Isn't It Time We Call Ourselves Out?

[stemelbow]

Haha. I love how you described my position vs. how you described yours. Exclusive vs. Open and free. Nice. I think that sets the tone nicely for us to discuss our difference of opinion. However, if nothing else it confirms my opinion that people who have a hard time excepting that they have no authority outside of their stewardship are in large part effected by their western notions of democracy, community involvement, etc.

Well I tried. Exclusive was meant to suggest that few people are allowed to feel the inspiration to call out the Church in your view. Is that not accurate?

 

First, I would direct your eyes to my signature quotes for a refresher. Those are either from official LDS sources or prophets and apostles. I think they make it abundantly clear what our role is.

You realize I can find some quotes from LDS sources or prophets and apostles that would support me, right?

I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent–if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression… This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. … We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it.”

— Hugh B. Brown

“I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

— Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:340

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

– President J. Reuben Clark

However, I concede that the Lord can and does inspire everyday people to do much good. However, the Lord only inspires that good within our stewardship. The Lord, for example, won't inspire me (a GD instructor) to fix inefficiencies in the Ward Counsel. The Lord also won't inspire me to fix problems with how disciplinary counsels are conducted in my ward or at the general level. The Lord will reveal ways in which I can be a better GD instructor, better meet the needs of the families I hometeach, where to live, how to be a better husband and father, how to be a better citizen in the community and reveal other truths that are for my personal edification (if such things have not been revealed by the prophets and apostles then I have a sacred obligation to keep them to myself until such time).

And that's where we disagree. You prefer to think the Lord will only inspire some to correct certain issues, while I think He will inspire any and all at any given time.

 

The Lord's house is a house of order. He calls who he wants to lead when he wants them to do so. You seem to think the Church is a democracy, where everybody's opinion matters (as Joseph Fielding McConkie used to famously say, "the Lord doesn't give a damn what you think."). That's not how the kingdom of God works. I think that makes a lot of people uncomfortable and angry. But its true.

Sure, that's where our disagreement lies.

[bluebell]

No. I asked the question is the Church a pharisaic org? Well I asked, essentially, is there a need for us to repent?

 

 

But you can't suggest that the same Pharisees Christ called out, since you were trying to make the point that Christ only had certain ones in mind, were the same one responsible for killing Jesus--unless, of course, you paint with a broad brush. In this you are having cake and eating it too, type of thing.

 

 

As young lad I learned that many in the Church aren't really those who would be exalted. That there was a church without organization operating in the world known as the Church of the First Born. That it consisted of many members and many non-members. Its nothing new to go off of a "many are called but few chosen" approach. The Church itself preaches it and members, as I see it, often act like it's true--many members won't be chosen--wont' make it. Aren't those who are part of the kingdom of heaven. I've never put it as every member is in the boat described.  

 

Not sure what to say here. It seems patently obvious to me that many of us members do quite well, using up resources for those in need for our own enjoyment and give our ten percent (which really does nothing to very little for those in need) and a modest fast offering. This is very condemning to me personally because it's hard. Sometimes I feel like in many ways, I've gone through enough. A lot of times I just want, to the point of saying I need, a break, so I take my whole family and spend. I don't know that many members are not in my same boat.

 

 

I agree. But that doesn't stop me from asking how scripture might apply to us.

 

 

And surely I disagree. Culture carries a heavy influence on the members. People are often swayed by the great influence of culture and tradition of their time and place. I continue to think it's good and healthy to ask if such influences are causing us, generally, to go in the wrong direction. I think self-introspection is two-fold--personally and as groups. I get many great lessons from the BoM on such a notion. Indeed, one great message from the BoM is to ask the group that we are a part of, are we wrong and being sinful for doing what we're doing? It's not like when the Nephites were condemned for pride that each Nephite was less humble than modern members.

 

That's why I'm not calling anyone else out individually.

 

I think our conversation has reached and end.  No one is going to convince you that there is anything wrong with the OP and there are better ways for both of us to spend our time than finding a hundred different ways to say the same thing to each other.

 

If you feel like the Spirit is telling you that you need to ask people these questions about themselves and the church, then go forth and good luck!  

[mormonnewb]

I was thinking specifically of these two things you said:

I don't, because, as you say Stem is not Christ. ... It is a question of stewardship and authority

The Pharisees didn't consider Jesus to be the Messiah, and were concerned with questions of authority.

