The 2060 Essay to fulfill the "Dehlin Prediction"

[Mars]

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I hate to break it to you, but the LDS Church is already on life-support.

?

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, for one, we are obligated to sustain the Brethren.  As I read the satirical essay in the OP, it publicly accuses the Brethren of using their ecclesiastical offices to exhibit (and, I think, to teach the members of the Church to exhibit) fear and/or hatred of homosexuals.  This, the originator of this thread suggests, is done "just for fun."  This, I think, is a calumny.  A false accusation.  And pretty much impossible to square with our obligation to sustain the leaders of the Church.

Even assuming the Brethren are collectively and categorically wrong (or, more charitably, "misguided") in their recent actions, as a general rule it is not within the province of the Latter-day Saints to publicly speak against them.  As to this point, let us consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphases added):

 

You do a good job of encapsulating why I have a difficult time mustering respect for Church leadership.

Thanks,

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, Mars said:

?

And the shock paddles are broken.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Your comment here could just as well have been written in 1977 regarding the lifting of the priesthood ban.

Yup.  40 years in the future is a long time and a lot can and will take place before then.  Look at the strides that have been made in just the last 40 years regarding the gay population, their rights and recognition.  The legalization of SSM is a perfect example of the progress and change (which I know most or nearly all would have predicted would never happen 40 years ago and most especially in the state of Utah).  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

But it appears that is exactly what you are stating:

"we should follow the counsel given by the Brethren,"

Again, nowhere have I expressly or impliedly advocate "blindly obeying or agreeing with everything they state."  I said nothing even close to such a sentiment.

Are you seriously taking exception to the general principle that "we should follow the counsel given by the Brethren?"

Where do you get the notion that this general principles is functionally equivalent to "blindly obeying or agreeing with everything they state?"

May I ask why you not addressing the voluminous remarks given by Elder Oaks on this issue and quoted by me?

Are you familiar with the "counsel given by the Brethren" which specifically rejects the notion of "blind obedience?"  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Obedience based on faith is not blind obedience.

We render intelligent, constructive obedience when we voluntarily, humbly, and happily obey the commands of our Lord.

To obey! To hearken! What a difficult requirement! Often we hear: “Nobody can tell me what clothes to wear, what I shall eat or drink. No one can outline my Sabbaths, appropriate my earnings, nor in any way limit my personal freedoms! I do as I please! I give no blind obedience!”

Blind obedience! How little they understand! …

When men obey commands of a creator, it is not blind obedience. How different is the cowering of a subject to his totalitarian monarch and the dignified, willing obedience one gives to his God. The dictator is ambitious, selfish, and has ulterior motives. God’s every command is righteous, every directive purposeful, and all for the good of the governed. The first may be blind obedience, but the latter is certainly faith obedience. …

Is it blind obedience when one regards the sign “High Voltage—Keep Away” or is it the obedience of faith in the judgment of experts who know the hazard?

Is it blind obedience when the air traveler fastens his seat belt as that sign flashes or is it confidence in the experience and wisdom of those who know more of hazards and dangers?

Is it blind obedience when the little child gleefully jumps from the table into the strong arms of its smiling father, or is this implicit trust in a loving parent who feels sure of his catch and who loves the child better than life itself? …

Is it then blind obedience when we, with our limited vision, elementary knowledge, selfish desires, ulterior motives, and carnal urges, accept and follow the guidance and obey the commands of our loving Father who … created a world for us, loves us, and has planned a constructive program for us, wholly without ulterior motive, whose greatest joy and glory is to “bring to pass the immortality and eternal life” of all his children? [SeeMoses 1:39.]

It is not blind obedience, even without total understanding, to follow a Father who has proved himself.

And here:

Quote

On an outside wall of the Brazilian Army Academy, cadets can read the words “You will command. So learn to obey!” Early in life I learned that obedience is essential to our progress. I am not talking about blind obedience but the obedience that allows us to reach a higher and more spiritual level in life, using our agency to do the will of the Lord. The prophet Joseph Smith taught that “when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated” (D&C 130:21).

And here:

Quote

In closing, I refer to the relationship between obedience and knowledge. Members who have a testimony and who act upon it under the direction of their Church leaders are sometimes accused of blind obedience.

Of course, we have leaders, and of course, we are subject to their decisions and directions in the operation of the Church and in the performance of needed priesthood ordinances. But when it comes to learning and knowing the truth of the gospel—our personal testimonies—we each have a directrelationship with God, our Eternal Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost. This is what our critics fail to understand. It puzzles them that we can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves.

Perhaps the puzzle some feel can be explained by the reality that each of us has two different channels to God. We have a channel of governance through our prophet and other leaders. This channel, which has to do with doctrine, ordinances, and commandments, results in obedience. We also have a channel of personal testimony, which is direct to God. This has to do with His existence, our relationship to Him, and the truth of His restored gospel. This channel results in knowledge. These two channels are mutually reinforcing: knowledge encourages obedience (seeDeuteronomy 5:27; Moses 5:11), and obedience enhances knowledge (see John 7:17; D&C 93:1).

