The Middle Ground

[JLHPROF]

So I have found myself stuck in the middle here on the board today.

 

One one thread I have had to defend the principle of following our priesthood head, even when we don't agree with them.

 

How long do I wait for God to correct His fallible alleged leaders before I begin to wonder if they really are His leaders?

 

On the other thread I have had to explain that the prophets aren't infallible in their doctrines and administrations.

 

 

Either Jesus Christ wants you to believe the prophet will err, or Satan wants you to believe the prophet will err. And by the same token, either Jesus Christ wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you, or Satan wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you.

 

 

 

I have had people who no longer believe in the Church and gospel imply that the first principle is following blindly.

I have had the zealot people who believe that our leaders don't make doctrinal mistakes imply that I have to agree with the prophet or else follow Satan.

 

Am I the only one who believes that both principles of sustaining our head AND thinking for ourselves can be true and aren't mutually exclusive?

Edited October 21, 2015 by JLHPROF

[KevinG]

If you are catching flak you are over the target.

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................................................................

Am I the only one who believes that both principles of sustaining our head AND thinking for ourselves can be true and aren't mutually exclusive?

Not at all.  One must do both, and it takes considerable élan.

[longview]

So I have found myself stuck in the middle here on the board today.

 

One one thread I have had to defend the principle of following our priesthood head, even when we don't agree with them.

 

 

On the other thread I have had to explain that the prophets aren't infallible in their doctrines and administrations.

 

 

 

I have had people who no longer believe in the Church and gospel imply that the first principle is following blindly.

I have had the zealot people who believe that our leaders don't make doctrinal mistakes imply that I have to agree with the prophet or else follow Satan.

 

Am I the only one who believes that both principles of sustaining our head AND thinking for ourselves can be true and aren't mutually exclusive?

It takes judgement and balance based on searching the scripture, learning life's lessons and trying to discern the spirit.  I generally try to follow the prophets but not everything they say is the word of the Lord.  Some things Brigham said I put on the shelf.  Moses taught two important (related) principles):

 

Numbers 11 (people can have personal revelations):

 27 And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.

 28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.

 29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!

 

 

Numbers 12 (no one can speak for the church except for the Lord's chosen prophet):

 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

 9 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed.

 10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.

[jkwilliams]

My approach was always to give the brethren the benefit of the doubt and accept what they were teaching until the point at which my brain and my conscience told me it was wrong. When I read Joseph Fielding Smith's "Doctrines of Salvation" in my early 20s, for example, he presented some things that I couldn't agree with, such as his extremely flawed understanding of organic evolution. I talked to my father about this, and he told me he had the same attitude towards President Smith. He told me there was absolutely nothing wrong with rejecting a church leader's teachings if your brain, your conscience, and the spirit tell you the teachings are wrong.

[stemelbow]

My approach was always to give the brethren the benefit of the doubt and accept what they were teaching until the point at which my brain and my conscience told me it was wrong. When I read Joseph Fielding Smith's "Doctrines of Salvation" in my early 20s, for example, he presented some things that I couldn't agree with, such as his extremely flawed understanding of organic evolution. I talked to my father about this, and he told me he had the same attitude towards President Smith. He told me there was absolutely nothing wrong with rejecting a church leader's teachings if your brain, your conscience, and the spirit tell you the teachings are wrong.

I don't think there's any other way to approach this issue, than what you way here.

I remember as a young kid probably around 13 or 14, some guy either in our ward or HC speaking tore into evolution in what I recall as being a pretty childish way. He was talking and I was like "he's dumb". Later that day my dad took me aside and told me, many views expressed in Church should be questioned. He told me that guy obviously didn't know what he was talking about. He encouraged me to accept that I can learn things that may conflict with what we learn in Church and not be afraid to speak up or question. I appreciate that advice. The Church is us and though we can't see ourselves defining what the Church should be, we should see ourselves and contributors.

[Senator]

So I have found myself stuck in the middle here on the board today.

 

One one thread I have had to defend the principle of following our priesthood head, even when we don't agree with them.

 

 

On the other thread I have had to explain that the prophets aren't infallible in their doctrines and administrations.

 

 

 

I have had people who no longer believe in the Church and gospel imply that the first principle is following blindly.

I have had the zealot people who believe that our leaders don't make doctrinal mistakes imply that I have to agree with the prophet or else follow Satan.

 

Am I the only one who believes that both principles of sustaining our head AND thinking for ourselves can be true and aren't mutually exclusive?

 

Middle ground??