The issue of authority would make sense if we were at a ward or stake council meeting, but one needs ecclesiastic authority to DISCUSS something over the Internet? Do we apply that to threads in which we discuss doctrinal theories? To my knowledge, none of us have authority to declare church doctrine and yet there are two dozen active threads where people are giving their OPINIONS on church doctrine.

On one thread, there is someone prophesying about the impending Second Coming. Certainly, if there is anything that the Lord would speak first to a prophet about it is that cataclysmic event. Yet, it wouldn't occur to me to say, "You have no authority to discuss it on a DISCUSSION board." See how silly that sounds?

Edited June 10, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Okrahomer]

I think our conversation has reached and end.  No one is going to convince you that there is anything wrong with the OP and there are better ways for both of us to spend our time than finding a hundred different ways to say the same thing to each other.

 

If you feel like the Spirit is telling you that you need to ask people these questions about themselves and the church, then go forth and good luck!  

 

AMEN!!!

[Gray]

The issue of authority would make sense if we were at a ward or stake council meeting, but one needs ecclesiastic authority to DISCUSS something over the Internet? Do we apply that to threads in which we discuss doctrinal theories? To my knowledge, none of us have authority to declare church doctrine and yet there are two dozen active threads where people are giving their OPINIONS on church doctrine.

On one thread, there is someone prophesying about the impending Second Coming. Certainly, if there is anything that the Lord would speak first to a prophet about it is that cataclysmic event. Yet, it wouldn't occur to me to say, "You have no authority to discuss it on a DISCUSSION board." See how silly that sounds?

 

Personally I had to be ordained to the office of Message Board Poster. Otherwise all my posts would be way outside my stewardship. 

 

You make a great point. This question of stewardship when it comes to discussing doctrinal principles and religious stuff in general is just silly. 

[stemelbow]

CFR that the pharisees were willing to consider the tough accusations that Christ (authoritatively) accused them of.

 

I am expecting a thorough treatment here. Because it would go a long way in changing my mind. I am being serious.

I don't know that anyone thinks all Pharisees were willing to consider any of it. Paul was a Pharisee who changed. There were others, but the names are rarely specified or identified.

[ttribe]

Personally I had to be ordained to the office of Message Board Poster. Otherwise all my posts would be way outside my stewardship. 

 

You make a great point. This question of stewardship when it comes to discussing doctrinal principles and religious stuff in general is just silly. 

 

[sarcasm] Don't worry, MM will continue to beat you over the head about this issue.  Apparently, he feels duty-bound (perhaps even "authorized") to do so...I think there's a contradiction in there somewhere. [/sarcasm]

[stemelbow]

You totally don't get his point. The pharisees wouldn't listen because they didn't view it as within Christ's stewardship. That is the similarity to some positions on this board.

Makes me wonder if part of the problem the Pharisees were suffering from was that authority was needed for someone to bring up a need for correction.

[stemelbow]

I think our conversation has reached and end.  No one is going to convince you that there is anything wrong with the OP and there are better ways for both of us to spend our time than finding a hundred different ways to say the same thing to each other.

 

If you feel like the Spirit is telling you that you need to ask people these questions about themselves and the church, then go forth and good luck!  

Thanks. We'll see ya around.

[Scott Lloyd]

Quite apart from the issue of "introspection" as a euphemism for "I claim membership in this community, so I'm entitled to stick it to them and remain immune from criticism," there is the decidedly odd phenomenon of introspection-as-public-performance.

If you're going to gaze at your own navel, you really don't need to point a webcam at it.

 

 

I love this! A quotable line, if there ever was one!

So many sig-worthy lines, so little space.

 

(Of course, if I were to use it, I would be sure to obtain Russell's permisison first.)

[Scott Lloyd]

Haha. I love how you described my position vs. how you described yours. Exclusive vs. Open and free. Nice. I think that sets the tone nicely for us to discuss our difference of opinion. However, if nothing else it confirms my opinion that people who have a hard time excepting that they have no authority outside of their stewardship are in large part effected by their western notions of democracy, community involvement, etc.

 

First, I would direct your eyes to my signature quotes for a refresher. Those are either from official LDS sources or prophets and apostles. I think they make it abundantly clear what our role is. 

 

However, I concede that the Lord can and does inspire everyday people to do much good. However, the Lord only inspires that good within our stewardship. The Lord, for example, won't inspire me (a GD instructor) to fix inefficiencies in the Ward Counsel. The Lord also won't inspire me to fix problems with how disciplinary counsels are conducted in my ward or at the general level. The Lord will reveal ways in which I can be a better GD instructor, better meet the needs of the families I hometeach, where to live, how to be a better husband and father, how to be a better citizen in the community and reveal other truths that are for my personal edification (if such things have not been revealed by the prophets and apostles then I have a sacred obligation to keep them to myself until such time).

