When my conscience conflicts with the United counsel of the brethren my first thought is that my conscience is out of tune and not the brethren.

Same here. I've ran into this a few times in my life. But it's possible there is error that has creeped in unaware.

[stemelbow]

And this is analogous to KK how?

I'm not saying it is. The question I answered was not asking anything about KK.

[JLHPROF]

Can anybody provide an example from the scriptures of God sustaining people for not following the prophets?

 

There is an Old Testament story, but it escapes me right now and I don't have my reference books at work...I can post it later.

[bluebell]

Do I have to find an instance of the phrase "thus saith the Lord" for consideration here?

I'd be eager to see the last time one of the Brethren have said "thus saith the Lord" and have not been quoting canonical scripture.

But something that has been shared here many times recently is the 1949 statement from the 1st Presidency. It doesn't say "thus saith the Lord" but, I don't know why that phrase needs to be used to support my point. The 1st Presidency declared a teaching, in an official way, that we now consider to have error in it. I think we'll find this will happen again. The Church will, inevitably be wrong and we'll need to do some fixing.

 

The exact phrase doesn't need to be there, but my post spoke of the brethren specifically saying that they prayed about the issue and the Lord answered them, so to be relevant that kind of implication needs to be there in your examples. 

 

You said that such a thing had happened in the past and it didn't make a difference.  I could not think of an example of what i said actually happening (where the Brethren said they prayed about it and the Lord gave them a specific answer) and then being retracted by the church so was looking for some examples to support your assertion.

[stemelbow]

The exact phrase doesn't need to be there, but my post spoke of the brethren specifically saying that they prayed about the issue and the Lord answered them, so to be relevant that kind of implication needs to be there in your examples

I disagree, but that's ok. I don't think a statement that prayer was involved makes the difference as you do. Indeed, I'd say any time the 1st Presidency puts out an official statement on something prayer better be involved. if not, then we have a whole other problem on our hands.

 

You said that such a thing had happened in the past and it didn't make a difference.  I could not think of an example of what i said actually happening (where the Brethren said they prayed about it and the Lord gave them a specific answer) and then being retracted by the church so was looking for some examples to support your assertion.

I think what you describe and what I describe is a distinction without a difference in all honesty. Do you really think the '49 1st Presidency statement was sent out without prayerful consideration?

Maybe I misspoke before and the real argument on this stuff is on whether or not the leader's are seeking God's help?

[teddyaware]

But the leaders have been obstinately wrong in the past as well. Official statements from the First presidency have been disavowed as error, even. So even if the church or any of it's leaders say, "we have asked the Lord about ordaining women and He has said no", there is still plenty of room to disagree. After all, as far as I can see, no one believes that the method of continuing revelation is fool proof, neither the method of personal revelation. Its likely error creeps into our lives unbeknownst to us all the time.

 

I believe there have been disavowals but not, as you say, things that have been "disavowed as error." I keep hearing progressive types on this board erroneously assert that the word disavow is tantamount in meaning to the outright repudiation or rejection of something, but it's not. The word disavow has a gradation of intensity of intended meaning (go ask a lawyer) that starts on one end of the spectrum with no longer being willing to vouch for the truthfulness of something until more supporting facts are amassed, and then its intended meaning gradually progresses in intensity until the word disavow is used in a manner that begins to approach the outright repudiation or rejection of something, but to disavow something never becomes fully synonymous with an outright rejection of that thing as erroneous . Asserting that disavowals are precisely the same as outright repudiations or rejections amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of those who are, either knowingly or unknowingly, misusing the English language in an attempt to unfairly score polemical points.

 

The following quote from Terry Givens book, Serpent on the Hearth, will serve to amply demonstrate that disavowals are not the same as admissions of error:

 

"Mormonism’s most inflammatory doctrines were revealed late in Smith’s career (his teachings on the plurality of gods came only months before his death in 1844) or were in fact disavowed until the saints were presumably safe in their Utah exile (where polygamy was first publicly acknowledges in 1852)."

 

Let's stop debating unfairly by creating irrelevant straw man arguments and stick to the actual facts at hand.

Edited March 2, 2015 by teddyaware

[stemelbow]

I believe there have been disavowals but not, as you say, things that have been "disavowed as error." I keep hearing progressive types on this board erroneously assert that the word disavow is tantamount in meaning to the outright repudiation or rejection of something, but it's not. The word disavow has a gradation of intensity of intended meaning (go ask a lawyer) that starts on one end of the spectrum with no longer being willing to vouch for the truthfulness of something until more supporting facts are amassed and then its intended meaning gradually progresses in intensity until the word disavow is used in a manner that begins to approach the outright repudiation or rejection of something, but to disavow something never becomes fully synonymous with an outright rejection of something as erroneous . Asserting that disavowals are precisely the same as outright or repudiations or rejections amounts to nothing more than wishful on the part of those who, either knowingly or unknowingly, are misusing the English language in an attempt to unfairly score polemical points.

 

The following quote from Terry Givens book, Serpent on the Hearth, will serve to amply demonstrate that disavowals are not the same as admissions of error:

 

"Mormonism’s most inflammatory doctrines were revealed late in Smith’s career (his teachings on the plurality of gods came only months before his death in 1844) or were in fact disavowed until the saints were presumably safe in their Utah exile (where polygamy was first publicly acknowledges in 1852)."

 

Let's stop debating unfairly by creating irrelevant straw men arguments and stick to the actual facts at hand.

