When we differ with the united voice of the Brethren

[stemelbow]

Quote

Some members assume that one can be in full harmony with the spirit of the gospel, enjoy full fellowship in the Church, and at the same time be out of harmony with the leaders of the Church and the counsel and direction they give. Such a position is wholly inconsistent. . . . Those who profess to accept the gospel and who at the same time criticize and refuse to follow the counsel of the prophets are assuming an indefensible position. Such a spirit leads to apostasy.[3]

So to disagree with something that comes from the leaders is to disagree with everything?  Considering the complexity that is out there in terms of thought and perspective that is absurd.  It seems to me we're on the journey to learn from our mistakes not force a pretend mistakes aren't made mentality in the masses. 

This line of thinking is troubling to me.  It feels like we'll get nowhere.  We'll be stuck driving ourselves further from everyone else and God.  There is nothing helpful here. 

[consiglieri]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

They wouldn’t say it because it isn’t the way to lead people to Christ.

Here I disagree with you, CV.

Admitting fallibility of leaders does lead people to Christ, because it tells people that they must rely on the Holy Ghost within them to follow Christ.

Admittedly, it isn't the way to lead people to be blindly obedient to Church leadership, but I think that is a different thing entirely from leading them to Christ.

Wouldn't you agree?

[consiglieri]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So to disagree with something that comes from the leaders is to disagree with everything? 

This is the crux of the problem, I think.

It is all or nothing.  Either believe everything that is said or believe nothing.

Of course, that position has had to be redefined recently to be everything that is said by the united voice of the Q15.

Not so long ago, it was the First Presidency Statements that were official and binding on the Church.

But no longer.

The Q12 has been added.

The reason for the addition is because many Church leaders have said things inconsistent with today's Mormon doctrine.

And prior Church presidents have done the same.

Even prior First Presidency Statements have the same problem. 

Because all of these groups have said things in official publications that conflict with current Mormon Doctrine, the group who must speak unanimously for it to be authoritative has been broadened to include the Q15.

At least that's the way I see it.

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Here I disagree with you, CV.

Admitting fallibility of leaders does lead people to Christ, because it tells people that they must rely on the Holy Ghost within them to follow Christ.

Admittedly, it isn't the way to lead people to be blindly obedient to Church leadership, but I think that is a different thing entirely from leading them to Christ.

Wouldn't you agree?

There is nothing in the proposed statement that deals with fallibility, though many other actual statements by our general authorities do deal with that, as well as eschewing blind obedience and putting appearances before integrity (“prop up the Church”), or hypocrisy.

Neither is there anything in the proposed statement that deals with leading people to Christ, only to being true to one’s self, since it doesn’t allow that the contradicting voice is the Holy Ghost. It is dishonest to attribute promptings and revelations to the Holy Ghost that isn’t believed to be such. In addition, the proposed statement speaks of doing “something” (could be anything), not necessarily coming unto Christ or agreeing with the leaders.

Our leaders admit fallibility and teach people to rely on the Holy Ghost and not to blindly follow them, but the proposed statement doesn’t say that and is misleading in how it addresses agency and conscience gone wrong.

What is it you are suggesting I would agree with, isolated and qualified portions of the proposed statement? Or just that I agree that you disagree with me? LOL

[consiglieri]

I am not sure I am understanding you correctly, CV, so let me respond in this way.

It has been my experience during my 38-years of being a Mormon that the LDS Church gives contradictory messages on this issue.

On the one hand, the LDS Church claims to have prophets, seers and revelators who receive revelation from God and what they speak is what God would say were he here.  "By my own mouth or the mouth of my servants, it is the same."

We hear that multiple times every General Conference.

To me, the message is clear that if we vary from what our leaders tell us, we are on the road to apostasy.  There are quotes along this line, too, of course.

On the other hand, the Church teaches that members are entitled to receive their own revelation on any subject and that they are not to follow the leaders blindly.

These are mutually conflicting statements, I believe.

The way these mutually conflicting statements are resolved in the Church is as follows:

The Church leaders receive revelation for the Church and what they say is the voice and will of God to this generation. 

You are entitled to receive your own revelation that Church leaders are correct.

If you get any other revelation, your revelation is not from God.

 

Has this been your experience?

If not, under what circumstances would it be permissible for an individual revelation to vary from the proclamations of Church leaders?

[Jeanne]

Does anyone believe that they were not as united as we may think?  In the end..they are united..my hope is that at least a real discussion took place and their were some concerned voices heard.  What else can they do but agree?