 

The Lord's house is a house of order. He calls who he wants to lead when he wants them to do so. You seem to think the Church is a democracy, where everybody's opinion matters (as Joseph Fielding McConkie used to famously say, "the Lord doesn't give a damn what you think."). That's not how the kingdom of God works. I think that makes a lot of people uncomfortable and angry. But its true. 

I realize now I did not appreciate Joseph Fielding McConkie sufficiently while he was yet alive.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Okrahomer]

So many sig-worthy lines, so little space.

 

(Of course, if I were to use it, I would be sure to obtain Russell's permisison first.)

 

Agreed.

[Calm]

For instance, I have never enjoyed the experience of throwing up.  It is painful, messy and generally distasteful.  Yet, on a number of occasions, it has literally saved my life by emptying my system of toxins that would do much more harm if allowed to fester untreated in the body.  Fortunately, that part of my body isn't so intent on achieving harmony and trusting that I know what I'm doing because I don't remember giving it permission to do its work.  In fact, had it asked, "Newb, would you like to throw up?", I would have almost certainly said, "No thank you, esophagus!  Why don't you just trust that it will work out in the end?"

 

Having just had this experience and even ending up in the hospital wiht my daughter...puking is only healthy if a very limited and relatively rare thing.  If it goes to the point where the body has adopted it as standard procedure in the short term and will not stop, dehydration and death will follow. All major organ systems were damaged by my dad's last encounter with vomiting, he had assumed his body knew what it needed instead of what it was actually doing, which was killing him.  One can severely damage the body if one chooses vomiting as an always effective solution for getting rid of poisons or what is seen as useless or damaging in some way.  My daughter couldn't eat for a week or so after vomiting for 11 hours straight due to her mouth and throat being burned by the acid even after being given a drug to stop the locked cycle and convince her body that whatever it thought it was doing, it was not making her healthier and morphine for the severe pain it had resulted in.  And she had to take the anti nausea drug for days because her body was so convinced that it was doing the right thing for her.

 

On the other hand after sitting and standing holding her head for at least 8 hours after she grew too weak to hold it up herself, I too got overwhelmed by the bug and my body reacted to get rid of it but I threw up once and while I felt sick for about the same time, my healing and comfort proceeded much, much faster.  Overreaction to toxins is as bad, sometimes worse than too little reaction.

 

When one develops irrational fears and chooses to protect oneself by purging of perceived toxins that don't really exist or even to allow oneself to indulge because of a sense that purging gives one control over the body, the body and mind are not healed or protected from harmful substances but too often are used themselves in their own destruction or are damaged for the rest of one's life.

 

Being obsessed with purging or personally using it as a tool for cleansing rather than accepting it when it comes and conciously limiting it to a short, necessary purge is a destructive way to approach health.  I think your analogy works well for spiritual health as well.  Those who live as intentional purgers are not healthy for the body of Christ as a whole nor as individuals, they are killing themselves spiritually if they don't regain the true self control and peace and trust they need to maintain a strength so that when the occasional vomiting spell comes as a result of actual germs and toxins, their body is not too weak to react sufficiently or does not overreact but effectively and quickly removes the toxins from the body and then is able to move on.

 

And standing around wallowing in one's vomit, pointing it out to others will only weaken oneself and infect others needlessly.

Edited June 10, 2015 by calmoriah

[Mystery Meat]

[sarcasm] Don't worry, MM will continue to beat you over the head about this issue.  Apparently, he feels duty-bound (perhaps even "authorized") to do so...I think there's a contradiction in there somewhere. [/sarcasm]

 

The contradiction is noted, accepted, agreed to and taken. I will withdraw.

 

My apologies.

[Scott Lloyd]

That quote is from Hebrews, author unknown.

So you deny that "The Epistle of Paul the apostle to the Hebrew" actually came from Paul then?

 

I'm seeing an interesting trend here: If you don't like what a particular passage of scripture says, simply question or dispute the provenance thereof.

 

Wasn't the subject the sayings of Jesus (or attributed to Jesus) regarding the Pharisees?

 

Jesus declined to tell the Pharisees where his authority came from.

 

CFR

[ttribe]

The contradiction is noted, accepted, agreed to and taken. I will withdraw.

 

My apologies.

 

Good man.  My apologies for resorting to snarkiness to make the point.

