A Bunch Of Talk

[stemelbow]

Sitting in Church yesterday someone chimed in with quotes from past leaders saying, essentially, if current leaders' words/ideas don't mesh with what's found in the canon of scripture then we know the leader's words are merely his opinion. You guys know the quotes. We have way too many annoying quotes from past leaders that contradict. One other oft-repeated structured opinion is leaders won't lead us astray, also, current prophets are more important than the past ones.

Ugh...what's going on here? I tend to think over time any charismatic start up loses. We've been going at this for closing in on 200 years. I mean we're doing pretty well in maintaining, but over time, we find too much contradiction, too many conflicting messages. Just too much talk...too much men mingling their ideas with scripture.

Have we talked ourselves off the path God wants us on? It seems very possible to me. Odd because for years I've been advocating more open communication is needed in Church...but yesterday I had some thing hit me saying, stop talking. Just sit and ponder, quietly without all this repeated cacophony of confusing quotables from the past.

Church is amounting to, more and more, people concluding well, God's in charge and He'll figure out how to make things right, as people can't quite connect with current and past leaders words.

[Spammer]

That's a major, cognitive dissonance-inducing issue I struggled with before I discovered a different path and went elsewhere. Square one. Past prophets, including First Presidencies' joint official declarations, said they were teaching doctrine that later turned out to be an opinion. The current prophet and First Presidency issues doctrinal statements that might also turn out later to just be opinion. Current First Presidency declarations contradict past First Presidency declarations, and future declarations might contradict current declarations. To sort all of this out, we're encouraged to pray and seek the guidance of the Spirit, but when several member seek such guidance and receive contradictory answers, we're advised to stick with the current First Presidency, modern revelation, etc. But that puts us back to square one and the process begins anew in a never-ending, vicious circle. For better or for worse, I'm happy to not have to worry about that anymore. No more church attendance-induced headaches. It seems the only viable solution, if I was still LDS, is to rely solely on the scriptures and the spirit for matters of doctrine and truth and look to the First Presidency for guidance on policy only.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Spammer

[KevinG]

It helps me to remember that we are mortals trying to grow and get better at receiving revelation and inspiration from God.  

 

I have cheated myself out of the fellowship and process of working through trying to be more Christlike because I got fed up, and my attendance suffered.

 

I suspect no matter how long the restored Gospel is on the earth we will still struggle to align our own desires and knowledge with what our Father in Heaven wants us to know, because we are children learning to be gods, and because the Gospel is not without opposition on this earth.

 

Remember truth is in that sphere which God has placed it, and we come closer to it by obedience to His laws and ordinances. Not solely by debate or scholarly research.

[stemelbow]

That's a major, cognitive dissonance-inducing issue I struggled with before I discovered a different path and went elsewhere. Square one. Past prophets, including First Presidencies' joint official declarations, said they were teaching doctrine that later turned out to be an opinion. The current prophet and First Presidency issues doctrinal statements that might also turn out later to just be opinion. Current First Presidency declarations contradict past First Presidency declarations, and future declarations might contradict current declarations. To sort all of this out, we're encouraged to pray and seek the guidance of the Spirit, but when several member seek such guidance and receive contradictory answers, we're advised to stick with the current First Presidency, modern revelation, etc. But that puts us back to square one and the process begins anew in a never-ending, vicious circle. For better or for worse, I'm happy to not have to worry about that anymore. No more church attendance-induced headaches. It seems the only viable solution, if I was still LDS, is to rely solely on the scriptures and the spirit for matters of doctrine and truth and look to the First Presidency for guidance on policy only.

Thanks. I feel happy enough to just plain ignore statements and ideas that I personally disagree with and embrace those that seem inspirational to me. The problem with the scriptures to me are, we don't live as the scriptures preach, quite often. We're worlds away from some of that stuff. We should be happy to accept we're as much scripture writers and contributors as those of the past. That's not to say the scriptures aren't useful, but they aren't, as I see it, structured enough to complete our belief system.

[KevinG]

Thanks. I feel happy enough to just plain ignore statements and ideas that I personally disagree with and embrace those that seem inspirational to me. The problem with the scriptures to me are, we don't live as the scriptures preach, quite often. We're worlds away from some of that stuff. We should be happy to accept we're as much scripture writers and contributors as those of the past. That's not to say the scriptures aren't useful, but they aren't, as I see it, structured enough to complete our belief system.

 

Likening the scriptures unto ourselves...

 

What a radical idea!

 

[stemelbow]

It helps me to remember that we are mortals trying to grow and get better at receiving revelation and inspiration from God.  

 

I have cheated myself out of the fellowship and process of working through trying to be more Christlike because I got fed up, and my attendance suffered.

 

I suspect no matter how long the restored Gospel is on the earth we will still struggle to align our own desires and knowledge with what our Father in Heaven wants us to know, because we are children learning to be gods, and because the Gospel is not without opposition on this earth.

 

Remember truth is in that sphere which God has placed it, and we come closer to it by obedience to His laws and ordinances. Not solely by debate or scholarly research.

Sounds good enough to me. I can only influence what is in my sphere, if you will. My concern is largely, perhaps, feeling anxious about the expected, perhaps. Maybe it is that we are further from God then we like to tell ourselves, but perhaps from God's perspective that's expected from what we are, what we're given. When I speak about this concern I'm thinking Church-wide or Church-direction. But maybe God sees it this way and is letting individuals reach Him, while perhaps the direction of our day and time is somewhat away from God.

Could be. Then again, perhaps God really wants us to speak up, and cause a bit of a ruckus, hoping things change.

[Tacenda]

The problem...too much talk and not enough talk about the main subject...Jesus Christ.  He is very minute.  Members on the board say that's hogwash, but yesterday in my ward literally gut wrenching stuff, all leading away, IMO.  The temple is all about families.  The Bible is all about Grace and becoming one with Christ, not our family.  Our family will be with us in heaven.  But our main concern will be that we are one with Christ.  But not in our church, it's all about our becoming like God, or God.  In the GoE Satan is the one telling Eve her eyes need to be open, and she needs to be like the gods.  So that's what the real plan is, not heavenly father's plan which wasn't to believe we're going to be God?  Or to not try to become a God?  This is where my crux is.  All the changing with doctrine, what a prophet has said is now wrong.  That doesn't fit with what a true prophet of God is. 

[stemelbow]

All the changing with doctrine, what a prophet has said is now wrong.  That doesn't fit with what a true prophet of God is.

Why do you say that, Tacenda? The last line.

[Tacenda]

Why do you say that, Tacenda? The last line.

Lots of holes in my last sentence, I apologize.  When I type I just throw up all my thoughts.  And I don't take the time like I should.  I think when I wrote the last line, I was talking about the racist part of our history, and not letting the blacks have the PH before 1978. How could a true prophet be so wrong?  Not saying Brigham Young didn't do good things though.  But so could non prophets.  So much policy I guess.  How do we know what comes from the Lord and what doesn't?  Prayer I guess.  And inspiration.  Just don't think we educate in the church on Sunday enough about the Word of God, verse by verse.  If our church believes that prophets can be fallible, then we should be careful not to veer off too much from the word.  

[rpn]

I don't see them as their opinions.   I see those statements as their best understandings with the knowledge they had, and the life experience and baggage they carried, trying to follow God.  

 

And when things are different now, it may not be that those former statements were wrong, just that now God wants something different (or maybe wants people to experience something different, or to be required to seek and get their own spiritual confirmation).  

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't see them as their opinions.   I see those statements as their best understandings with the knowledge they had, and the life experience and baggage they carried, trying to follow God.  

 

And when things are different now, it may not be that those former statements were wrong, just that now God wants something different (or maybe wants people to experience something different, or to be required to seek and get their own spiritual confirmation).  

What is an opinion but a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge? If it turns out not to be true, the belief was an opinion. It may be a well informed or a well intentioned opinion but an opinion nonetheless.

[Storm Rider]

I think we, the members, are often confused about the function of the Church.  The Church is but a reflection of God's dealings with humanity throughout history; it is the umbrella under which all things are found.  It is not God's plan that we each are led about by the nose like small children - that was what was needed under the law of Moses.  When Jesus came he gave a higher law, which is much more demanding than what was seen under the Law of Moses.  We are freer, but we have more personal responsibility for finding truth and living it.  The consequences are higher based on our choices.

 

When the President of the Church is sharing a revelation we each will know it.  However, this has not happened very often since the time of Joseph.  In some respects it can be said that we have been in a holding pattern.  Church meetings and lessons are there to strengthen us as disciples of Christ, but they are not to be used as decision makers for us.  We have a responsibility to study, listen, contemplate, pray, then contemplate some more, and constantly seek guidance.  However, the majority of our time should really be spent on learning to live the gospel and becoming more like our Savior; repenting of sins, and drawing closer to our Master. 

 

If we are doing things that are not drawing us closer to God then we need to review our priorities because are not properly aligned.  We need to be more reflective and cognizant of what it means to live in a manner with an eye single to the glory of God. 

 

We have not been created for the Church, rather the Church has been created for us.  Our priorities are God, spouse, family, and then church; we need to align our actions to reflect that order of priority.

 

Finally, having been a student of religion for many decades I wish that I could make a recommendation to others for a perfect organization and a perfect people.  Unfortunately, every church and every people I have ever met and studied has been imperfect with imperfect histories.  In fact, the scriptures are full of imperfect people and yet God was still able to accomplish great things through these same incredibly weak vessels.  At every turn we, the children of God, have failed him and we continue to fail him.  We learn truths and then we forget them, we commit to promises and make covenants to do things and we brake the promises and the covenants; we complain about others and their many imperfections; we whine about God's lack of attention to our specific needs and to the needs of our communities; we whine about the leaders of our church because they don't act properly in our own view and these same leaders act like their heads are in the sand because they do not act according to our perspective of a more enlightened approach to life.  And we continue to fail our God at every turn and continue to stumble in our overwhelming imperfections and sinful natures. 

 

The Spirit speaks and we ignore him; He pokes and prods and at times we reluctantly respond.  Yet we still complain that God is not active in our lives.  God is not active because we are not active.  Our focus is on anything and anyone except our God. 

 

We create our own hell and then try to make God responsible for our own choices and disobedience. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by Storm Rider

[thesometimesaint]

We believe God has yet to reveal many great and important things about his kingdom, and Common Consent. Individuals, or small groups within the Church, do not establish doctrine for the Church.

[KevinG]

Lots of holes in my last sentence, I apologize.  When I type I just throw up all my thoughts.  And I don't take the time like I should.  I think when I wrote the last line, I was talking about the racist part of our history, and not letting the blacks have the PH before 1978. How could a true prophet be so wrong?  Not saying Brigham Young didn't do good things though.  But so could non prophets.  So much policy I guess.  How do we know what comes from the Lord and what doesn't?  Prayer I guess.  And inspiration.  Just don't think we educate in the church on Sunday enough about the Word of God, verse by verse.  If our church believes that prophets can be fallible, then we should be careful not to veer off too much from the word.  

 

 

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 9ː150 (January 12, 1862)

Edited July 13, 2015 by KevinG

[mnn727]

  If our church believes that prophets can be fallible, then we should be careful not to veer off too much from the word.  

Gee, who wrote "the Word"? yup, Prophets.

So why are dead Prophets better than living Prophets to you?

[Boanerges]

This is an area I also struggle with but not as much as I used to. I have decided that some teachings of former prophets were just plain wrong and based on their own thinking and prejudices. The priesthood ban is a prime example of this - it was clearly rooted in Brigham Young's racism.

 

Other things I think are just incomplete understandings (or misunderstandings) of God's will. We all see through glass darkly, even the prophets. I don't think they are generally attempting to lie or deceive, they just don't see things clearly either and are doing the best they can. Since I'm one 1 Corinthians 13, I think I have put away childish things in this respect. Now if I could just get everybody to do it!

[ERayR]

Sitting in Church yesterday someone chimed in with quotes from past leaders saying, essentially, if current leaders' words/ideas don't mesh with what's found in the canon of scripture then we know the leader's words are merely his opinion. You guys know the quotes. We have way too many annoying quotes from past leaders that contradict. One other oft-repeated structured opinion is leaders won't lead us astray, also, current prophets are more important than the past ones.

Ugh...what's going on here? I tend to think over time any charismatic start up loses. We've been going at this for closing in on 200 years. I mean we're doing pretty well in maintaining, but over time, we find too much contradiction, too many conflicting messages. Just too much talk...too much men mingling their ideas with scripture.

Have we talked ourselves off the path God wants us on? It seems very possible to me. Odd because for years I've been advocating more open communication is needed in Church...but yesterday I had some thing hit me saying, stop talking. Just sit and ponder, quietly without all this repeated cacophony of confusing quotables from the past.

Church is amounting to, more and more, people concluding well, God's in charge and He'll figure out how to make things right, as people can't quite connect with current and past leaders words.

 

The goal is not to "connect with current and past leaders words" but to connect with God thru personal revelation.

[hagoth7]

The problem...too much talk and not enough talk about the main subject...Jesus Christ.  He is very minute.

OK. For starters, please open more threads about the Savior in this forum. I would certainly appreciate it. I imagine others would too.

 

...But not in our church, it's all about our becoming like God, or God.  In the GoE Satan is the one telling Eve her eyes need to be open, and she needs to be like the gods.  So that's what the real plan is, not heavenly father's plan which wasn't to believe we're going to be God? Or to not try to become a God?

Apparently you've consumed too much Ed Decker. Too many overlook this passage, and fail to acknowledge that the only part of Satan's claim that was a lie was the assertion that they wouldn't die.

 

This is where my crux is.  All the changing with doctrine, what a prophet has said is now wrong.  That doesn't fit with what a true prophet of God is.

What, in your view, is a true prophet of God? Please be specific.

[hagoth7]

We believe God has yet to reveal many great and important things about his kingdom, and Common Consent. Individuals, or small groups within the Church, do not establish doctrine for the Church.

There are things that can be great, important, and true, and still not be established Church doctrine.

 

Wouldn't you agree?

 

"Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true “Mormons.'" (Joseph Smith)

Edited July 14, 2015 by hagoth7

[mfbukowski]

Sitting in Church yesterday someone chimed in with quotes from past leaders saying, essentially, if current leaders' words/ideas don't mesh with what's found in the canon of scripture then we know the leader's words are merely his opinion. You guys know the quotes. We have way too many annoying quotes from past leaders that contradict. One other oft-repeated structured opinion is leaders won't lead us astray, also, current prophets are more important than the past ones.

Ugh...what's going on here? I tend to think over time any charismatic start up loses. We've been going at this for closing in on 200 years. I mean we're doing pretty well in maintaining, but over time, we find too much contradiction, too many conflicting messages. Just too much talk...too much men mingling their ideas with scripture.

Have we talked ourselves off the path God wants us on? It seems very possible to me. Odd because for years I've been advocating more open communication is needed in Church...but yesterday I had some thing hit me saying, stop talking. Just sit and ponder, quietly without all this repeated cacophony of confusing quotables from the past.

Church is amounting to, more and more, people concluding well, God's in charge and He'll figure out how to make things right, as people can't quite connect with current and past leaders words.

How do you know scripture is not "just talk"?

 

Who do you think wrote the stuff?  God with his finger or quill pen?

 

No he used very human prophets.  Get used to the idea.

[Tacenda]

OK. For starters, please open more threads about the Savior in this forum. I would certainly appreciate it. I imagine others would too.

 

Apparently you've consumed too much Ed Decker. Too many overlook this passage, and fail to acknowledge that the only part of Satan's claim that was a lie was the assertion that they wouldn't die.

 

What, in your view, is a true prophet of God? Please be specific.

What am I on trial? 

 

I believe a true prophet or prophetess, it can run the gamut, should not lead a people astray, that is the sign of a false prophet. The LDS prophets now are very careful to not do that.  I do believe in most of their words, they have a lot of wisdom.  

Edited July 14, 2015 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

The goal is not to "connect with current and past leaders words" but to connect with God thru personal revelation.

THAT is the only way you know anything.

 

Without personal revelation, you can't even know if alleged "scripture" is scripture.

[mfbukowski]

That's a major, cognitive dissonance-inducing issue I struggled with before I discovered a different path and went elsewhere. Square one. Past prophets, including First Presidencies' joint official declarations, said they were teaching doctrine that later turned out to be an opinion. The current prophet and First Presidency issues doctrinal statements that might also turn out later to just be opinion. Current First Presidency declarations contradict past First Presidency declarations, and future declarations might contradict current declarations. To sort all of this out, we're encouraged to pray and seek the guidance of the Spirit, but when several member seek such guidance and receive contradictory answers, we're advised to stick with the current First Presidency, modern revelation, etc. But that puts us back to square one and the process begins anew in a never-ending, vicious circle. For better or for worse, I'm happy to not have to worry about that anymore. No more church attendance-induced headaches. It seems the only viable solution, if I was still LDS, is to rely solely on the scriptures and the spirit for matters of doctrine and truth and look to the First Presidency for guidance on policy only.

What?

You are immune?

On the last day of summer, a Russian Orthodox priest imposed against his parishioners who had fought in Ukraine's "fratricidal war" a 20-year ban on receiving communion.

Those deemed to have only promoted the conflict raging in Ukraine's east, either verbally or in writing, will be hit with an 11-year ban, Father Grigory Mikhnov-Voitenko told his congregation in the small northern town of Staraya Russa.

Father Grigory is somewhat of an anomaly in the Russian Orthodox Church, which has remained surprisingly tight-lipped through the months of bloodshed in eastern Ukraine.

The silence is surprising, given the church's recent track record of vocal support for the Kremlin, which itself has endorsed the pro-Russian insurgents in Ukraine, who — for their part — are mostly radical conservatives claiming to be fighting in the name of God.

Ukraine has three separate Orthodox churches, only one of which — the Ukrainian Orthodox Church — is subordinate to Moscow. And the Moscow Patriarchate must remain on the fence if it wants to retain its already slippery grasp on that church, religious experts said Tuesday.

"If the Moscow patriarch is too pro-Moscow, then Moscow is all he'll be left with," quipped Maxim Goryunov, a prominent philosopher and acquaintance of Mikhnov-Voitenko.

"Of course, that may change because of pressure from the Kremlin," said Roman Lunkin of the independent pollster Sreda, which focuses on religious-themed surveys.

 

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/church-stuck-between-kremlin-and-schism-over-ukraine/506329.html

[Spammer]

What?

You are immune?

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/church-stuck-between-kremlin-and-schism-over-ukraine/506329.html

The Moscow controversy isn't comparable. That patriarchate can have a political schism but that won't correspond to or result in any kind of doctrinal controversy, which is the current reality for Mormonism. The difference is Orthodoxy doesn't have an equivalent of the prophet who is called to be God's sole mouthpiece. We don't have similar doctrinal crises because we don't look to an individual to tell us what God's will is. Thus, even if our "first among equals", the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople, goes off the rails, the other bishops will keep him in check. In the case you cite, if the Moscow Patriarchate goes completely off the rails regarding Ukraine, leaving only a handful of priests who behave in a manner consistent with the gospel and church teaching, uniting with some other jurisdiction, any negative doctrinal influence that might develop to justify an alliance with the Kremlin will be kept in check by the other patriarchates around the world, all of whom are independent and equal. It won't be the first time the Moscow Patriarchate got itself into trouble. Most recently it's collusion with the Soviet authorities drove a faithful fragment underground, the fragment that produced the tens of thousands of new Martyrs of Russia who were executed or starved in the gulag for refusing to collaborate and whom we now venerate as holy saints of the Church and ask for intercession, and it was this fragment the rest of the jurisdictions not in the communist bloc maintained ties with. Everything reverted to normal once the Soviet bloc fell and the Moscow Patriarchate regained its independence. Of course, throughout that dark time, although politically compromised, the Moscow Patriarchate continued to uphold the ancient Orthodox teaching. It's Orthodoxy was never in doubt or an issue, just its weakness and willingness to collude with the atheist state. The schism then was politically-motivated, not doctrinally-. It was eventually healed. I expect the same will happen re Ukraine.

The decentralized structure I've described means that change comes very slowly to Orthodoxy. We don't see new doctrines added, doctrines removed and declared opinion, or radical shifts in teaching or policy that come and go with charismatic or influential leaders. I see Mormonism maybe moving in the direction of Orthodoxy's mechanism for discerning truth, actually. We have an established, dogmatic core based on the codifications in the first seven ecumenical councils, along with a tradition of patristic interpretation that references that core in keeping with the needs of the time. No one person in Orthodoxy has the final say. Controversies resolve themselves in time because what has always been taught everywhere over time emerges dominant through the interaction of the bishops in all of the jurisdictions worldwide conversing together. Most issues are resolved locally or regionally, as will be the case in the example you cite. When controversies need to be elevated to the pan-Orthodox level, as in the ecumenical councils, the Church meeting in council has the final say. This hasn't happened in over 1000 years, but it's about to happen again in a few years. A truly historic occasion is among us. At any rate, the LDS church seems to be developing along similar lines, with doctrine determined through the consensus of the church leadership in keeping with scriptural interpretation over time, rather than the prophet as sole arbiter speaking, "whether by my voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same". The current issues associated with the recent essays and other controversies (BoA - history or pseudepigrapha? BoM, history or spiritual allegory? Polygamy and priesthood bans, of God or the opinions of men?, etc.) can be interpreted as an ongoing process not yet finalized to determine what exactly is to be contained within that unchangeable, dogmatic core. In that sense, Mormonism now is a lot like what Orthodoxy was during the time of the Christological controversies in the 4th-5th centuries. Take away the prophet in Mormonism or make him the first among equals, with his utterances needing to be confirmed the by church leaders and church membership before they're considered doctrinal (the church is likely already there) and you have a conciliar decision-making model based on the Quorum of Twelve and First Presidency functioning as a pan-church council deciding doctrinal matters. This structure would be similar to the decision-making model in Orthodoxy, only the prophet would be more like the Pope, but without infallibility. Only for us, the final say resides in the body of bishops, who are all equal and meet in council to resolve controversies as they arise.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Spammer

[drums12]

The problem...too much talk and not enough talk about the main subject...Jesus Christ.  He is very minute.  Members on the board say that's hogwash, but yesterday in my ward literally gut wrenching stuff, all leading away, IMO.  The temple is all about families.  The Bible is all about Grace and becoming one with Christ, not our family.  Our family will be with us in heaven.  But our main concern will be that we are one with Christ.  But not in our church, it's all about our becoming like God, or God.  In the GoE Satan is the one telling Eve her eyes need to be open, and she needs to be like the gods.  So that's what the real plan is, not heavenly father's plan which wasn't to believe we're going to be God?  Or to not try to become a God?  This is where my crux is.  All the changing with doctrine, what a prophet has said is now wrong.  That doesn't fit with what a true prophet of God is. 

I really don't understand this.  Maybe it's the ward/stake/area you live in, but most of the time the meetings I attend are very Christ centered.  I frankly can't really remember more than maybe a handful of times in MY LIFE where anyone talked about becomiing gods in church.  I think you have very fundamentalist/naive views of what a true prophet is supposed to be.  Many critics of Joseph Smith and/or our modern leaders hold them a standard of prophetic infallibility that not one single Biblical prophet measures up to.