"room For All Levels Of Belief" Sacrament Meeting Talk

[bluebell]

Are we supposed to unsustain the Pope? The difference is, I presume, Happy is not in the Catholic Church. Thus, he has no obligation to do what the Pope proposes, nor support doctrines and practices to put out by the Pope. In that way, it made little sense to me, and largely because I agreed with what Happy said in his response.

And that's a problem or something? Sounds fine to me. if some non-affiliated person thinks That Monson is the right man for his job, that's no problem to me. That's probably a good thing.

Does Happy believe he is obligated to support doctrines and practices put out by the prophet?

It doesn't seem like he does believe that but I might have misunderstood him.

[Mystery Meat]

 

 

In that way, yes, I would sustain the Pope as Arch Bishop of Rome and the ultimate authority for the Catholic church. I don't see any problem with that.

As to the arguments about the "intent" of the question: It is not a question of testimony. It is a question of support and sustaining and I can sustain him as the prophet, seer and revelator because I know he has been ordained within the priesthood of the church such by those in the church who held authority to do so. In this same way I can sustain my Bishop or Stake President, not because I "know" they were literally chosen by God, but because I know that those who chose them to serve had authority to do so.

I hope that helps with some of the confusion.

 

It doesn't, as I think that still skirts the real intent of the question. I don't think the question was meant to ask you if you believe that man/church gave the prophet/president the power and authority he holds, but that it is of God and that he is the only person who God himself has given that power.

Edited May 4, 2015 by lvjd66

[bluebell]

The Lord looketh on the heart. I just don't think that God cares about legality, his ways aren't our ways. I think sincerity and heart are all that matter, and I think that is one of the central elements of the message of Jesus.

But Jesus ordained His apostles.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Yes, that's what I'm driving at.

 

Q3 asks "Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"

To answer this question one must ask themselves a number of additional questions.

1- what does it mean to have a testimony? Do I need to "know" or "believe" or can I "HOPE" that some elements of the restoration are essential?

2- What is meant by "restoration of the gospel"? ALL of it, including the practice of polygamy/polyandry as essential for salvation, Adam/God theory, Blood Atonement, ONLY church capable of saving, etc? Or what if I accept SOME of the teachings as a restoration of God's endowment of knowledge? For example, what if the teaching of eternal families speak to my soul and I can taste the good fruits of that doctrine, yet not taste good fruits of polygamy and therefore not believe in it?

What percentage of the restoration must be accepted as literal and infallible? If there's not a percentage then each individual decides for themselves how much of it they believe, hope, or know.

[Damien the Leper]

President Monson is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys.

Sure.

 

I define the priesthood as unique to the LDS church, or in other words it’s the LDS priesthood.  

Wordplay.  There is only one priesthood (authority to act in God's name).

 

·  Does this mean that God can’t work with other humans in other religions?  No. 

 

True

·  Does this mean that LDS ordinances are the only ordinances that God considers efficacious?  No. 

False

·  Does this mean that President Monson is the only person who can authorize the use of the LDS church’s priesthood authority?  Yes

Wordplay again.

The LDS church is in no way catholic in the universal definition. Therefore, you are incorrect.

[Senator]

I don't see anything about ordinances in question 2.

Then you don't understand what priesthood and keys are.

I believe most of my Christian friends can answer that question affirmatively

Really? That would be surprising.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Then you don't understand what priesthood and keys are.

Really? That would be surprising.

You realize question 2 is on the atonement?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Does Happy believe he is obligated to support doctrines and practices put out by the prophet?

It doesn't seem like he does believe that but I might have misunderstood him.

 

Obligated? No. None of us are obligated to accept something simply because a particular person says it. That would be blind obedience. Instead, we would seek our own understanding and confirmation of each truth.

For example, Elder Christofferson recently said that individuals have freedom to choose whether or not they accept statements on political issues the brethren make. Gay marriage, female ordination etc. would be examples of that. If the church says NO to gay marriage does that mean I have to also say NO to gay marriage? No it doesn't.

If Elder Bednar says that Christ was literally born on April 6th, must I accept that as absolute truth? No.

Yet, I believe they say and do many good things that I should accept and follow, and I do.

[cinepro]

 

 

I won't speak for ALarson but I can speak for myself as I've also had this discussion with my SP and he is comfortable with my level of belief.

"Do you sustain the President of the CoJCoLDS as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and as the only one who possesses and is authorized to exercize all priesthood keys."

