Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I thought I made myself fairly clear I was speaking of the prophets when they receive revelation and then set forth that revealed heavenly knowledge in an official capacity in the name of the Lord..

Based on your interpretation of D&C 1: 24-25, do you believe there are errors of doctrine and principle to be found in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and in the Pearl of Great Price?  If there are such errors, I would appreciate it if you would point a couple of them out to me? I ask these questions with all due deference because I'm genuinely curious to know if there are errors. If what you say is true, it would seem such errors are likely. But if not, why not?

 

Why ask him?  Or any of us mere mortals?

To know when any man is speaking as a prophet and therefore what he is saying is true all you need is a testimony from God to tell you that yes that man is speaking as a prophet. 

I thought you knew that already but if not there it is for your reading pleasure yet again from none other than ME!

[Bobbieaware]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, it's blind because you've already decided the prophet and apostles are right before they've even said anything. You assume confirmation before anything is ever said as if they are perfect. You claim prophetic infallibility and I don't accept that.

What happens when you study and pray and you do not get confirmation? What happens when you have a spiritual witness that what they have taught is incorrect? My guess is you will claim that it could never happen because the prophet is always right, to which I could cite numerous examples of how prophets and apostles have been wrong. But you won't care about them because it doesn't fit your paradigm of blind obedience.

To be fair to Bobbie, I know MANY people who view this issue exactly like her. She is not an anomaly. In fact I think she represents the majority of chapel Mormons I know. But I don't think they are willing to play out the idea to it's logical end. Why? Because it would disrupt their paradigm. It would be uncomfortable. It would cause them to question everything  

I just got done explaining to you that there has been no blind obedience on my part because the Lord has revealed  to me the same revelations the leaders have received. Blind obedience is obeying without confirmatory personal revelation. And just because I've found the leaders to be consistently reliable and in harmony with my very own personal revelations from God, that  doesn't mean my revelatory experiences aren't authentic and true. I could just as easily say you are the one who consistently finds fault with the leaders because their revelations and inspired teachings don't square with your preconceived ideas. 

[USU78]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Tried to answer this before but computer glitch wouldn't let me.

See my prior resonse to rockpond.

Beyond a concerted and continuous effort to teach pure and true doctrine -- which it undertakes at great effort, time and expense -- the Church is not responsible for the errant notions and misinterpretations that some members may harbor.

A couple of quotes:

Quote

JSJr:  All have the privilege of thinking for themselves upon all matters relative to conscience. . . . We are not disposed, had we the power, to deprive anyone of exercising that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts.^[8]

 

Quote

BY: Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for yourselves, and pray for yourselves.^[6]  The great masses of the people neither think nor act for themselves. . . . I see too much of this gross ignorance among this chosen people of God.^[7]

Quote

BY Again:  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.  (Discourses of Brigham Young,135).

Quote

 

Dallin Oaks:   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 direct relationship 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 (see Deuteronomy 5:27; Moses 5:11), and obedience enhances knowledge (see John 7:17; D&C 93:1).^[9]

 

If we had time and inclination, we could produce many more such quotations.  It is irresponsible to claim it as Church doctrine that Mormons subordinate our judgment and, indeed, our free will to Church leaders.

Edited May 5, 2016 by USU78
Remembered Another One

[Bobbieaware]

50 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Why ask him?  Or any of us mere mortals?

To know when any man is speaking as a prophet and therefore what he is saying is true all you need is a testimony from God to tell you that yes that man is speaking as a prophet. 

I thought you knew that already but if not there it is for your reading pleasure yet again from none other than ME!

There are questions, and then there are rhetorical questions. 😉 But even so, I would like to know if Kevin believes there some of the prophets in the 'triple-combination' who got some things wrong. Who knows? It guess it could have happened  but I doubt it.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You can take any of her points that you wish, and the result will always be the same.  Your old nonsense here betrays a complete lack of attention on your part to virtually years of discussion on this board of each of those points.  It indicates either a rejection of  the elementary facts in favor of sheer falsehood and rumormongering at best, or an attempt by you to begin all of those old discussions over again -- as though no progress has ever been made, or denial that any discussions were ever held here.  Your dogged determination in either case makes no coherent sense, unless you and maybe consiglieri simply want to rehash old false claims.  Doesn't make any sense to me, and raises serious questions as to why you would want to be that obtuse rather than sincere.  