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So to disagree with something that comes from the leaders is to disagree with everything?  Considering the complexity that is out there in terms of thought and perspective that is absurd.  It seems to me we're on the journey to learn from our mistakes not force a pretend mistakes aren't made mentality in the masses. 

This line of thinking is troubling to me.  It feels like we'll get nowhere.  We'll be stuck driving ourselves further from everyone else and God.  There is nothing helpful here. 

Your trouble comes from not correctly understanding the spirit of the message you quoted. 

Read it this way: When someone/anyone is in harmony with the spirit of the gospel and also "enjoys" full fellowship in the Church it is inconsistent with reason and logic and the spirit of the gospel for such a one to be out of harmony with the leaders of the Church and the counsel they give.

 

[thesometimesaint]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Your trouble comes from not correctly understanding the spirit of the message you quoted. 

Read it this way: When someone/anyone is in harmony with the spirit of the gospel and also "enjoys" full fellowship in the Church it is inconsistent with reason and logic and the spirit of the gospel for such a one to be out of harmony with the leaders of the Church and the counsel they give.

 

I think that is a huge leap in logic. I can love the GA's, and still disagree with them on some point of counsel given by them.  ...We believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[Russell C McGregor]

22 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think that is a huge leap in logic. I can love the GA's, and still disagree with them on some point of counsel given by them.  ...We believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Unfortunately, whenever He does reveal such things, people find excuses to reject them if they run counter to their preferences.

See my sig.

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I am not sure I am understanding you correctly, CV, so let me respond in this way.

It has been my experience during my 38-years of being a Mormon that the LDS Church gives contradictory messages on this issue.

On the one hand, the LDS Church claims to have prophets, seers and revelators who receive revelation from God and what they speak is what God would say were he here.  "By my own mouth or the mouth of my servants, it is the same."

We hear that multiple times every General Conference.

To me, the message is clear that if we vary from what our leaders tell us, we are on the road to apostasy.  There are quotes along this line, too, of course.

On the other hand, the Church teaches that members are entitled to receive their own revelation on any subject and that they are not to follow the leaders blindly.

These are mutually conflicting statements, I believe.

The way these mutually conflicting statements are resolved in the Church is as follows:

The Church leaders receive revelation for the Church and what they say is the voice and will of God to this generation. 

You are entitled to receive your own revelation that Church leaders are correct.

If you get any other revelation, your revelation is not from God.

OK, let’s remove the conversation from the “impressive” proposed statement.  From your observations:

Do you see a difference between positing that “the LDS Church claims to have prophets… who receive revelation” and “the LDS Church has prophets who receive revelation”?

Do you see how differently people can interpret and weigh the meaning of “what they speak is what God would say were he here”? Or what the “it” is in “it is the same”?

How far does one think he has to vary from what our leaders tell us before he’s on the road to apostasy? Why would he ask himself that?

Are members really entitled to receive their own revelation on any subject, every time? What is the role of personal revelation and spiritual experience have in answering this and any of the other questions?

I’ve observed that blind obedience is rarely in the eye of the blind, and everyone must answer these questions to his own satisfaction. Are the blind more easily satisfied, and does that satisfaction come by personal revelation or without it? Is satisfaction an indicator of blindness irrespective of personal revelation? Is the opposite of blind obedience enlightened or revelatory obedience, or do calculated, considered, reasoned, covenant, or faithful obedience also qualify?

I think the seeming contradictions have everything to do with how one thinks, and more fundamentally, how one manages his agency. There is a scripture about kingdoms and laws, how there are many kingdoms and laws to choose from (D&C 88:36-40). Some allow dead-end contradictions and some lead to synergetic reconciliation. Right now we all live in the same world, yet we can still choose which kingdom’s bounds and conditions to honor.

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Has this been your experience?

If not, under what circumstances would it be permissible for an individual revelation to vary from the proclamations of Church leaders?

What do you think of this experience: Not long after I joined the Church in college, someone introduced me to Elder Perry, the visiting authority at our stake conference. He noted my age and asked if I was going on a mission; I said “Yes”; he asked “When?” and I said, “In about 18 months, after I graduate.” He looked concerned and suggested I should go sooner than later but I just said with certainty that “I’m definitely going after I graduate.” That certainty came from a personal revelation I had received some time before I joined the Church.

