Buckeye Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Then I would argue that they do NOT truly exercise faith in Christ...If we limit faith to simply praying and hoping then sure they do. But not believing Christ's revealed word hardly shows faith in him. Alma teaches that true faith leads to good fruit. Judging by Mother Teresa, Pope Francis, and many others who reject LDS claims to authority, I would argue that it is quite possible to excerise true and fruitful faith in Christ outside of the LDS claims to authority. And I say that as one who accepts and teaches the LDS claims to authority. We may have more keys than others. But we sure as heck don't have more faith in Christ.
jwhitlock Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Your false paradox arises out of your mistaken conclusion that disagreeing with a church leaders equates to rejecting Christ. The men leading this church are amazing and faithful servants of Christ. But they don't get everything right. We have ample history of that. So disagreeing with them on something does not mean one has rejected Christ or lacks faith. Actually (and still speaking of those who are or have been members of the church - just so it's clear), rejecting what a church leader says when that church leader is speaking for Christ is also rejecting Christ. One of the reasons we have the Spirit is so that we can confirm that the leader is speaking for Christ. It's really as simple as that. The rationalization that church leaders "don't get everything right" is just a way of justifying that rejection in favor of ones own perspective. IIRC, the Book of Mormon calls those who do so publicly as engaging in priestcraft, where they set themselves up as a light to the world in opposition to those who God has called. Those who do so do not have faith in Christ; they have faith in themselves. Once we have confirmed that a church leader (or leaders) is/are speaking for Christ, then we are faced with an either/or decision concerning one who publicly opposes what they have said. Since they cannot both be right, at least one must be wrong. Hence the paradox. 1
rockpond Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 Actually (and still speaking of those who are or have been members of the church - just so it's clear), rejecting what a church leader says when that church leader is speaking for Christ is also rejecting Christ. One of the reasons we have the Spirit is so that we can confirm that the leader is speaking for Christ. It's really as simple as that. Yes, when the church leader is speaking for Christ. The rationalization that church leaders "don't get everything right" is just a way of justifying that rejection in favor of ones own perspective. Do the church leaders get everything right? Yes or no? Once we have confirmed that a church leader (or leaders) is/are speaking for Christ, then we are faced with an either/or decision concerning one who publicly opposes what they have said. Since they cannot both be right, at least one must be wrong. Hence the paradox. I imagine that Kelly does not believe that leaders are speaking for Christ when they say that the priesthood can only be given to men. She obviously has not received that spiritual confirmation. Does that mean we should conclude that she is a faithless woman who has rejected Christ?
Buckeye Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Actually (and still speaking of those who are or have been members of the church - just so it's clear), rejecting what a church leader says when that church leader is speaking for Christ is also rejecting Christ. One of the reasons we have the Spirit is so that we can confirm that the leader is speaking for Christ. It's really as simple as that. The rationalization that church leaders "don't get everything right" is just a way of justifying that rejection in favor of ones own perspective. IIRC, the Book of Mormon calls those who do so publicly as engaging in priestcraft, where they set themselves up as a light to the world in opposition to those who God has called. Those who do so do not have faith in Christ; they have faith in themselves. Once we have confirmed that a church leader (or leaders) is/are speaking for Christ, then we are faced with an either/or decision concerning one who publicly opposes what they have said. Since they cannot both be right, at least one must be wrong. Hence the paradox. Of course, the central tension to this discussion is this: should a person have faith in their own ability to interpret what the spirit tells them?
