Iron Rod Saints and Liahona Saints

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course you are offended and ashamed of your and your ancestors' failure to be anxiously and directly engaged in the civil rights cause.  You prefer to hem and haw, instead of dealing with the issue we were discussing.

Wow..just wow..why is Robert not thread banned here?

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course you are offended and ashamed of your and your ancestors' failure to be anxiously and directly engaged in the civil rights cause.  You prefer to hem and haw, instead of dealing with the issue we were discussing.

Robert, seriously over the top here. You are making claims you couldn't possibly back up. You seem to be intentionally trying to offend by making accusations against Sunstoned and his ancestors. This is really strange and harmful. Please reconsider.

[MiserereNobis]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course you are offended and ashamed of your and your ancestors' failure to be anxiously and directly engaged in the civil rights cause.  You prefer to hem and haw, instead of dealing with the issue we were discussing.

Tone it down, man.

[ALarson]

On 7/24/2017 at 11:43 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Pretending that Brigham was wrong on everything may be ideologically comforting, but it isn't historical.

Where did he state that Brigham was wrong on "everything"?  It's obvious that he was referring to the topic being discussed and your following attacks on him here are uncalled for (he's even clarified what he meant several times).  I don't know what your history with sunstoned is or why your're personally attacking him, but I hope he's reported you.

Edited July 28, 2017 by ALarson

[JulieM]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course you are offended and ashamed of your and your ancestors' failure to be anxiously and directly engaged in the civil rights cause. 

Wow, Robert!  Way over the top.  How do you know about what Sunstoned's ancestors did or didn't do, or even who they all are?

Edited July 28, 2017 by JulieM

[RevTestament]

On 7/23/2017 at 8:15 AM, Five Solas said:

To be sure, unfairness, cruelty and slave-like conditions persisted after the American Civil War.  The penal system used against African Americans in the South was horrific by any standard. And no one is suggesting the struggle for civil rights and human dignity is over.  But let's please not use that to diminish Lincoln's massive accomplishment and/or pretend that the ensuing struggle for civil rights somehow proves Brigham Young was right all along.

That's my point here, Robert F. Smith.  You're now returned to your regularly scheduled thread.

--Erik

You are correct. Racism is not slavery. However, slavery has continued elsewhere in the world, notably in Islamic countries like Yemen, so if read broadly BY was right about that. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Wow, Robert!  Way over the top.  How do you know about what Sunstoned's ancestors did or didn't do, or even who they all are?

I felt free to assume it based on the hypocrisy of his comments.  Of course, if shown to be wrong, I'd be happy to apologize.

[RevTestament]

On 7/22/2017 at 5:56 PM, SteveO said:

http://www.zionsbest.com/people.html

Here is the article I'm referencing.

I hope he doesn't mind, but I've been thinking lately on some of the posts from California Boy.  I keep thinking how sincere he comes across in feeling at peace with his decision to stay on the outside of the church, and what a tragedy for the church to not have him actively participating.

And so I came across this article titled What the Church Means to People Like Me.  There's a ton of stuff in it and I encourage everyone to read it.  He speaks about two different groups in the church, Iron Rod Saints and Liahona Saints.  The Iron Rod Saint does not look for questions, but for answers, and in the Gospel--as he understands it--he finds or is confident that he can find the answer to every important question. The Liahona Saint, on the other hand, is preoccupied with questions and skeptical of answers; he finds in the Gospel--as he understands it--answers to enough important questions so that he can function purposefully without answers to the rest.

A few highlights that stood out to me:

"A point to underscore in terms of our objective of "unity of the faith" is that Iron Rods and Liahonas have great difficulty understanding each other--not at the level of intellectual acceptance of the right to peaceful co-existence, but at the level of personal communion, of empathy. To the Iron Rod a questioning attitude suggests an imperfect faith; to the Liahona an unquestioning spirit betokens a closed mind. Neither frequent association nor even prior personal involvement with the other group guarantees empathy. Indeed, the person who has crossed the line is likely to be least sympathetic and tolerant toward his erstwhile kindred spirits"

 

"As for the authority of the Latter-day prophets, the Liahona Saint finds consensus among them on Gospel fundamentals but far-ranging diversity on many important issues. The record shty on many important issues. The record shows error, as in Brigham Young's statements about the continuation of slavery, and it shows change of counsel, as in the matter of gathering to Zion. It shows differences of opinion--Heber J. Grant and Reed Smoot on the League of Nations, and David O. McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith on the process of creation. To the Liahonas, the "living oracles" are God's special witnesses of the Gospel of Christ and His agents in directing the affairs of the Church, but like the scriptures, they leave many important questions unanswered, or uncertainly answered."