The general revelation to the church at the time was that young men serve a mission at 19, per God’s voice and will to that generation. Long before I joined the Church, I received my own personal revelation from God that I would serve a mission, so when I heard this expectation, it didn’t mean much to me. “I knew that I knew.” My testimony was strong and my countenance was bright. Whether the leaders were correct or not on this point wasn’t an issue for me, and everything worked out. Even years later, after occasional conversations about how things might have turned out had I served a mission at 19, I can only conclude that my revelation was of God and that it came to pass.

I don’t think we should seek revelation that the Church leaders are correct (3 Nephi 11:41 gives us that witness already -- assuming we have a testimony or believe it -- that we should heed them) so much as to know the Lord’s will and help for us in relation to a subject that we find contradictory enough to rile our psyche (3 Nephi 11:29-30). If one tends to contend after the revelation (whatever its source), he can safely conclude that he is not of the Lord, and I think that is the bottom line.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Your trouble comes from not correctly understanding the spirit of the message you quoted. 

Read it this way: When someone/anyone is in harmony with the spirit of the gospel and also "enjoys" full fellowship in the Church it is inconsistent with reason and logic and the spirit of the gospel for such a one to be out of harmony with the leaders of the Church and the counsel they give.

 

That just makes it worse.  I find it potentially problematic to treat the things that come from the leaders of the Church as directly from God in all cases.  They are men who see through a glass darkly as well.  Revelation is not foolproof.  Mistakes have been made and will be.  We should be able to live with that and not condemn each other for thinking differently.  It's the different thinking that may be an ultimate blessing we'll miss if we continue to try and scratch out each others eyes for daring to go with what they feel God has inspired them to do and think.

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

This is the crux of the problem, I think.

It is all or nothing.  Either believe everything that is said or believe nothing.

Of course, that position has had to be redefined recently to be everything that is said by the united voice of the Q15.

Not so long ago, it was the First Presidency Statements that were official and binding on the Church.

But no longer.

The Q12 has been added.

The reason for the addition is because many Church leaders have said things inconsistent with today's Mormon doctrine.

And prior Church presidents have done the same.

Even prior First Presidency Statements have the same problem. 

Because all of these groups have said things in official publications that conflict with current Mormon Doctrine, the group who must speak unanimously for it to be authoritative has been broadened to include the Q15.

At least that's the way I see it.

Perhaps as much as anything we face this due to correlation.  Trying to fix everyone's opinion and ideas to fit just doesn't work.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think that is a huge leap in logic. I can love the GA's, and still disagree with them on some point of counsel given by them.  ...We believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

It's simple logic that revelation from God should be in harmony with any other revelation from God, regardless of who receives it, so any revelation you get from God not only should be but will be in harmony with any revelation of God given to our Church leaders that is the basis for their counsel.

But I think the more important part you are missing is that those who "enjoy" full fellowship in the Church and the true spirit of the gospel should not be "criticizing" our Church leaders.  Just because "criticizing" something is inconsistent with "enjoying" it.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Does anyone believe that they were not as united as we may think?  In the end..they are united..my hope is that at least a real discussion took place and their were some concerned voices heard.  What else can they do but agree?

Shelve the discussion until more prayer and study is undergone.  

The removal of the Priesthood ban was delayed a number of years until unity was achieved (some would debate this).  

Since decisions that do not have unity backing would not be enacted, we cannot tell how often this happens but from what I have heard reported in lower quorums, unity is not always achieved and at times is a long process, I see no reason that the process these men have been following for decades would suddenly change just because they've moved into a different quorum.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That just makes it worse.  I find it potentially problematic to treat the things that come from the leaders of the Church as directly from God in all cases.  They are men who see through a glass darkly as well.  Revelation is not foolproof.  Mistakes have been made and will be.  We should be able to live with that and not condemn each other for thinking differently.  It's the different thinking that may be an ultimate blessing we'll miss if we continue to try and scratch out each others eyes for daring to go with what they feel God has inspired them to do and think.

Harmony isn't necessarily agreement.  The point is that... I'll give you an example. 

We have what we have in the WoW and we also have some Church leaders counsel/teaching that it's (also) wise to avoid drinking non-alcoholic beer... because it can give people the impression that we are drinking alcohol even when we are drinking a non-alcoholic beer, which might be considered deceptive and counter to the WoW.

I happen to (still) like the taste of beer so I (still) drink a non-alcoholic beer from time to time, but you won't ever see or hear me "criticize" some Church leaders for the counsel they give to avoid drinking it because I can see how our ideas and counsel to others is in harmony with all revelation from God. It's not good to offend people. It's not good that some people are sometimes deceived.  So sometimes I drink non-alcoholic beer and sometimes I don't,  depending on who is around and whether or not they would be offended by it. As Joseph said, what is right in some circumstances can be wrong in some other circumstances,  and vice versa.