If you don't like the topic, don't participate.  But you can't dismiss her reality on the grounds that someone, somewhere discussed it already. 

And I'm quite certain that the issues haven't been resolved. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I'll back up a little to make my point more clear if you wish.

Let's just talk about what she said in her point #1 for now.  Can you not see her misleading statement? Her false statement? What she said that was not true? That the thinking is NOT done when a leader says whatever he says.  She said something that was not true when she said that it is done.  And anybody else who has ever said that all the thinking is done is saying something that is not true too.  Whoever says it.  Because it's not true.  So she is NOT representing our true beliefs when she says we believe that all the thinking is done because we don't believe that it is,  generally, although some ex-Mormons or maybe even a few out-of-touch oddball members may believe that all the thinking is done because someone said something.  

Okay...that's what she says in point #1.  She realized that the thinking is not done when the prophet speaks.  So what is the problem with what she wrote?

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay...that's what she says in point #1.  She realized that the thinking is not done when the prophet speaks.  So what is the problem with what she wrote?

She was giving (me, at least,  if not you) me the impression that she was saying that she thinks Mormons think all the thinking is done when the "prophet" speaks,  which is not what Mormons really believe.

Do you understand me now?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If you don't like the topic, don't participate.  But you can't dismiss her reality on the grounds that someone, somewhere discussed it already. 

And I'm quite certain that the issues haven't been resolved. 

I think the point Robert is making is that she hasn't expressed anything particularly new or enlightened. It's the same old regurgitated anti-Mormon crap -- including the disavowed ward teacher message of the 1940s. 

We saw the same sort of thing over on the First Viision thread. Stick your fingers in your ears and bleet the same old attacks, all the while ignoring answers that had already given -- including the ones given in that same thread. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I love your ward!  

I mean no offence, but I'm not so sure you would.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

If you don't like the topic, don't participate.  But you can't dismiss her reality on the grounds that someone, somewhere discussed it already. 

And I'm quite certain that the issues haven't been resolved. 

Maybe not to your satisfaction, but many of us on this board have actually been open to learning something from our discussions.  That takes a certain amount of willingness to learn, to be open to a wide range of thought and evidence.  That's why I come here.  I learn a lot.  A closed mind cannot do so.

As I said before, if she wants to come on this board, I'll be more than happy to repeat all those elementary concepts for her.  If she comes back later claiming that we had no such discussion, and that nothing was resolved, I'll have to just let her know that it is too bad that she was closed minded and insincere, but that she can simply go back and reread the whole thing.  Same for you, rockpond.  There is a search function here on this board.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the point Robert is making is that she hasn't expressed anything particularly new or enlightened. It's the same old regurgitated anti-Mormon crap -- including the disavowed ward teacher message of the 1940s. 

We saw the same sort of thing over on the First Viision thread. Stick your fingers in your ears and bleet the same old attacks, all the while ignoring answers that had already given -- including the ones given in that same thread. 

 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Maybe not to your satisfaction, but many of us on this board have actually been open to learning something from our discussions.  That takes a certain amount of willingness to learn, to be open to a wide range of thought and evidence.  That's why I come here.  I learn a lot.  A closed mind cannot do so.

As I said before, if she wants to come on this board, I'll be more than happy to repeat all those elementary concepts for her.  If she comes back later claiming that we had no such discussion, and that nothing was resolved, I'll have to just let her know that it is too bad that she was closed minded and insincere, but that she can simply go back and reread the whole thing.  Same for you, rockpond.  There is a search function here on this board.

Okay... So now the issue is that she hasn't written anything new or enlightened?

This thread has been interesting.  Scott has gone to great lengths to say that it isn't the position of the church that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

Well, that is exactly the conclusion she arrived at and stated as her first point!