"The Iron Rod proposition that the Spirit will supply what the prophets have not gives difficulty on both philosophical and experimental grounds. Claims that prayer is an infallible, almost contractual, link between God and man through the Holy Spirit find Liahona Mormons perplexed by the nature of the evidence. As a method of confirming truth, the witness of the Spirit demonstrably has not produced uniformity of Gospel interpretation even among Iron Rod Saints, and it is allegedly by the witness of that same Spirit--by the burning within--that many apostates pronounce the whole Church in error. As a method of influencing the course of events, it seems unpredictable and some of the miracles claimed for it seem almost whimsical. By the prayer of faith one man recovers his lost eyeglasses; in spite of such prayer, another man goes blind of such prayer, another man goes blind."

"Both kinds of Latter-day Saints serve the Church. They talk differently and apparently think and feel differently about the Gospel, but as long as they avoid the extremes just mentioned, they share a love for and commitment to the Church. They cannot therefore be distinguished on the basis of attendance at meetings, or participation on welfare projects, or contributions, or faithfulness in the performance of callings. They may or may not be hundred percenters, but the degree of their activity is not a function of type, insofar as I have been able to observe."

I think depending on the topic, I find myself in both camps.  I don't question church leadership or criticize them.  I think it is a dangerous road to go down.  But I am starting to think more and more that members need different things, and that a rough "customization" is possible.  I really do not like church.  I will straight up skip elder's quorum most Sundays.  I just get emotionally exhausted dealing with fellow members.  I do the church's service projects that I see as valuable, and absolutely refuse to help people when they move.  I struggle with prayers, but love scripture study.  Stuff that I've felt guilty over, but I think I shouldn't have to.

So what are your opinions?  Where do you fall?  Is there a way to "customize" the gospel to fit specific needs?  Does any of this sound familiar to our interactions on this board?Thoughts?  

 

PS:  And for goodness sake DO NOT turn this into a thread on the church's stance on homosexuality!!!  Please and thank you  

I generally do not like labels (name calling) but I acknowledge some truth to these two camps. Like you I believe I am in both camps. I am a searcher, and my search does not end by joining the Church or by attending Church. The aspect of Church I do not care for is that leadership expects others to have an open mind to new truths, but yet when people join they are often told not to listen to critics, etc. I generally just ignore that advice, because I do not wish to change my fundamental nature. In a large measure over the last 20 years my experience with Church has felt something like it attempts to program me to spit back "the truth" presented in Sunday School. There is no room for investigation, etc. While I do not believe SS should be a time for debate, the reactions I have gotten when speaking or raising options outside of the correlated "truth" have usually been unpleasant, which has left me with somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth. I love the restored gospel, and those truths I accept I strongly follow and defend(my Iron Rod side), but I think members need to learn to be more patient with others with diverse views. I am not going to stop searching just because someone feels it is dangerous to question. I joined the Church because I questioned the "truths" taught me while growing up. I still question the "truths" espoused by the Church as well. For this reason I do not accept everything taught by past GAs such as BY, as I somewhat frequently state.

However, I do believe this Church gives me the right to exercise my free agency to pursue truth wherever I may find it, and that is my goal. My goal is not to follow everything every leader has said. Just because the Church has the true gospel does not mean everything they have said is truth, and this they partially acknowledge. Kimball disavowed BY's so called Adam-God doctrine, which I find truth in. Fully understanding the nature of God is just not something upon which our salvation has traditionally hinged. "Customizing" the gospel is just something I guess I have pursued on my own terms. I accept the basic gospel as taught by the Church when speaking of the gospel of salvation but anything beyond that which may not really be "gospel" such as the nature of God, I have pursued on my own. I believe any "customizing" of it will be done by God - or at least revealed by God.

I'm not sure why you don't like Church, but as time has passed, I have grown less satisfied with it. Gospel doctrine seems more like gospel basics to me with a tough of indoctrination to boot. That is the part I do not like. But I realize the Church is not going to change, at least not fast enough to suit me, so I go down the paths my questioning has opened up, and pray about new things I encounter. Hopefully, others will eventually benefit from my journey. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Where did he state that Brigham was wrong on "everything"?  It's obvious that he was referring to the topic being discussed and your following attacks on him here are uncalled for (he's even clarified what he meant several times).  I don't know what your history with sunstoned is or why your're personally attacking him, but I hope he's reported you.

Wrong, Larson.  I was responding to Five Solas, when Sunstoned interjected as follows::

Quote

 

 

Quote

 On 7/25/2017 at 9:55 PM, sunstoned said:

Robert,

I have never said that he was wrong on everything.  In fact, that is a straw man meant to deflect.  What I said he was a racist, and it the area of race, he was very wrong.  You know his teachings on this matter as well as I do. 