We're talking about things being in harmony and not criticizing anyone who receives revelation from God.

[cinepro]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What are these "other churches that we've made fun of for so many decades"?  Who is "we," and have we in fact been doing that?  What would Rory say?  I don't know about you, but I have been very respectful of other churches and their members for many decades.  On those rare occasions when I have heard a Mormon deride another faith, I have been merciless in calling him to account.  I think that we need to be fair and kind to all churches, including our own.

I was using "made fun of" colloquially.  I don't mean that we explicitly mock them by parody or derision, but instead, the idea that the LDS Church is the lone arbiter of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, to the seclusion of all other religions, is a form of derision.  Much how LDS might feel when other churches teach that "Mormons are good people, but the story of Joseph Smith and the gold plates is absurd, and they don't have any real priesthood power."  Such teachings might be sincere, but they are also a form of derision (and usually their versions of our doctrine are closer to "parody", much like how LDS typically characterize other churches' teachings on things like personal revelation, infallibility of their leaders, and so on...)

So for LDS, the idea that other religions have "good people" who "mean well" and "occasionally get inspiration but have missed the mark" all serve as a form of derision. Those teachings are no doubt meant in the best of intentions and sincerity, with a full acknowledgement of the possibility of hurt feelings; obviously the Church has wrestled with the PR conundrum of playing well with others while at the same time teaching you're just better than they are for years.  But let's not forget that it isn't the accuser who gets to dictate how their statement is received.

But if the leaders aren't willing to back up that idea by supporting members in what the Holy Ghost has told them, then it really isn't much of a "gift", and we're just the same as every other church who has a leader that says "Trust me, even if your (conscience/spirit/crystals/brain) tells you not to."

 

 

Edited January 13, 2016 by cinepro

[Gray]

19 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Perhaps CV75 believes that “feeling what …[he] would call the spirit” is a communication from God.  If you don’t believe that God communicates with people, then you and he mean two very different things by the phrase “feeling the spirit.” No wonder you and he don’t seem to be receiving the same spiritual message.

BTW, why is it surprising that those on one side of this issue claim that the spirit is telling them one thing, while those on the other side are claiming that the spirit is telling them the opposite? They cannot even agree on the meaning of standard English words, let alone the definition of such basic LDS concepts as “chastity.”   

The spiritual experience that we're both referring to is the same. What is different is how we interpret it. 

[Gray]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

Logic calls for interpretation and definition, especially in spiritual and religious applications (they really don't mix, but you made an appeal to "logic" on a religious message board and so we can oblige within the understood constraints for the sake of discussion--or so I tried! LOL). You are conflating a mistrust of your own spiritual discernment with the truthfulness of things that you seem to recognize call for your discernment, and you conflating both of those with others' positions on them. If you can't consider logic in proper context, better foryou to drop it.

So you feel something (and don’t presume that I would call it the spirit! Tell me straight what you would call it) indicating the rightness of gay marriage, and the opposite when contemplating the new policy. What area of advice would you like from me?

What area of advice are you asking in rockpond’s behalf?

You'd need to walk through your chain of reasoning that takes you to "the BOM is true" to "this specific policy is true". So far it does not follow.

Regarding what I feel, it's identical to what most LDS would call the spirit. I'm fine calling it that too, but I probably interpret the experience differently than you do.

Anyway, let's drop the thing about advice. It's probably not going to be fruitful. Thanks!

 

 

[Tacenda]

http://rationalfaiths.com/biology-vs-behavior/  Message from Greg Prince...don't know if this was posted yet, thought I'd share.  

Edited January 13, 2016 by Tacenda

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

The spiritual experience that we're both referring to is the same.

Prove it logically.

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

You'd need to walk through your chain of reasoning that takes you to "the BOM is true" to "this specific policy is true". So far it does not follow.

For the n^th time (see my post of yesterday at 3:14 PM), my posts only addressed your confusion that, “If people can't trust their discernment of the spirit on this issue, then they certainly can't trust the spirit to locate others to outsource that discernment to.”

Yes, they can trust others, whether certainly or not: if they have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, they have a testimony of heeding the Lord’s latter-day servants, which is taught in the Book of Mormon record. If they can have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, they can have a testimony of heeding the Lord’s latter-day servants, which is taught in the Book of Mormon. If they don’t have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, they can still have a testimony of heeding the Lord’s latter-day servants, which can be gained through other means.