We all act upon or give obedience to knowledge. Whether in science or religion, our obedience is not blind when we act upon knowledge suited to the subject of our action. A scientist receives and acts upon a trusted certification of the content or conditions of a particular experiment. In matters of religion, a believer’s source of knowledge is spiritual, but the principle is the same. In the case of Latter-day Saints, when the Holy Ghost gives our souls a witness of the truth of the restored gospel and the calling of a modern prophet, our choice to follow those teachings is not blind obedience.

And here:

Quote

Obedience is a fundamental law of the gospel. It is not only the demonstration of our faith but also the foundation of our faith. But the philosophical standard of the world holds that unquestioning obedience equals blind obedience, and blind obedience is mindless obedience. This is simply not true. Unquestioning obedience to the Lord indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the point where he or she considers all inspired instruction—whether it be recorded scripture, the words of modern prophets, or direct inspiration through the Holy Ghost—to be worthy of obedience.

And here:

Quote

Those who talk of blind obedience may appear to know many things, but they do not understand the doctrines of the gospel. There is an obedience that comes from a knowledge of the truth that transcends any external form of control. We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see.

So when I say "we should follow the counsel given by the Brethren," and when the corpus of that counsel includes specific instruction to the Saints to not be blindly obedient, it seems a bit odd to construe my remarks as meaning that I (or the Brethren) advocate "blindly obeying or agreeing with everything they {the Brethren} state."  I said nothing even close to such a sentiment.  Nor have the Brethren.

Quote

Is there no room for disagreement?  If so, do we just have to remain silent about it?

I think these questions are answered in the linked article by Elder Oaks.  

Quote

(I agree that there should be no public accusations or faultfinding.)

Well, then I'm a bit befuddled.  You publicly stated that you "loved" the satirical essay.  The one that publicly accuses the Brethren of using their ecclesiastical offices to exhibit (and, I think, to teach the members of the Church to exhibit) fear and/or hatred of homosexuals.  The one that publicly ridicules the Brethren ("just for fun").

If you were to sit down at a table with, say, President Monson or Elder Nelson or Elder Bednar, and read the satirical essay, would you feel comfortable looking up at him afterward and saying "I loved it!"?

That's a rhetorical question only.  Food for thought only.  I'm not looking for a response.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2016 by smac97

[ksfisher]

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I stated that I did not agree with publicly disagreeing or criticism of our leader publicly (from the pulpit or even in SS class, etc.).  So that wasn't what I was asking.

Can we express disagreement (such as here on the board or in private discussions)?  I've been in private meetings at church where disagreement on this very topic has been expressed by all present.

.

So is sustaining the brethren in public, but then posting disagreement, even anonymously, on a public message board or blog truly a sustaining vote?

[consiglieri]

40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But it appears that is exactly what you are stating:

"we should follow the counsel given by the Brethren,"

Is there no room for disagreement?  If so, do we just have to remain silent about it?  (I agree that there should be no public accusations or faultfinding.)

Smac97 frequently writes things that make it clear he believes the leaders should be followed blindly.

And when called on it, he will say that is not what he is saying.

And then will write the same thing again elsewhere.

I have already gone round with him more than once about this very thing.

I am left to conclude that Smac strongly believes leaders should be followed blindly. 

He just doesn't want to have to defend that position.

Probably because he knows his position is indefensible.

What say you, Smac? 

 

[Mars]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And the shock paddles are broken.

be serious.

how is it on life support?

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

So is sustaining the brethren in public, but then posting disagreement, even anonymously, on a public message board or blog truly a sustaining vote?

Sustaining does not mean agreeing with everything they state.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, nowhere have I expressly or impliedly advocate "blindly obeying or agreeing with everything they state."  I said nothing even close to such a sentiment.

Are you seriously taking exception to the general principle that "we should follow the counsel given by the Brethren?"

Wow  

So, do you believe we can disagree with the Brethren, or not?

(Are you saying that we CAN disagree, but we still have to follow and obey all their counsel?)

.

Edited March 4, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Do Mormons ever consider the possibility that the false prophets warned against in the scriptures might have application to their own leadership?

I have given that matter considerable thought and study.  With respect, I decline to share with you my perspective on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, Mars said:

be serious.

how is it on life support?

The Spirit giveth life.

LDS Church leadership has lost the Spirit.

Ergo they are dead.

I was actually being charitable when I said they were on life support. 

 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Smac97 frequently writes things that make it clear he believes the leaders should be followed blindly.

And when called on it, he will say that is not what he is saying.

And then will write the same thing again elsewhere.

I have already gone round with him more than once about this very thing.