We discussed this in terms of sustaining him a the President of an organization. As such, whether we call him prophet, seer, revelator, CEO, it is all simply a matter of title but it comes down to recognizing his authority to act on behalf of the church in any way he chooses. I don't have to agree with every decision the president makes or every action the church takes, but I recognize his authority to do it. Admittedly, this is very different than sustaining him as God's literal, 1 chosen mouthpiece holding the 1 priesthood etc, but it does acknowledge his authority to operate the priesthood organization within the church. In essence it recognizes his temporal authority to direct the affairs of the church. Whether or not that organization is an extension of God is a different question.

My SP was absolutely fine with this answer.

 

This issue comes up when people veer into areas of less-conventional testimony.  I seem to recall Dan Peterson addressing this issue and expressing his view that such an answer is disingenuous; i.e. the meaning of the question is obviously beyond the scope of the President's place as an organizational leader.

 

But on the other hand, it should be asked what, exactly, is the practical implication of such support for the Prophet?  When was the last time we were asked to believe anything difficult, or to do anything difficult? 

 

And since we believe in fallible Prophets, how are we supposed to temper our sustaining with our judgment about when he is mistaken about an issue of doctrine or policy?  I suspect many seemingly "faithful LDS" (however you define "faithful") would approach the subject differently, but that isn't enough to invalidate our Temple recommends.  Until the Church comes up with some more specific litmus tests, this question will be at most a very basic philosophical test for only the most apostate members.

[Mystery Meat]

 

 

Q3 asks "Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"

To answer this question one must ask themselves a number of additional questions.

1- what does it mean to have a testimony? Do I need to "know" or "believe" or can I "HOPE" that some elements of the restoration are essential?

2- What is meant by "restoration of the gospel"? ALL of it, including the practice of polygamy/polyandry as essential for salvation, Adam/God theory, Blood Atonement, ONLY church capable of saving, etc? Or what if I accept SOME of the teachings as a restoration of God's endowment of knowledge? For example, what if the teaching of eternal families speak to my soul and I can taste the good fruits of that doctrine, yet not taste good fruits of polygamy and therefore not believe in it?

What percentage of the restoration must be accepted as literal and infallible? If there's not a percentage then each individual decides for themselves how much of it they believe, hope, or know.

 

These are all fine questions. I have no problem with them or the answers you have provided.

 

However, the restoration of the gospel entails the new and ever lasting covenant, which includes all of the ordinances and covenants we make. And a restoration of what? Good things that are good because they speak to our souls? No, there is more to it than that. It is a restoration of the Lord's gospel, not niceties promulgated by man. It is eternal truth and a restoration thereof. At the hand of Joseph Smith no less. I don't think it is enough to say these were/are good men trying to do what's right, and therefore God allowed them to set up their little church. Rather it is His Church and His Gospel, or as the LORD JESUS CHRIST himself said, "the ONLY true and living Church."

 

That doesn't mean you have to believe Joseph, Brigham, John, etc. were perfect and infallible men. But I do think there has to be something more than just a belief that they were well intentioned men who have authority to do these things because they decided to do them. The Authority and Restoration must be sourced in God. 

[Senator]

All

I just realized that the chronological numbering of the interview questions I was going by, was off. That may be a cause to some of the confusion towards my comments here.

Sorry about that.

[JLHPROF]

If you think that LDS ordinances are the only efficacious ones, that’s fine.  I don’t agree, and I don’t see God as being that limited in nature.  As the Given’s so often like to point out from D&C 49:8, there are “other holy men that ye know not of.”  Now I realize the Joseph also didn’t accept baptismal ordinances from other churches as valid, but that doesn’t mean Joseph always was consistent with applying these principles.  The principle that resonates with me is that God loves all creation and I don’t find a whole lot of value in us trying to judge who has authority and who’s ordinances are valid.  We’re all trying our best!  

 

 

Joseph taught that nothing would save man but a legal administrator.  How much clearer do you need him to be?

You can believe differently, but that doesn't make it compatible with Mormonism.

 

"Whenever men can find out the will of God and find an administrator legally authorized from God, there is the kingdom of God; but where these are not, the kingdom of God is not. All the ordinances, systems, and administrations on the earth are of no use to the children of men, unless they are ordained and authorized of God; for nothing will save a man but a legal administrator; for none others will be acknowledged either by God or angels. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 5:256-57, 259)"

 

"There is no salvation between the two lids of the Bible without a legal administrator. Jesus was then the legal administrator, and ordained His Apostles. (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 319)"

[HappyJackWagon]

 

These are all fine questions. I have no problem with them or the answers you have provided.