JLHPROF Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 We may have more keys than others. But we sure as heck don't have more faith in Christ. And you don't see any contradiction in that? I am not arguing an absence of faith in Christ by those outside the Church. I am arguing a self-imposed limit to their faith. Christ says "This is my Church, these are my prophets". They say "I don't accept your Church and prophets". How exactly is that faith in Christ? This has nothing to do with agreeing with our leaders 100%. Goodness knows I don't do that either. This has to do with "trusting the LDS church leaders as his representative." 1
jwhitlock Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Yes, when the church leader is speaking for Christ. Do the church leaders get everything right? Yes or no? I imagine that Kelly does not believe that leaders are speaking for Christ when they say that the priesthood can only be given to men. She obviously has not received that spiritual confirmation. Does that mean we should conclude that she is a faithless woman who has rejected Christ? Despite how they are portrayed, church leaders have a rather excellent track record overall when it comes to speaking for Christ. When they are speaking for Christ, they get it right. If I, as a member of the church, circumvent the Gift of the Spirit which has been given to me and speak out in opposition to the church, then I have indeed rejected Christ. 1
rockpond Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Despite how they are portrayed, church leaders have a rather excellent track record overall when it comes to speaking for Christ. When they are speaking for Christ, they get it right. If I, as a member of the church, circumvent the Gift of the Spirit which has been given to me and speak out in opposition to the church, then I have indeed rejected Christ. I agree. I take it from your first statement that no, our leaders don't get everything right. And from your second statement I conclude that you agree we should not reject Kelly as a faithless woman who has rejected Christ since we do not know the workings of the Spirit in her. Edited March 16, 2015 by rockpond
jwhitlock Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Of course, the central tension to this discussion is this: should a person have faith in their own ability to interpret what the spirit tells them? No tension at all. Each person is free to use the Gift of the Holy Ghost that has been given them as they choose. They are free to humbly confirm what the Spirit tells them, they are free to reject it, and they are even free to claim that the spirit has told them something when it actually hasn't. The real tension is whether we are required to take what Kate Kelly claims at face value without questioning it, when it conflicts with what church leaders say. Especially when those church leaders seem to be worthy of doubt unless extraordinary evidence of their being right is presented. 1
cinepro Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Despite how they are portrayed, church leaders have a rather excellent track record overall when it comes to speaking for Christ. When they are speaking for Christ, they get it right. If I, as a member of the church, circumvent the Gift of the Spirit which has been given to me and speak out in opposition to the church, then I have indeed rejected Christ. Just so I'm clear, if a Church leader "gets it wrong", is it possible they were speaking for Christ? 1
jwhitlock Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 I agree. I take it from your first statement that no, our leaders don't get everything right. And from your second statement I conclude that you agree we should not reject Kelly as a faithless woman who has rejected Christ since we do not know the workings of the Spirit in her. The sidetrack as to whether church leaders as individuals get everything right is irrelevant. The real question is whether they get things right when they have the Spirit and speak for Christ. They do get things right in that case, and we are allowed through the same Spirit we have to confirm that. That's the only thing that I am concerned with in this discussion. Your conclusion as to my second statement is wrong. Since she has placed herself publicly in opposition to the church, the Spirit can confirm or correct my conclusions from what she says publicly. The paradox is one indication that this is truly an either / or decision concerning where she's coming from, given that her opposition is clear. Like Dehlin, Snuffer and some others, the Spirit has been rather clear that she is practicing (ironically) priestcraft. She's on the other side of the fence, at this point. Hopefully she'll repent and be able to come back over, but that's not what's going on now. As an anecdotal aside to this, I had the opportunity one time to meet anti-Mormon Granny Geer face to face and to hear her speak. She touted herself in glowing terms as a Christian and true follower of Christ, and was supported in this claim by the fundamentalist minister of the church that had imported her. However, the greatest impression I came away with from that experience was the visible hatred in her face as she publicly denigrated the church, its leaders, and even its members. It was stunning in contrast to what she claimed and presented the same paradox we're talking about here. Either she or the church could be right, but not both. Both could not in any way claim to be of Christ and be right; it was either one or the other or neither. While Kate Kelly doesn't match up to Granny's vitriol from what I've seen, she's working along the same lines in her opposition to the church. I'm hoping she doesn't go as far as Granny did, but rather realizes that she has rejected Christ and His church, and gets herself back along the correct path. 1
Buckeye Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 And you don't see any contradiction in that? I am not arguing an absence of faith in Christ by those outside the Church. I am arguing a self-imposed limit to their faith. Christ says "This is my Church, these are my prophets". They say "I don't accept your Church and prophets". How exactly is that faith in Christ? This has nothing to do with agreeing with our leaders 100%. Goodness knows I don't do that either. This has to do with "trusting the LDS church leaders as his representative." As I've stated elsewhere, there is no such thing as faith in the abstract. We're talking about faith in Christ right now. People can and do excerise great faith in Christ outside of the LDS keys and ordinances. They learn of his example through scripture, feel of the spirit's confirming presence, truly and fully repent, and in many other ways exercise faith in Christ. That the people may not have heard of the LDS authority (the vast majority of people) or have heard but for some reason not believed those claims (a few people) does nothing to undercut these people's ability to exercise faith in Christ outside the church's authority. Yes, they're not receiving the blessings of the temple, but they are receiving very many blessings. That's all I'm saying. When you quantify the amount of "faith in Christ" I think most all of it comes outside our church because most all people who believe in Christ are outside our church. 2
jwhitlock Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Just so I'm clear, if a Church leader "gets it wrong", is it possible they were speaking for Christ? Were they speaking under the direction of Christ through the Spirit?
rockpond Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 The sidetrack as to whether church leaders as individuals get everything right is irrelevant. The real question is whether they get things right when they have the Spirit and speak for Christ. They do get things right in that case, and we are allowed through the same Spirit we have to confirm that. That's the only thing that I am concerned with in this discussion. That confirmation from the Spirit as to whether a leader is speaking for Christ is an individual observation. What you feel has been spoken by a prophet/seer/apostle through the Spirit may not have been felt by Kelly or anyone else. There have been times in Church history where incorrect things were taught... I'm quite certain that some members felt that Spirit had confirmed to them that the leader was speaking for Christ.