Have you two even read the op-ed?

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, it's blind because you've already decided the prophet and apostles are right before they've even said anything. You assume confirmation before anything is ever said as if they are perfect. You claim prophetic infallibility and I don't accept that.

What happens when you study and pray and you do not get confirmation? What happens when you have a spiritual witness that what they have taught is incorrect? My guess is you will claim that it could never happen because the prophet is always right, to which I could cite numerous examples of how prophets and apostles have been wrong. But you won't care about them because it doesn't fit your paradigm of blind obedience.

To be fair to Bobbie, I know MANY people who view this issue exactly like her. She is not an anomaly. In fact I think she represents the majority of chapel Mormons I know. But I don't think they are willing to play out the idea to it's logical end. Why? Because it would disrupt their paradigm. It would be uncomfortable. It would cause them to question everything  

^^True That^^

[USU78]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

If you don't like the topic, don't participate.  But you can't dismiss her reality on the grounds that someone, somewhere discussed it already. 

And I'm quite certain that the issues haven't been resolved. 

Excuse me? You hijack the thread and gripe at others' posting decisions? 

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

What happens if you receive personal revelation that what the prophet said doesn't represent the mind and will of the Lord?

Then by all means follow your revelation as far as your stewardship extends.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the point Robert is making is that she hasn't expressed anything particularly new or enlightened. It's the same old regurgitated anti-Mormon crap -- including the disavowed ward teacher message of the 1940s. 

We saw the same sort of thing over on the First Viision thread. Stick your fingers in your ears and bleet the same old attacks, all the while ignoring answers that had already given -- including the ones given in that same thread. 

 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Maybe not to your satisfaction, but many of us on this board have actually been open to learning something from our discussions.  That takes a certain amount of willingness to learn, to be open to a wide range of thought and evidence.  That's why I come here.  I learn a lot.  A closed mind cannot do so.

As I said before, if she wants to come on this board, I'll be more than happy to repeat all those elementary concepts for her.  If she comes back later claiming that we had no such discussion, and that nothing was resolved, I'll have to just let her know that it is too bad that she was closed minded and insincere, but that she can simply go back and reread the whole thing.  Same for you, rockpond.  There is a search function here on this board.

Okay... So now the issue is that she hasn't written anything new or enlightened?

This thread has been interesting.  Scott has gone to great lengths to say that it isn't the position of the church that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

Well, that is exactly the conclusion she arrived at and stated as her first point!

Have you two even read the op-ed?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Excuse me? You hijack the thread and gripe at others' posting decisions? 

What?  How have I hijacked the thread?

And I am not griping at others' posting decisions... I was responding to the assertion (repeated a few times now) that what the author of the op-ed brings up has already been discussed and is now just beating a dead horse (per Robert's emoji). 

Am I mistaken to assume the thread was meant to be about the article cited in the OP?  And if someone feels that the points in the OP have already been covered and are no longer worth discussing, they don't need to participate. 

[cinepro]

For those who are arguing that the Church acknowledges the fallibility of the Prophet (at this time, President Monson), can you please share some of the things the Church has acknowledged President Monson has been wrong about since he became Prophet?  If you can't find anything, can you share some of the things you personally think he has been wrong about?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Okay... So now the issue is that she hasn't written anything new or enlightened?

This thread has been interesting.  Scott has gone to great lengths to say that it isn't the position of the church that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

Well, that is exactly the conclusion she arrived at and stated as her first point!

Have you two even read the op-ed?

I apparently read it more carefully than you did, and Scott is correct:  She made fundamental errors.  It is likely that you like what she says so much simply because you are likewise unfamiliar with LDS history, theology, and the like.  I don't really care whether a person is a right or left wing Mormon, an anti- or pro-Mormon, I am simply not comfortable with folklore and nonsense purveyed as the real thing.  I don't care who it comes from.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, cinepro said:

For those who are arguing that the Church acknowledges the fallibility of the Prophet (at this time, President Monson), can you please share some of the things the Church has acknowledged President Monson has been wrong about since he became Prophet?  If you can't find anything, can you share some of the things you personally think he has been wrong about?