Hey, Teddy, thanks for the response. I guess we can agree to disagree. Some might say "well the Adam/God doctrine has been repudiated as wrong", but I know many would respond by saying prophets didn't teach it anyway, or some might respond by saying it is true even if modern prophets think it is not. Or in the case of the priesthood ban. I suppose someone might say "it is not and never has been true that blacks were cursed as to the priesthood, and that they were less valiant in the pre-mortal world". But a response may come back saying "well that doesn't mean they were valiant in the pre-mortal life. maybe they weren't."

I'm just not sure there's much in the way of conversation if we respond to obvious points of correction and past error in that way. I'm sure it's me.

[toon]

My fascism makes others uncomfortable. Is that still my problem?

 

"I mean, say what you want about the tenets of national socialism.  Dude, at least it's an ethos."

[bluebell]

Maybe I misspoke before and the real argument on this stuff is on whether or not the leader's are seeking God's help?

 

OW has repeatedly stated that that's exactly what they think-they do not believe the Prophet has specifically asked God about the issue.  KK has said herself that she just wants them to ask and get an answer.   

 

My point is that if that happened and the answer was 'no' then we would really see OW's agenda.

[stemelbow]

OW has repeatedly stated that that's exactly what they think-they do not believe the Prophet has specifically asked God about the issue.  KK has said herself that she just wants them to ask and get an answer.   

 

My point is that if that happened and the answer was 'no' then we would really see OW's agenda.

OW is composed of many people. I hate to say it, but it seems to me Kate has revealed her agenda already. All the members of the group? I don't know that they are united in all things. One lady stepped down or out so she could go to her brother's sealing. Perhaps there's some revealing of agenda there.

I guess my point in all this was to respond to the poster who asked about how members of the Church can feel justified in supporting OW. I can see it. It's possible leaders are wrong about many things, and they may be wrong on whether women should be ordained or not. I grant that. I also think it's possible a leader can be wrong about something that he has prayed about and gotten what he feels is a sure answer.

[Storm Rider]

And I think this is the arena where the disagreement often centers upon. Do we just bow our heads and follow or do we speak our conscience trusting that God works in each of us? In different circumstances different people approach this differently, it seems to me. When it comes to OW, most just go right along with the Church's lead. When it comes to daily scripture study, or something, most members don't put their heads down and follow. Back when birth control debates were strong (almost laughable now) members didn't just put their heads down and follow. They simply decided birth control was best for them, until the Church decided to come out with that type of language too.

 

Nope, absolutely not.  I have been against KK from the very beginning because I disagree completely with her methods and I find her reasoning devoid of scriptural basis.  I did not need anyone in SLC to declare an opinion or anything else.  I suspect that the majority of LDS feel similar to me.  Your caricature of LDS individuals and thought is strictly your perception and has more to do with you than reality. 

[stemelbow]

Nope, absolutely not.  I have been against KK from the very beginning because I disagree completely with her methods and I find her reasoning devoid of scriptural basis.  I did not need anyone in SLC to declare an opinion or anything else.  I suspect that the majority of LDS feel similar to me.  Your caricature of LDS individuals and thought is strictly your perception and has more to do with you than reality.

Hey there, Storm Rider. I'm pretty much with you, although I admit I'm far more intrigued with the idea that women ought to be ordained. From the beginning I didn't like the methods and approach of OW and so never supported them. I also can grant that women need not be ordained at all for women to be treated well in the Church. I think it's possible. Anyway, I didn't mean to say something offensive regarding LDS individuals thoughts. I was trying to suggest most LDS think and decide for themselves, sometimes in contradiction to what the Church teaches, even.

Anyway, I re-read my post and I'm not sure what your response is responding to. When I said "most members follow the lead of the Church" I meant to suggest that most members too don't give much credence or thought to OW's effort.

[teddyaware]

Hey, Teddy, thanks for the response. I guess we can agree to disagree. Some might say "well the Adam/God doctrine has been repudiated as wrong", but I know many would respond by saying prophets didn't teach it anyway, or some might respond by saying it is true even if modern prophets think it is not. Or in the case of the priesthood ban. I suppose someone might say "it is not and never has been true that blacks were cursed as to the priesthood, and that they were less valiant in the pre-mortal world". But a response may come back saying "well that doesn't mean they were valiant in the pre-mortal life. maybe they weren't."

I'm just not sure there's much in the way of conversation if we respond to obvious points of correction and past error in that way. I'm sure it's me.

 

When one has sufficient "oil" in his or her lamp (i.e. becoming a prophet in one's own right), things such as these become about as destabilizing and distracting as a couple of small pin bones discovered in an otherwise perfectly delicious blacken redfish prepared by Mr. Paul Prudhomme himself. While there will surely be  some who would crankily send such a fish back and demand a new one without any bones, in the meanwhile, after happily engorging myself on my own delightful plate of fish, I'd follow the waiter into the kitchen and beg him to put the rejected fish into a doggie bag so i could enjoy it at home.   

Edited March 2, 2015 by teddyaware

[stemelbow]

I'm happy to hear that you are prepared, or at least feel prepared.

[teddyaware]

I'm happy to hear that you are prepared, or at least feel prepared.

 

On the way to being prepared, but having enough present light to know for a surety that those who hesitate to faithfully follow the counsel of the living prophets of the Restoration are making a mistake they will someday deeply regret and lament.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not saying it is. The question I answered was not asking anything about KK.

Good, then you might see that there is no equivalence given in scripture with what you were inferring earlier.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram