jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 I get her point but I certainly think she takes her criticism a little too far in trying to identify people she has a problem with, mostly because what and Happy have said. Agreed.
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Given that there seems to be a subset of church members who are attracted to gnosticism and esoterica, is it a safe bet that some of them will start experimenting with seer stones now? I would think so.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2015 Author Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) I get her point but I certainly think she takes her criticism a little too far in trying to identify people she has a problem with, mostly because what and Happy have said.I think she's spot on.But which people did she identify? Except for a quick response during the Q and A at the end, she avoided mentioning names. Edited August 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2015 Author Posted August 13, 2015 Given that there seems to be a subset of church members who are attracted to gnosticism and esoterica, is it a safe bet that some of them will start experimenting with seer stones now? I would think so.A subset of wackos you mean?
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 I think she's spot on. But which people did she identify? Except for a quick response Q and A at the end, she avoided mentioning names. Didn't mean to suggest she identified certain people. That was poorly worded on my part.
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 A subset of wackos you mean? I didn't say that at all. This whole thread has been about how certain church members get sucked into gnosticism. In my experience, such folks often take a sort of mystical approach to things, such as crystals and magnets and such. I mentioned some of my neighbors in Utah told me they had developed a personal relationship with God, and therefore did not need the general authorities to "mediate." They were also into homeopathic medicine and crystals and such, so their odd approach to Mormonism just kind of fit in with their general approach to life. I am just saying I could see my old neighbors and people like them getting into seer stones. I'm not suggesting at all that Mormons are wackos. Back then I was elders quorum president, and those people drove me crazy because you couldn't get them to help out with anything, not even home teaching, unless they had received personal revelation that they should. So, yes, I suppose I think some Mormons, such as my old neighbors, are wackos, but that says nothing about the membership of the church at large. I know plenty of wackos outside the church, too.
rockpond Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 It isn`t about a whitewashed version of Church History. They talked about City Creek Mall, the Church not teaching the pure doctrines of the restoration, being too much of a corporation. They used to talk about the whitewashed version of Church History. Now they talk about it needing to be like the days that are no longer whitewashed to them because they found out about them and are no longer bothered by them. They are bothered by the Church not being like the non-whitewashed history that the Church should have been teaching. According to your first post about the couple (#67), they mentioned to you and your wife their doubts about church history. And you mentioned that they felt they had been deceived by their leaders and lost trust in them. Maybe I misunderstood.
readstoomuch Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 According to your first post about the couple (#67), they mentioned to you and your wife their doubts about church history. And you mentioned that they felt they had been deceived by their leaders and lost trust in them. Maybe I misunderstood.Yes, they had big problems with the history that we talked through, especially Joseph Smith. Next thing we hear they are having problems with the Church not being like it was before. The issues about Joseph went away and they think he had all the truth and we have strayed from his teachings. We don't have the spiritual experiences or the spirit in general now like they (and especially Joseph) had. I guess the Rough Stone Rolling issues have been forgiven. I don't blame you for being confused. I am.
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Yes, they had big problems with the history that we talked through, especially Joseph Smith. Next thing we hear they are having problems with the Church not being like it was before. The issues about Joseph went away and they think he had all the truth and we have strayed from his teachings. We don't have the spiritual experiences or the spirit in general now like they (and especially Joseph) had. I guess the Rough Stone Rolling issues have been forgiven. I don't blame you for being confused. I am. Like I always say, people join the church for many different reasons, and they leave for at least as many reasons.
The Nehor Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Given that there seems to be a subset of church members who are attracted to gnosticism and esoterica, is it a safe bet that some of them will start experimenting with seer stones now? I would think so.I asked God if I could have one. He said no. Does that make me a wacko?
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 I asked God if I could have one. He said no. Does that make me a wacko? No. But that doesn't stop you from being a wacko.