Who on this board has been claiming that Pres Monson has made specific errors lately?  What I have heard said, and I have said it myself, is that the Brethren are men like you and me, cinepro, subject to error.  Joseph Smith used to say to the Mormon people:  "If you will bear with my infirmities, I will bear with yours."  He also said: "A prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as such."  Does that mean that any of the current Brethren (singly or collectively) have made errors lately?  I have heard many complaints in recent years about decisions made by LDS leaders, a lot of those complaints made on this board.  So, you have a good many negative claims to choose from, cinepro.  Are there any you would like to specifically apply to Pres Monson, or to his associates as a group?  Since they are humans and not infallible gods, I suspect that there are specific policies advanced by the Brethren which are not necessarily good, better, or best.  Or are you saying that Pres Monson and his associates are infallible, in order to negate the claims many of us make that he is fallible.  You ought to be willing to argue your point (whatever it is) with some specific evidence.  Otherwise it seems like you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  You can't have it both ways, cinepro.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I apparently read it more carefully than you did, and Scott is correct:  She made fundamental errors.  It is likely that you like what she says so much simply because you are likewise unfamiliar with LDS history, theology, and the like.  I don't really care whether a person is a right or left wing Mormon, an anti- or pro-Mormon, I am simply not comfortable with folklore and nonsense purveyed as the real thing.  I don't care who it comes from.

What fundamental errors did she make?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

What fundamental errors did she make?

Well, we could start with the glaring error just noted by Scott, "the disavowed ward teacher message of the 1940s."   Do you in any way dispute that?  Do you have any idea what he is talking about?  Do you have any idea how to judge the remainder of her false claims?  C'mon, rockpond, you either know something about Mormon history and theology, or you do not.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I just got done explaining to you that there has been no blind obedience on my part because the Lord has revealed  to me the same revelations the leaders have received. Blind obedience is obeying without confirmatory personal revelation. And just because I've found the leaders to be consistently reliable and in harmony with my very own personal revelations from God, that  doesn't mean my revelatory experiences aren't authentic and true. I could just as easily say you are the one who consistently finds fault with the leaders because their revelations and inspired teachings don't square with your preconceived ideas. 

One significant difference between you and I is my ability to see both the good and the bad. I can cite examples of good things leaders have done as well as the bad. You seem unwilling or incapable of even accepting the idea that a prophet could make significant mistakes.

If you cannot see errors in prophets and apostles then you're not being open. You are willfully blinding yourself to the possibility that they could be in error because you assume they will always be right and that God will always confirm to you that they are. There's not much more to say about it so I'll leave it at that.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, we could start with the glaring error just noted by Scott, "the disavowed ward teacher message of the 1940s."   Do you in any way dispute that?  Do you have any idea what he is talking about?  

Let's not go there again.  I think most on here have to acknowledge that the disavowal (a private letter) was not published or released to the general membership like the original ward teaching message was.  I doubt very few members ever saw it or even knew it existed.  It was not published back when the letter was written.  I have to believe that even today, most haven't seen it or know about it  (even after it was posted on FairMormon).

But, moving on from this point....

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Do you have any idea how to judge the remainder of her false claims?

Can you be specific here for discussion purposes?  Which "false claims" are you referring to?

.

Edited May 6, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, USU78 said:

Excuse me? You hijack the thread and gripe at others' posting decisions? 

How did he "hijack the thread"?  Rockpond is discussing the topic in the OP.  

[rockpond]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, we could start with the glaring error just noted by Scott, "the disavowed ward teacher message of the 1940s."   Do you in any way dispute that?  Do you have any idea what he is talking about?  Do you have any idea how to judge the remainder of her false claims?  C'mon, rockpond, you either know something about Mormon history and theology, or you do not.

But she agrees with you and Scott that the statement from the 1945 Ward Teachers message is not correct.  So what is her error?