 

However, the restoration of the gospel entails the new and ever lasting covenant, which includes all of the ordinances and covenants we make. And a restoration of what? Good things that are good because they speak to our souls? No, there is more to it than that. It is a restoration of the Lord's gospel, not niceties promulgated by man. It is eternal truth and a restoration thereof. At the hand of Joseph Smith no less. I don't think it is enough to say these were/are good men trying to do what's right, and therefore God allowed them to set up their little church. Rather it is His Church and His Gospel, or as the LORD JESUS CHRIST himself said, "the ONLY true and living Church."

 

That doesn't mean you have to believe Joseph, Brigham, John, etc. were perfect and infallible men. But I do think there has to be something more than just a belief that they were well intentioned men who have authority to do these things because they decided to do them. The Authority and Restoration must be sourced in God.

I understand how and why you interpret the question this way. You may feel this is the true intent of the question but the question does not explicitely ask me to believe all of those things. Vague questions intentially elicit nuanced answers. I believe that is why they are vague to begin with. The brethren could certainly add additional, clarifying questions if they choose, or make them more direct. If they do, then I'll need to evaluate my approach. Until then, I don't see much value in assuming they are requiring the most orthodox interpretations that are not explicitely asked for.

[Damien the Leper]

Joseph taught that nothing would save man but a legal administrator. How much clearer do you need him to be?

You can believe differently, but that doesn't make it compatible with Mormonism.

"Whenever men can find out the will of God and find an administrator legally authorized from God, there is the kingdom of God; but where these are not, the kingdom of God is not. All the ordinances, systems, and administrations on the earth are of no use to the children of men, unless they are ordained and authorized of God; for nothing will save a man but a legal administrator; for none others will be acknowledged either by God or angels. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 5:256-57, 259)"

"There is no salvation between the two lids of the Bible without a legal administrator. Jesus was then the legal administrator, and ordained His Apostles. (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 319)"

Jesus was the parakletos and not an administrator. This a fundamental truth of the universal Christian faith.

[JLHPROF]

Jesus was the parakletos and not an administrator. This a fundamental truth of the universal Christian faith.

 

And once again, differing religions.

[Damien the Leper]

Apparently, you don't like how the scriptures define Christ. Very telling. You give further reason for me to accept that Mormonism is uniquely separate from Judaism and Christianity and simply another work religion.

[JLHPROF]

Apparently, you don't like how the scriptures define Christ. Very telling. You give further reason for me to accept that Mormonism is uniquely separate from Judaism and Christianity and simply another work religion.

 

Oh I love how the scriptures define Christ.  I just disagree on how YOU think the scriptures define Christ.

And yes, Mormonism is separate from Judaism and Christianity under your definitions.

 

But you know this.  Why you are trying to make us out as claiming we are the same as other Christian religions I don't know.  We're not.  Don't want to be.  This is why I generally don't argue with "traditional" Christians.  I have no more reason to agree with their beliefs than I do to agree with a Muslim or a Hindu.

[hope_for_things]

Joseph taught that nothing would save man but a legal administrator.  How much clearer do you need him to be?

You can believe differently, but that doesn't make it compatible with Mormonism.

 

"Whenever men can find out the will of God and find an administrator legally authorized from God, there is the kingdom of God; but where these are not, the kingdom of God is not. All the ordinances, systems, and administrations on the earth are of no use to the children of men, unless they are ordained and authorized of God; for nothing will save a man but a legal administrator; for none others will be acknowledged either by God or angels. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 5:256-57, 259)"

 

"There is no salvation between the two lids of the Bible without a legal administrator. Jesus was then the legal administrator, and ordained His Apostles. (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 319)"

 

This is a new quote I'm not familiar with, and of course this isn’t accepted canon.  What year was the quote attributed to Joseph?  We also know that the History of the Church had a lot of statements that weren't exact quotes, it would be interesting to learn the history and background for this and its entire context.  (New Dan Vogel multiple volumes on the History of the Church would be interesting to read what they uncover about quotes like this one.)

 

Joseph’s theology about authority evolved quite a bit over time.  I could spend time quoting other scripture or teachings that contradict that statement. Ultimately, I just don’t think Jesus taught that authority is as important as our modern church culture has taken it.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Oh I love how the scriptures define Christ.  I just disagree on how YOU think the scriptures define Christ.