 

I replied to Five Solas on one single issue of de facto slavery in America for a century following the Emancipation Proclamation.  You spoke to him on that issue as follows: 

Quote

 

Sunstoned replied:

Agreed.  No one today "clearly agrees with Brigham Young" on issues of slavery.  For whatever reason, he was a racist.  He said and preached terrible racist things. IMO it is best for both leaders and latter day saints to just agree that teachings of the past were were wrong, we apologize and we are moving on.

That blanket statement was false, and you failed to accept the actual sorry history in America of the systematic enslavement of Black people under color of Jim Crow, etc.  I did not in anyway condemn Lincoln, or try to justify Brigham's racism.   In fact I have frequently condemned Brigham's racism on this board (and emphatically took the Orson Pratt position instead).  So much for your phony straw man claim.  I give no quarter for either you or Brigham in the formulation of false teachings -- in either history or religion..

My main point throughout has been that Brigham was quite correct that slavery would not end with the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th amendment.  That sticks in the craw of some people who don't care for a factual analysis of  history.  Even the Kerner Commission came up with a similar conclusion, which LBJ could not abide and rejected.

Quote

President Lyndon Johnson formed an 11-member National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders in July 1967 to explain the riots that plagued cities each summer since 1964 and to provide recommendations for the future. The Commission’s 1968 report, informally known as the Kerner Report, concluded that the nation was “moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.” Unless conditions were remedied, the Commission warned, the country faced a “system of ’apartheid’” in its major cities. The Kerner report delivered an indictment of “white society” for isolating and neglecting African Americans and urged legislation to promote racial integration and to enrich slums—primarily through the creation of jobs, job training programs, and decent housing. President Johnson, however, rejected the recommendations. In April 1968, one month after the release of the Kerner report, rioting broke out in more than 100 cities following the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. In the following excerpts from the Kerner Report summary, the Commission analyzed patterns in the riots and offered explanations for the disturbances. In 1998, 30 years after the issuance of the Report, former Senator and Commission member Fred R. Harris co-authored a study that found the racial divide had grown in the ensuing years with inner-city unemployment at crisis levels. Opposing voices argued that the Commission’s prediction of separate societies had failed to materialize due to a marked increase in the number of African Americans living in suburbs.  http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6545/ .

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Pete Ahlstrom]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I felt free to assume it based on the hypocrisy of his comments.  Of course, if shown to be wrong, I'd be happy to apologize.

You really love the straw man argument.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

You really love the straw man argument.

Tu quoque.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Tu quoque.

Where have I ever purposefully presumed your position in order to refute it?  You just did so on this and the other thread with me.  In fact, your tu quoque response is itself a straw man and fallacious.  But who is really counting anyway?  I like your tenacity, though. You definitely have the harder side to be on.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Where have I ever purposefully presumed your position in order to refute it?  You just did so on this and the other thread with me.  In fact, your tu quoque response is itself a straw man and fallacious.  But who is really counting anyway?  I like your tenacity, though. You definitely have the harder side to be on.

This appears to be an infinite regress of straw men.  I always prefer substantive discussion, but that isn't what some others prefer.  Maybe finger-pointing is more fun . . .

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This appears to be an infinite regress of straw men.  I always prefer substantive discussion, but that isn't what some others prefer.  Maybe finger-pointing is more fun . . .

Sure, Robert. Let's move on.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Sure, Robert. Let's move on.

O.K.  Whereto?

poster removed

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Wrong, Larson.  I was responding to Five Solas, when Sunstoned interjected as follows::

My main point throughout has been that Brigham was quite correct that slavery would not end with the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th amendment.  That sticks in the craw of some people who don't care for a factual analysis of  history.  Even the Kerner Commission came up with a similar conclusion, which LBJ could not abide and rejected.

 

You made your point quite clearly.  Some may agree.  Others may disagree.  But what you seem to not be getting is that you don't have to start personal attacks against those that disagree with your point.  You owe him an apology.

[ALarson]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Wrong, Larson.  I was responding to Five Solas, when Sunstoned interjected as follows::

Members on here enter discussions all the time that are ongoing, so sunstoned did nothing wrong to contribute his thoughts.  You misinterpreted what he stated and he continued to clarify what he meant (which seemed clear to everyone but you from what I can tell).   Your personal attacks against him are wrong, no matter how hard you try to justify them. 

Edited July 29, 2017 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Members on here enter discussions all the time that are ongoing, so sunstoned did nothing wrong to contribute his thoughts.  You misinterpreted what he stated and he continued to clarify what he meant (which seemed clear to everyone but you from what I can tell).   Your personal attacks against him are wrong, no matter how hard you try to justify them. 