Senator Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) A subset of wackos you mean?deleted Edited August 13, 2015 by Senator
The Nehor Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 No. But that doesn't stop you from being a wacko.So I am some kind of Schroedinger's wacko? I can live with that. 1
stemelbow Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 So I am some kind of Schroedinger's wacko? I can live with that. us wackos don't see it until someone tells us, even then it's pretty rare to see it. Feel lucky.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2015 Author Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Yep. Since the days of Hiram Page, there's always been a tension in the church between personal revelation/gnosticism and priesthood authority. We're supposed to seek personal revelation daily, but we are to disregard it if if conflicts with what our priesthood leaders tell us. What Sister Hedelius seems to be describing is the tendency to value personal revelation over priesthood authority.The tension is as old as the history of God's dealings with mortal men and women. As told in Numbers 11:20, Moses said, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were aprophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! But as if to teach an important lesson about the folly of carrying this principle of personal revelation too far and being carried away in the pride of one's heart, in the very next chapter is recounted the incident of Aaron and Miriam complaining against Moses and, in their arrogance, saying, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? To drive home the point that Moses was not one to abuse his power or to exert unrighteous dominion, we are assured in the parenthetical narration in verse 3, (Now the man Moses was very ameek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) As a result of their insubordination, Miriam and Joseph were severely chastened. I am confident the incident was placed there -- and juxtaposed with the incident in the prior chapter -- to teach us the absolute necessity that the principle of personal revelation is limited to one's own personal affairs and stewardship and we are not to arrogate ourselves above the Lord's anointed, no matter how spiritually insightful we think ourselves to be. Hadelius said in her presentation: Most church members resolve this tension without too much trouble—guidance from prophets and personal revelation work together to confirm one another and show a harmonious whole picture of a divine plan for our lives. We seek additional revelatory knowledge, but accept that it may take years of preparation and waiting before we receive answers, and that some answers never come in this life. We seek spiritual gifts, but know not to seek for signs. We recognize that ordinances, because they are performed by the power of properly-authorized priesthood, are like vehicles that carry us more quickly and powerfully to Christ than we could manage on our own. I'm confident this is true. Most Church members have little or no trouble resolving the tension. I, for one, have never had a problem with it. The danger comes in forgetting the principle that personal revelation is limited to one's own personal affairs and stewardship. Anytime that principle is forgotten, even momentarily, one is on dangerous ground. Edited August 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
jkwilliams Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 The tension is as old as the history of God's dealings with mortal men and women. As told in Numbers 11:20, Moses said, But as if to teach an important lesson about the folly of carrying this principle of personal revelation too far and being carried away in the pride of one's heart, in the very next chapter is recounted the incident of Aaron and Miriam complaining against Moses and, in their arrogance, saying, To drive home the point that Moses was not one to abuse his power or to exert unrighteous dominion, we are assured in the parenthetical narration in verse 3, As a result of their insubordination, Miriam and Joseph were severely chastened. I am confident the incident was placed there -- and juxtaposed with the incident in the prior chapter -- to teach us the absolute necessity that the principle of personal revelation is limited to one's own personal affairs and stewardship and we are not to arrogate ourselves above the Lord's anointed, no matter how spiritually insightful we think ourselves to be. Hadelius said in her presentation: I'm confident this is true. Most Church members have little or no trouble resolving the tension. I, for one, have never had a problem with it. The danger comes in forgetting the principle that personal revelation is limited to one's own personal affairs and stewardship. Anytime that principle is forgotten, even momentarily, one is on dangerous ground.Would it surprise you to know that I agree with you?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 13, 2015 Author Posted August 13, 2015 Would it surprise you to know that I agree with you?It would please me.
ttribe Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Would it surprise you to know that I agree with you? That's it, the Apocalypse is here. 2
Ahab Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) If the Church losing its way involves the Church getting too **** about things that aren't the best use of time and resources then what would it take to get right again, and where exactly is the Church off in its focus?And the Church losing it's way doesn't necessarily include everybody in the Church losing their way, does it? The Church is everybody in it, not just those in the highest leadership positions. What about the issue of having too many meetings? The First Presidency and the Twelve have talked to the general assembly before about having too many meetings, so wouldn't that count in part as the Church generally losing its way? Or what about having so many other activities during the week that the families can't get together for meals and FHE ?Or what about the members who spend so much money on themselves, their homes and their cars and clothes, vacations, RVs, etc, instead of doing more to care for the poor?Let's get into some specifics here. How much do you know about how we should be living? How would you know if the Church, the people in it generally, were doing things they shouldn't be doing? And how would you know the way we should be?Being gnostic, or knowledgeable, isn't a bad thing when you know all you should know. We need to know what we should know.ETA: Good grief. What is another good word for A-N-A-L ??? Edited August 13, 2015 by Ahab
HappyJackWagon Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 ETA: Good grief. What is another good word for A-N-A-L ???UptightPersnicketyFussy But I admit none of them quite capture the angst and passion of a-n-a-l
JLHPROF Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 I think she's spot on. I think her theme is spot on.I think some of her applications of her theme overreach a little. Take #1 of her "hallmarks".Inordinate interest in the Second Comforter or Second Anointing, complaints that the church does not teach or emphasize them enough, and belief that books or teachings by individuals who are not church leaders are the best way to obtain them.The first half and the second half are two separate issues. The first half I am one who agrees with. The second half she is right to call a problem.When she says in denegration:"Mormon “gnosticism” is just the belief that esoteric knowledge–hidden, deep doctrine–is necessary for fulfilling our spiritual potential, and that seeking for it is more spiritually advanced."I say, you're darn right it's necessary. That is one of the key principles of Mormonism. I completely understand that she is addressing those (like the Snufferites) who don't understand correct channels, priesthood, and revelatory principle.I fully agree with her that this subset of members is heading down a wrong path.But I think in doing so she is discouraging others from studying into deeper doctrine, a practice I can never condone as it goes completely against eternal progression. I think her article concerning correct channels for revelation and vision is completely correct, but discouraging people from studying deeper doctrine is not the answer. Oh, and I question "Because God has said the church will not fail this time. This is the last dispensation." The Church is an earthly organization. The restored gospel will not fail, but who knows what form the "Church" will have in the end. The Church is not the gospel, it is just the vehicle for it.
Saint Sinner Posted August 15, 2015 Posted August 15, 2015 Perhaps you are thinking of the Harmston Group ("True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days").Could there be a more unoriginal and redundant church name?!? Good grief.
Saint Sinner Posted August 15, 2015 Posted August 15, 2015 Scott, I'm unfamiliar with this movement. Do you have any sources to get caught up so I can stop tilting and scratching my head?
Recommended Posts