And yes, Mormonism is separate from Judaism and Christianity under your definitions.

 

But you know this.  Why you are trying to make us out as claiming we are the same as other Christian religions I don't know.  We're not.  Don't want to be.  This is why I generally don't argue with "traditional" Christians.  I have no more reason to agree with their beliefs than I do to agree with a Muslim or a Hindu.

JLHPROF, Really?

You view traditional Christians similarly to Hindus or muslims? That seems rather extreme. Christians accept that salvation comes through Christ. It seems like we have much more in common than we would have differences. Most differences are merely details.

[JLHPROF]

This is a new quote I'm not familiar with, and of course this isn’t accepted canon.  What year was the quote attributed to Joseph?  We also know that the History of the Church had a lot of statements that weren't exact quotes, it would be interesting to learn the history and background for this and its entire context.  (New Dan Vogel multiple volumes on the History of the Church would be interesting to read what they uncover about quotes like this one.)

 

Joseph’s theology about authority evolved quite a bit over time.  I could spend time quoting other scripture or teachings that contradict that statement. Ultimately, I just don’t think Jesus taught that authority is as important as our modern church culture has taken it.

 

Then go with the 5th article of faith which is fully canon and says the exact same thing:

 

5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

[JLHPROF]

 

JLHPROF, Really?

You view traditional Christians similarly to Hindus or muslims? That seems rather extreme. Christians accept that salvation comes through Christ. It seems like we have much more in common than we would have differences. Most differences are merely details.

 

Really.

I am VERY tired of so called "Christians" telling me I am not a Christian because I am a member of a different religion.

Well you know what?  I AM a member of a different religion and therefore have absolutely ZERO need to believe ANY piece of doctrine or theology the way a religion I don't belong to does.

 

If we happen to agree on a point here or there that's great, but not required.  I have no need to agree with other Christian religions.

[Boanerges]

 

I understand how and why you interpret the question this way. You may feel this is the true intent of the question but the question does not explicitely ask me to believe all of those things. Vague questions intentially elicit nuanced answers. I believe that is why they are vague to begin with. The brethren could certainly add additional, clarifying questions if they choose, or make them more direct. If they do, then I'll need to evaluate my approach. Until then, I don't see much value in assuming they are requiring the most orthodox interpretations that are not explicitely asked for.

 

Yes, and I think the questions are somewhat vague and open on purpose. I would wager countless hours have been spent by those at the highest levels of the church, those that hold all the keys, on the exact wording of those questions. As for the reason they are worded as they are, I believe it is to allow the most possible people to be able to partake of the blessings of the temple.

[Damien the Leper]

Oh I love how the scriptures define Christ. I just disagree on how YOU think the scriptures define Christ.

And yes, Mormonism is separate from Judaism and Christianity under your definitions.

But you know this. Why you are trying to make us out as claiming we are the same as other Christian religions I don't know. We're not. Don't want to be. This is why I generally don't argue with "traditional" Christians. I have no more reason to agree with their beliefs than I do to agree with a Muslim or a Hindu.

I never claimed you weren't Christian. Assuming that from my post shows how little you comprehended it.

I don't define Christ as parakletos. The scriptures do. Show me in the NT text that Jesus is defined as an administrator. This is an official CFR. An opinion of JS will not suffice.

[Boanerges]

Really.

I am VERY tired of so called "Christians" telling me I am not a Christian because I am a member of a different religion.

Well you know what?  I AM a member of a different religion and therefore have absolutely ZERO need to believe ANY piece of doctrine or theology the way a religion I don't belong to does.

 

If we happen to agree on a point here or there that's great, but not required.  I have no need to agree with other Christian religions.

 

I don't like it either, but maybe for a different reason. Living way out here away from the Corridor where I am a very small minority and Catholic and Protestant Christians are the majority (and I will point out some Protestants don't view Catholics as Christian) I find that any Christian friend who has really gotten to know me understands that I am Christian - and they will often end up defending the church as such.

[stemelbow]

I never claimed you weren't Christian. Assuming that from my post shows how little you comprehended it.

I don't define Christ as parakletos. The scriptures do. Show me in the NT text that Jesus is defined as an administrator. This is an official CFR. An opinion of JS will not suffice.

Recently in a training my SP said, we better be dedicating no more than 5% of our time and effort in administrating. We need to be ministering.