jwhitlock Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 That confirmation from the Spirit as to whether a leader is speaking for Christ is an individual observation. What you feel has been spoken by a prophet/seer/apostle through the Spirit may not have been felt by Kelly or anyone else. There have been times in Church history where incorrect things were taught... I'm quite certain that some members felt that Spirit had confirmed to them that the leader was speaking for Christ. So are you saying that the Spirit is an unreliable guide and cannot be trusted as a source of understanding truth?
ksfisher Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 So are you saying that the Spirit is an unreliable guide and cannot be trusted as a source of understanding truth? That seems to be the conclusion: leaders teach things that are incorrect and the spirit testifies that those incorrect things are true.
rockpond Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 So are you saying that the Spirit is an unreliable guide and cannot be trusted as a source of understanding truth? No. The Spirit is a wonderful guide and the best source of understanding truth. But what you and I receive through the Spirit cannot be pushed on anyone else.
rockpond Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 That seems to be the conclusion: leaders teach things that are incorrect and the spirit testifies that those incorrect things are true. I'm not sure who has concluded that. Not me.
jwhitlock Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 No. The Spirit is a wonderful guide and the best source of understanding truth. But what you and I receive through the Spirit cannot be pushed on anyone else. I'm not aware that anyone is pushing anything on anyone else. That much should at least be clear from this thread. However, are you saying that even though Kate Kelly has publicly come out in opposition to the church that I'm not entitled to understanding through the Spirit what her real motivations are?
Buckeye Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 I'm not sure who has concluded that. Not me. Elder Holland has taught that the spirit can lead us down wrong and dangerous roads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNQC-_srxH8 I've sometimes thought that perhaps this will serve as a parable for the racial priesthood ban. If we hadn't continued the ban through 1978, we wouldn't have known how wrong racism is. Or something like that.
jwhitlock Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Elder Holland has taught that the spirit can lead us down wrong and dangerous roads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNQC-_srxH8 I've sometimes thought that perhaps this will serve as a parable for the racial priesthood ban. If we hadn't continued the ban through 1978, we wouldn't have known how wrong racism is. Or something like that. I don't think you've accurately described what Elder Holland has taught. That's a rather superficial description you've given. 1
rockpond Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 I'm not aware that anyone is pushing anything on anyone else. That much should at least be clear from this thread. It felt like you were saying that your spiritual confirmation of when leaders are speaking for Christ applies to everyone. But I guess I misinterpreted that. Sorry. However, are you saying that even though Kate Kelly has publicly come out in opposition to the church that I'm not entitled to understanding through the Spirit what her real motivations are? Nope, if the Spirit testifies that to you, then go with it.
Buckeye Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 I'm not aware that anyone is pushing anything on anyone else. That much should at least be clear from this thread. However, are you saying that even though Kate Kelly has publicly come out in opposition to the church that I'm not entitled to understanding through the Spirit what her real motivations are? Unless you are her bishop or stake president then, yeah, I'm pretty sure the spirit is not going to reveal to you her motivations. And if it did, you would have zero authority with which to declare the the public what her motivations are. That would be no different than a BYU sophomore telling his girlfriend, "the spirit has revealed that you should marry me. Also, that you should drop out of engineering and study journalism."
Buckeye Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 I don't think you've accurately described what Elder Holland has taught. That's a rather superficial description you've given. If you don't like my description then provide a better one. The video is not that long. Elder Holland clearly says that the spirit told them to go down a wrong road, which then led him and his father to ponder "why?" The implications for the priesthood ban are, of course, all mine.
jwhitlock Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Unless you are her bishop or stake president then, yeah, I'm pretty sure the spirit is not going to reveal to you her motivations. And if it did, you would have zero authority with which to declare the the public what her motivations are. That would be no different than a BYU sophomore telling his girlfriend, "the spirit has revealed that you should marry me. Also, that you should drop out of engineering and study journalism." Perhaps I need to re-emphasize the -->PUBLIC<-- nature of what she's doing, which is quite a bit different than the rationalization you presented. I would think that should be self-evident, but apparently I was wrong. However, it is a principle of the Spirit that it is given to us to prove all things. In the PUBLIC arena where someone has PUBLICLY come out in opposition of the church, members of the church have every right to expect guidance from the Spirit as to the nature of what a particular apostate is doing. It's part of the nature of spiritual safety that the Spirit provides, with warnings about giving heed to priestcrafts.
why me Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Since I'm not a supporter of the OW cause, I don't think I'd be a supporter of your RP cause. Sorry.My point was: should I be excommunicated for my organizing a restore polygamy campaign if I did the same tactics as kate. And if I were exed, would you come to my defense as you have done for kate?
Recommended Posts