They also addressed your “question of whether or not we think the spirit is a reliable guide.” For those who know that the Spirit is a reliable guide, and possess His testimony of the Book of Mormon, it follows that the prophecies of the Restoration and the Lord’s servants are reliable.

We never discussed the policy except in terms of advice you now don’t want to ask for.

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

Regarding what I feel, it's identical to what most LDS would call the spirit. I'm fine calling it that too, but I probably interpret the experience differently than you do.

How do you know "it's identical to what most LDS would call the spirit"? And prove it logically. How do you interpret the experience? How do you think I interpret the experience?

[Gray]

45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Prove it logically.

For the n^th time (see my post of yesterday at 3:14 PM), my posts only addressed your confusion that, “If people can't trust their discernment of the spirit on this issue, then they certainly can't trust the spirit to locate others to outsource that discernment to.”

Yes, they can trust others, whether certainly or not: if they have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, they have a testimony of heeding the Lord’s latter-day servants, which is taught in the Book of Mormon record. If they can have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, they can have a testimony of heeding the Lord’s latter-day servants, which is taught in the Book of Mormon. If they don’t have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, they can still have a testimony of heeding the Lord’s latter-day servants, which can be gained through other means.

They also addressed your “question of whether or not we think the spirit is a reliable guide.” For those who know that the Spirit is a reliable guide, and possess His testimony of the Book of Mormon, it follows that the prophecies of the Restoration and the Lord’s servants are reliable.

We never discussed the policy except in terms of advice you now don’t want to ask for.

How do you know "it's identical to what most LDS would call the spirit"? And prove it logically. How do you interpret the experience? How do you think I interpret the experience?

Obviously no one can prove that they've felt something. All I can tell you is I've experienced feelings normally described in church contexts as the spirit - and they were identical feelings that caused me to being to believe in the teachings of the church in the first place. You may accept that or not. 

What you would need to demonstrate your chain of inferences is that the Book of Mormon could not possibly be true (whatever true means) without the LDS church in 2016 also being the "one true church" (whatever that means), as opposed to one of the many other denominations that use the BOM as scripture, or as opposed to all of them being wrong. Then you'd need to demonstrate infallibility on the part of church leaders in making policy decisions, which is a claim that the church itself is not willing to make. Your task seems impossible. 

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Unfortunately, whenever He does reveal such things, people find excuses to reject them if they run counter to their preferences.

See my sig.

 

We are still waiting for God to reveal anything that fits this bill since Joseph Smith.

At least within the LDS Church paradigm.

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don’t think we should seek revelation that the Church leaders are correct (3 Nephi 11:41 gives us that witness already -- assuming we have a testimony or believe it -- that we should heed them) so much as to know the Lord’s will and help for us in relation to a subject that we find contradictory enough to rile our psyche (3 Nephi 11:29-30). If one tends to contend after the revelation (whatever its source), he can safely conclude that he is not of the Lord, and I think that is the bottom line.

I continue to hear the customary mantra that we must obey Church leaders regardless of what we think, what we feel, what our conscience tells us, or what the Holy Ghost testifies.

Which leads me to wonder what the point is of having the Holy Ghost if its possession is immaterial to determining what is right.

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Shelve the discussion until more prayer and study is undergone.  

The removal of the Priesthood ban was delayed a number of years until unity was achieved (some would debate this).  

Since decisions that do not have unity backing would not be enacted, we cannot tell how often this happens but from what I have heard reported in lower quorums, unity is not always achieved and at times is a long process, I see no reason that the process these men have been following for decades would suddenly change just because they've moved into a different quorum.

I agree with everything you have said here, Calm.

My issue is that this is not what the LDS Church proclaims to the world as part of its missionary message.

The missionaries teach that we have a prophet on the earth today who receives revelation directly from God.

The reality seems to be the political process of building consensus and achieving unanimity.

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Your trouble comes from not correctly understanding the spirit of the message you quoted. 

Read it this way: When someone/anyone is in harmony with the spirit of the gospel and also "enjoys" full fellowship in the Church it is inconsistent with reason and logic and the spirit of the gospel for such a one to be out of harmony with the leaders of the Church and the counsel they give.

 

I continue to hear the customary mantra that we must obey Church leaders regardless of what we think, what we feel, what our conscience tells us, or what the Holy Ghost testifies.

Though I do not agree with this approach, I think it is duplicitous to try and say that people really have the right to have the Holy Ghost confirm whether what the leaders say is true.

Because that is just an illusion.

As you have demonstrated.