 

That's sooo......well, luke-warmish

 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 

Am I the only one who believes that both principles of sustaining our head AND thinking for ourselves can be true and aren't mutually exclusive?

 

It depends on the situation. At some point we cannot sustain a leader if they are doing something harmful. Let me share a real life example.

 

10 years ago a bishop was released and met with the new bishop to debrief, share pertinent details about programs and people etc. At this meeting the new bishop said "I do not want to know about any moral issues anyone has dealt with because I want them to have a clean slate." I know from very good authority that this new bishop had been given counsel to proceed in this way from the Stake President. So he was following counsel and sustaining his leader.

 

The old Bishop was very upset about this because of some serious issues he needed to convey. In this case it was an issue of a ward member m0lesting multiple family members (children). When the old bishop tried to bring up the subject he was shot down. The new bishop refused to hear about it.

 

The old bishop then washed his hands of it saying that "he would sustain his new leader but he would accept the sins and harm this m0llester cause upon his own head. The old bishop did nothing further.

 

After a short time the m0lester was called to serve in the nursery. A few months later he and his wife went to the temple for the first time, all due (at least in part) to the new bishop's willful ignorance of the situation.

 

So the new bishop sustained his SP. The old bishop sustained his new bishop and essentially felt justified because it was now the new bishops problem and he'd have to answer for it. Meanwhile, a m0lester is in the nursery and going to the temple. Why? Because good people felt it was more important, more righteous, to sustain their leader than to think for themselves and protect the ward children from a m0lester.

 

This example is extreme. I get that. But it's not unique.

If "sustaining" is seen as the ultimate good, then lots of terrible things can happen whether it be because of intentional or unintentional abuse.

[JLHPROF]

It depends on the situation. At some point we cannot sustain a leader if they are doing something harmful. Let me share a real life example.

 

10 years ago a bishop was released and met with the new bishop to debrief, share pertinent details about programs and people etc. At this meeting the new bishop said "I do not want to know about any moral issues anyone has dealt with because I want them to have a clean slate." I know from very good authority that this new bishop had been given counsel to proceed in this way from the Stake President. So he was following counsel and sustaining his leader.

 

The old Bishop was very upset about this because of some serious issues he needed to convey. In this case it was an issue of a ward member m0lesting multiple family members (children). When the old bishop tried to bring up the subject he was shot down. The new bishop refused to hear about it.

 

The old bishop then washed his hands of it saying that "he would sustain his new leader but he would accept the sins and harm this m0llester cause upon his own head. The old bishop did nothing further.

 

After a short time the m0lester was called to serve in the nursery. A few months later he and his wife went to the temple for the first time, all due (at least in part) to the new bishop's willful ignorance of the situation.

 

So the new bishop sustained his SP. The old bishop sustained his new bishop and essentially felt justified because it was now the new bishops problem and he'd have to answer for it. Meanwhile, a m0lester is in the nursery and going to the temple. Why? Because good people felt it was more important, more righteous, to sustain their leader than to think for themselves and protect the ward children from a m0lester.

 

This example is extreme. I get that. But it's not unique.

If "sustaining" is seen as the ultimate good, then lots of terrible things can happen whether it be because of intentional or unintentional abuse.

 

Fair enough.  But we are talking doctrine and theology here, not legal and moral.  There is a connection, but they aren't the same.

For extreme example, if President Monson stood up and announced that all future baptisms would be by sprinkling and that immersion was no longer necessary, or that the priesthood garment would no longer need to be worn I am under no obligation to support him, agree with him,  or participate in any ordinance which I would consider invalid. 

 

However, I also wouldn't be justified in calling him a fallen prophet (even though he might be), screaming for his removal, and assuming he was no longer the holder of the priesthood keys.  That might even be the case, but until God removed him he would continue to have been properly called to his office.

 

We sustain our head and trust God to direct his Church.  We don't have to go against our testimonies or ethics to do so.  It is a balance, a middle way.

A tricky balancing act to understand, but that's the way it is.

[Senator]

 

For extreme example, if President Monson stood up and announced that all future baptisms would be by sprinkling and that immersion was no longer necessary, or that the priesthood garment would no longer need to be worn I am under no obligation to support him, agree with him,  or participate in any ordinance which I would consider invalid. 

 

But you, nevertheless, would be in a state of apostasy. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Fair enough.  But we are talking doctrine and theology here, not legal and moral.  There is a connection, but they aren't the same.

For extreme example, if President Monson stood up and announced that all future baptisms would be by sprinkling and that immersion was no longer necessary, or that the priesthood garment would no longer need to be worn I am under no obligation to support him, agree with him,  or participate in any ordinance which I would consider invalid. 