ALarson...I think we have become a rather entertaining idea for Robert.  In our attempts to give Mr. Smith a chance to apologize and/or make right on our comments (I believe on the third page), he has given us rep points...as if what we say is of no matter than a joke. 

If this comment from him had  come from anyone else..we would have been banned.. go figure...an apology is not necessary..he will remain and my apology thread will blow in the wind.  Oh...that I was as special as he..

Edited July 29, 2017 by Jeanne

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, ALarson said:

Members on here enter discussions all the time that are ongoing, so sunstoned did nothing wrong to contribute his thoughts.  You misinterpreted what he stated and he continued to clarify what he meant (which seemed clear to everyone but you from what I can tell).   Your personal attacks against him are wrong, no matter how hard you try to justify them. 

I did not suggest that it is somehow wrong to respond to someone else's comments. I do it all the time.  I was merely clarifying that Five Solas had in fact made a blanket statement, and I quoted it.  I interpret sunstoned's hypocrisy in that matter as a prime indicator of all talk and no action on the civil rights front.  He preferred to limit true civil rights action to Quakers and such, never apparently imagining that there are real activists and men of principle among the Mormons and others.  How typical and how infuriating to be hectored by someone who hasn't a foggy idea of how serious actual race problems might be.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Jeanne said:

ALarson...I think we have become a rather entertaining idea for Robert.  In our attempts to give Mr. Smith a chance to apologize and/or make right on our comments (I believe on the third page), he has given us rep points...as if what we say is of no matter than a joke. 

If this comment from him had  come from anyone else..we would have been banned.. go figure...an apology is not necessary..he will remain and my apology thread will blow in the wind.  Oh...that I was as special as he..

A joke.  Really?  I was actually being dead serious and respectful of the several demands that I apologize (hence the rep points), and suspected that you all might be at least half right -- if not more.  It is wise to take people at face value, i.e., as if they actually mean what they say, Jeanne.  Indeed, I am a bit surprised that I haven't been banned.  And, no, I am not comfortable with special privilege.  So, perhaps the mods see my argument as tenable and convincing, based on what was actually said by me and my opponents.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, california boy said:

You made your point quite clearly.  Some may agree.  Others may disagree.  But what you seem to not be getting is that you don't have to start personal attacks against those that disagree with your point.  You owe him an apology.

Yeh.  Here it is Sabbath eve and I might have to repent?  Based on alternative facts even.

[MiserereNobis]

I'm confused. It says "poster removed" above, yet Robert Smith has 3 posts after that...?

[Tacenda]

Does it bother anyone that there is secrecy from those that aren't orthodox LDS? They're afraid to tell their families, employers, friends, that they aren't believers. What does that say about a church? Where people have to hide how they feel for fear of losing everything. 

Shouldn't there be something out there, talks or whatnot to help these individuals living in a virtual prison of not being able to live authentically?

Any faith that causes this should do something. If a faith is like this, where they believe if you do not just believe in that one religion that you will be separated from family, how is this of God?

I'm also thinking of the Muslim faith, they are this stringent as well and a few other religions. I read posts all the time from individuals that are afraid to come out of the closet with their unbelief. They are college professors at the the church owned Universities, or they are employees at church headquarters or they are wives/husbands/young adults that are afraid to hurt their families etc. How is this in anyway of God, I ask again.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A joke.  Really?  I was actually being dead serious and respectful of the several demands that I apologize (hence the rep points), and suspected that you all might be at least half right -- if not more.  It is wise to take people at face value, i.e., as if they actually mean what they say, Jeanne.  Indeed, I am a bit surprised that I haven't been banned.  And, no, I am not comfortable with special privilege.  So, perhaps the mods see my argument as tenable and convincing, based on what was actually said by me and my opponents.

Gave a rep point back at ya..

[Calm]

"They're afraid to tell their families, employers, friends, that they aren't believers. What does that say about a church?"

Not much at all if that is all you have got.

Why does it automatically have to be the Church that is the issue and not the individual or family or local neighborhood dynamics?

There are many who grew up in the Church who are quite open and living "authentic lives".  I can think of half a dozen of the kids in my local neighborhood who by the time they were living on their own informed their parents they no longer believed, there are several youth in our ward where it is well known they have doubts.  There are several couples in our wards where it is known one spouse is a believer and the other isn't.  And I am in semirural Utah Valley, supposedly the deepest, darkest part of the Mormon culture.

Outside the Church I have heard kids say they could never tell their parents _______, heard adults say they can't be open with their spouse out of fear of being left, employees being less than open with employers.

Not living an "authentic life" can happen anywhere, as demonstrated it wasn't a phrase that began first in Mormon culture.  Unless you can demonstrate that it happens with a higher frequency within the general Mormon population, it is wrong to attach it to the Church.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Calm