[HappyJackWagon]

So you deny that "The Epistle of Paul the apostle to the Hebrew" actually came from Paul then?

 

I'm seeing an interesting trend here: If you don't like what a particular passage of scripture says, simply question or dispute the provenance thereof.

 

CFR

A very quick google search will yield a wikipedia page. Further research will yield resources to scholarly works that also question the authorship of Hebrews.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Epistle_to_the_Hebrews

[Scott Lloyd]

Good man.  My apologies for resorting to snarkiness to make the point.

Well, I think I'm out too.

 

But in defense of Mystery Meat, I'll say I haven't seen him as beating anyone over the head. I don't think that's a fair characterization.

 

If anything, he has exercised restraint and enjoined others (me in particular) to do so.

[Gray]

So you deny that "The Epistle of Paul the apostle to the Hebrew" actually came from Paul then?

 

That seems to be the scholarly consensus. That's where I tend to land. 

 

I'm seeing an interesting trend here: If you don't like what a particular passage of scripture says, simply question or dispute the provenance thereof.

 

I don't do it to cast doubt on the value of Hebrews, only its relevance to the topic.

 

CFR

 

Matthew 21:

 

23 When he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” 24 Jesus said to them, “I will also ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” And they argued with one another, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ we are afraid of the crowd; for all regard John as a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

 

 

[Gray]

Well, I think I'm out too.

 

But in defense of Mystery Meat, I'll say I haven't seen him as beating anyone over the head. I don't think that's a fair characterization.

 

If anything, he has exercised restraint and enjoined others (me in particular) to do so.

 

I don't think you, Mystery Meat, or Stemelbow have beating anyone over the head. You all strike me as gentlemanly gents.  

Edited June 10, 2015 by Gray

[ttribe]

Well, I think I'm out too.

 

But in defense of Mystery Meat, I'll say I haven't seen him as beating anyone over the head. I don't think that's a fair characterization.

 

If anything, he has exercised restraint and enjoined others (me in particular) to do so.

 

Oy...I already apologized.  Let it go.

[Scott Lloyd]

A very quick google search will yield a wikipedia page. Further research will yield resources to scholarly works that also question the authorship of Hebrews.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Epistle_to_the_Hebrews

I think you missed my point. Whatever its authorship, the epistle to the Hebrews is a part of scripture, and I'm observing a trend here that if you don't like or agree with a passage, discredit it by disputing its authorship.

 

And the CFR did not have reference to the authorship of Hebrews (I really don't care much about that controversy at the moment), but rather, to your assertion that the Christ declined to tell the Pharisees His authority.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

I think you missed my point. Whatever its authorship, the Book of Hebrews is a part of scripture, and I'm observing a trend here that if you don't like or agree with a passage, discredit it by disputing its authorship.

 

And the CFR did not have reference to the authorship of Hebrews (I really don't care much about that controversy at the moment), but rather, to your assertion that the Christ declined to tell the Pharisees His authority.

 

That was my assertion, and I've provided the reference a few posts up.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

Oy...I already apologized.  Let it go.

You apologized "for resorting to snarkiness to make the point."

 

It was the point itself, not just the snarkiness in the delivery, that I objected to.

 

But I'm not inclined to carry this on either.

[Calm]

I'd say questioning, promoting dialogue over constructive criticism is loving the Church rather than loathing it...

At the very least the criticism needs to go beyond just being criticism and into something constructive.   Criticism on its own is neither dialogue or constructive.

 

And just assuming that because there are others who see things in a more positive light there will be enough balance to be constructive, thus one is best involved by pointing out the negative since no one else will do it is not a balanced approach.  The same individual that provides negative comments needs to point out positive, healthy foundations and positive, healthy movements forward even if those are not the ones decided to be followed by others because if they don't shine as bright a light on the good stuff as the bad, then the bonds of trust and acceptance that this person is not there just to mock will not be well enough established.  Criticism to be effective in a community, must come from those who are trusted because they earned it (something that isn't easily done in the surreal environment of the internet where one often has no definite information about the person saying something).

 

Love may be something that should be given wholeheartedly without testing first, but trust needs more than just a trusting heart to be healthy, it needs a recipient that deserves that trust.

 

Even God tells us to test him when he makes us promises:

 

Malachi 3:10 English Standard Version (ESV)

 

Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need.

 

 

 

That is one reason why criticism that focuses on oneself and what one can do is usually the most effective and why pouring it out for others that one does not have extensive knowledge of their personal situations and why they do what they do generally has little effectiveness.

Edited June 10, 2015 by calmoriah