 

However, I also wouldn't be justified in calling him a fallen prophet (even though he might be), screaming for his removal, and assuming he was no longer the holder of the priesthood keys.  That might even be the case, but until God removed him he would continue to have been properly called to his office.

 

We sustain our head and trust God to direct his Church.  We don't have to go against our testimonies or ethics to do so.  It is a balance, a middle way.

A tricky balancing act to understand, but that's the way it is.

I don't see much of a difference. We either sustain them in action and teaching or we don't. Sometimes we shouldn't. Teachings and doctrines drive the behavior.

 

You're right. It's a tricky balance and I have to be willing to allow others to balance things differently than I do. Sadly, it often seems there is very little latitude allowed.

 (See my thread about the Interesting Definition of Sustain) It has been my experience that the hardline approach to sustaining is more common than not.

 

Regarding your example of the temple garment and how you would not be obligated to sustain Pres. Monson if he said it was no longer necessary to wear it, couldn't we make the same argument about the command to wear it. In other words, it hasn't always been considered a requirement to wear it night and day. But at some point that changed. Should I view that requirement as a suggestion I'm not obligated to sustain? It is suggested that we covenant to wear it thus, but I would challenge anyone to illustrate that we make such a covenant.

[HappyJackWagon]

But you, nevertheless, would be in a state of apostasy. 

Apostacy is the rejection of a formerly held belief so we would have to determine Apostacy from what? Christ? No.

A man who happens to be called as a leader? Maybe.

The organization of the church? Maybe.

 

But how bad would apostacy be if it isn't against Christ?

[JLHPROF]

But you, nevertheless, would be in a state of apostasy. 

 

Not if you define apostasy as moving away from the truth.  If I stick to the truth then I am no apostate.

[jkwilliams]

Not if you define apostasy as moving away from the truth.  If I stick to the truth then I am no apostate.

 

Refusing to accept new teachings would be akin to those folks who rejected the manifesto and continued to practice polygamy. You might not get in the same trouble they did, but the principle is the same: you don't accept the prophet's teachings as revealed doctrine.

[Senator]

Apostacy is the rejection of a formerly held belief so we would have to determine Apostacy from what? Christ? No.

A man who happens to be called as a leader? Maybe.

The organization of the church? Maybe.

 

But how bad would apostacy be if it isn't against Christ?

Christ and His church are inseparable. Apostacy against the one is apostacy against the other.

[JLHPROF]

Christ and His church are inseparable. Apostacy against the one is apostacy against the other.

 

Have fun being Catholic.

[JLHPROF]

Refusing to accept new teachings would be akin to those folks who rejected the manifesto and continued to practice polygamy. You might not get in the same trouble they did, but the principle is the same: you don't accept the prophet's teachings as revealed doctrine.

 

Pretty much.  Either God's laws and doctrines are eternal or they aren't.

[Senator]

Not if you define apostasy as moving away from the truth.  If I stick to the truth then I am no apostate.

 

That's not how the church defines apostasy.

 

So, in relation to the church, you would be in a state of apostasy.

[Senator]

Have fun being Catholic.

How so?

[HappyJackWagon]

Christ and His church are inseparable. Apostacy against the one is apostacy against the other.

No. Not even close.

[jkwilliams]

Pretty much.  Either God's laws and doctrines are eternal or they aren't.

 

Is baptism by immersion an eternal law? Is wearing garments? I guess I never would have thought those were "eternal," necessarily. 

[Senator]

No. Not even close.

Perhaps closer than you think.

[JLHPROF]

Is baptism by immersion an eternal law? Is wearing garments? I guess I never would have thought those were "eternal," necessarily. 

 

Yes.

[JLHPROF]

That's not how the church defines apostasy.

 

So, in relation to the church, you would be in a state of apostasy.

 

Oddly enough my definition was given in priesthood meeting a few years ago.  "Leaving the Church" is only apostasy if the Church isn't in apostasy.

Leaving the gospel and revealed truths is always apostasy.

 

How so?

 

 

The Catholic Church descended from Christ's Church and apostatized.  Following Christ's Church into apostasy would make you as much an apostate as leaving Christ's Church while it was still in order.

[jkwilliams]

Yes.

 

I don't see anything that says specifically that these ordinances and practices never change. We know, for example, that the garment itself has changed, as have the temple ceremonies, but that doesn't change the ordinance, does it? I wonder what would happen if someone wanted to be baptized but was in an ICU or otherwise unable to be baptized by immersion. Would the church allow a modified form? I have no idea.