I am left to conclude that Smac strongly believes leaders should be followed blindly. 

He just doesn't want to have to defend that position.

From what I can tell, I think you're right.  I think he just doesn't like using the words "blind obedience".   I get that and should have maybe worded it differently.

.

Edited March 4, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sustaining does not mean agreeing with everything they state.

No, it doesn't.  But if we publicly disagree with or disparage a leader are we truly sustaining them? 

[Senator]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not at all (it was the Bishopric) and disagreeing with this new policy does not mean that they are all in a "private state of apostasy".  Good grief!   The church has been clear that anyone entering into a SSM is in a "state of apostasy".  That is all.

And if you hold a position that is in opposition to the church, and agree with and side with those that are in "a state of apostasy"; where does that position you?

Do you really believe that members cannot disagree with church leaders without being in a "private state of apostasy"?

Basically, yes. It may not be at a level meriting excommunication, but it is apostasy nonetheless.

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2016 by Senator

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Smac97 frequently writes things that make it clear he believes the leaders should be followed blindly.

And when called on it, he will say that is not what he is saying.

And then will write the same thing again elsewhere.

I have already gone round with him more than once about this very thing.

I am left to conclude that Smac strongly believes leaders should be followed blindly. 

He just doesn't want to have to defend that position.

Probably because he knows his position is indefensible.

What say you, Smac? 

 

I deny the accusation.  Beyond that, I respectfully decline to engage in substantive discussion with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

Just now, ksfisher said:

No, it doesn't.  But if we publicly disagree with or disparage a leader are we truly sustaining them? 

I've already stated that no one should stand up in church (or even in a public SS class or so on) and disparage a leader.  

[Mars]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The Spirit giveth life.

LDS Church leadership has lost the Spirit.

Ergo they are dead.

I was actually being charitable when I said they were on life support. 

 

ok, fair enough

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've already stated that no one should stand up in church (or even in a public SS class or so on) and disparage a leader.  

How about outside of church?  How about on a blog or public message board?  If I say that I sustain the brethren but then write about how I disagree with X  or Y policy on my blog or this message board, do I truly sustain them?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow  

So, do you believe we can disagree with the Brethren, or not?

(Are you saying that we CAN disagree, but we still have to follow and obey all their counsel?)

I think Elder Oaks addressed this well (I have been assuming that you have at least read the excerpts of his article which I posted, but I guess that hasn't happened).  His article accounts for disagreement with the Brethren.  He states (emphasis added):

Quote

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.

Elder Oaks goes on to present "at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female."  Again, I had assumed you had read this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How about outside of church?  How about on a blog or public message board?  If I say that I sustain the brethren but then write about how I disagree with X  or Y policy on my blog or this message board, do I truly sustain them?

Again, sustaining does not mean agreeing with everything they say.  You keep confusing those two words (sustaining and agreeing).  

[Mars]

ALarson,

do you think a blog post that accuses church leadership of being homophobic is a good way to show disagreement?

Edited March 4, 2016 by Mars

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think Elder Oaks addressed this well (I have been assuming that you have at least read the excerpts of his article which I posted, but I guess that hasn't happened).  His article accounts for disagreement with the Brethren.  He states (emphasis added):

Elder Oaks goes on to present "at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female."  Again, I had assumed you had read this.

Thanks,

-Smac

How about YOU answer these questions below with your own words? (And, yes I've read your quotes by others.) 

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, do you believe we can disagree with the Brethren, or not?

(Are you saying that we CAN disagree, but we still have to follow and obey all their counsel?)

[ksfisher]

Just now, ALarson said:

Again, sustaining does not mean agreeing with everything they say.  You keep confusing those two words (sustaining and agreeing).  

I guess what I'm trying to get at is the difference between a private and a public disagreement.  I may disagree with something that my bishop or stake president does or says, but I'm not going to tell people that in public.  You've made it public that the bishopric in your ward disagrees with the new church policy regarding SSM.  How does that influence those who read that here?  How would it influence a member in your ward if they read it here? 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I guess what I'm trying to get at is the difference between a private and a public disagreement.  I may disagree with something that my bishop or stake president does or says, but I'm not going to tell people that in public.  You've made it public that the bishopric in your ward disagrees with the new church policy regarding SSM.  How does that influence those who read that here?  How would it influence a member in your ward if they read it here? 

I don't know.  I guess one would have to ask the person reading it.  I know that my Bishop doesn't hide his feelings and isn't ashamed of them.  He absolutely does not speak about them from the pulpit or try to convince others to agree with him.  I also know that he is not alone in the Stake as other Bishops agree with him too and even members of our Stake Presidency do (but they also respect and will most likely follow direction from their leaders even if they disagree at times).  I really believe there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with some statements made by our leaders.  It is not something that needs to be hidden, but it is also something that should not be shouted from the rooftops or even shared in public meetings.

.

Edited March 4, 2016 by ALarson