Thoughts on Addressing a Struggle with, or Loss of, Faith

[Calm]

 

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

My wife has been wanting me to get rid of some old books.  I'm going to keep this one simply because I have to keep proving what was taught to me in seminary  

That is why I am keeping my husband's old institute Church History manuals.

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Quote

There are lots of good people, but that does not make them speakers for God.

I quite agree.  Joseph Smith and his successors were and are "speakers for God" not based on their general goodness (though it's there), but because of their being called and ordained by those in authority.

Quote

I think I've said this before to you before, but for me it came to a point of choosing between principles of what is right and church leaders' authority.

I don't understand the purported need to choose one to the exclusion of the other.

Thanks,

-Smac

It may be the same reason why you're not choosing to follow the Pope.

I still don't understand your position.  I don't follow the Pope because, though he is a good man, I don't believe he was called and ordained by those in authority.

Meanwhile, you are saying you had to choose "between" two things: A) "principles of what is right" and B) "church leaders' authority."  Again, I don't understand the purported need to choose one to the exclusion of the other.

Your comment ("It may be the same reason why you're not choosing to follow the Pope") does not clarify your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Islander]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Good points, these.

I would add this: When there is a "rare occasion when these (principles and authority) are at odds," it my perception that this is a manifestation of a misuse of authority, rather than a lack of authority.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not entirely sure, but, I am inclined to agree based on my personal (be it limited) experience.

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I disagree.  I know many who view them as having been given divine authority and yet have little to no inclination to idealize.  Some, including myself, even tend to judge them harsher than we would other men.

Idealizing appears to me to be closer to what happens to celebrities and those one chooses as one's heros or role models.people want to believe those they admire are worth admiring, are special.

It can still be idealising to believe some men have divine authority, even if you "judge them harsher."

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I still don't understand your position.  I don't follow the Pope because, though he is a good man, I don't believe he was called and ordained by those in authority.

Meanwhile, you are saying you had to choose "between" two things: A) "principles of what is right" and B) "church leaders' authority."  Again, I don't understand the purported need to choose one to the exclusion of the other.

Your comment ("It may be the same reason why you're not choosing to follow the Pope") does not clarify your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think it does. Just apply that same reasoning, but in the other direction: with more information, one can cease believing that they are called and ordained by those in authority. You haven't begun believing in the Pope for the same essential reason that I stopped believing in LDS leaders.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It can still be idealising to believe some men have divine authority, even if you "judge them harsher."

Is it idealizing to believe that some men have authority given to them by the government in your view?

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

I certainly understand. I have found, however, that it is a rare occasion when these (principles and authority) are at odds. And, if that would be the case, there are ways to persuade others of alternative courses of action. I lived a short timea in a ward where the Bishop was a very busy man. He was against holding parties or gathering in the church building way from official functions. This was NOT revelation or anything to do with the calling. It was simply his preference. I appealed to the scriptures and the discourses of the brethren to illustrate my point that holding events in church, aside from Sacrament, was a sound missionary opportunity. It took a few weeks but I prevailed. And I did not feel that I undermined his authority or violated a church principle. Being able to discern these things is very important. No one walks around in the Spirit or in sync with the Heavenly ALL the time. God ordained a host of very unlikely characters, through out history, to be an example and a real life illustration that we are all sinners but that His grace and mercy are sufficient to lift all men that repent. And we recognize that calling and accept their authority. But, like I said; we are all human and fallen and fallible. 

Well sometimes people are blessed with the opportunity to see them at odds, and critically so, to help them see the dilemma and make the choice.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is it idealizing to believe that some men have authority given to them by the government in your view?

It depends on the form of government. The more authoritarian, the more dangerous the idealising. A government can operate in a way that is more authoritative, and less (or not at all) authoritarian. That kind of government tends to be more accountable.

[Calm]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

It depends on the form of government. The more authoritarian, the more dangerous the idealising. A government can operate in a way that is more authoritative, and less (or not at all) authoritarian. That kind of government tends to be more accountable.

I think I see idealizing as a different process than you do.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Islander said:

Quote

I would add this: When there is a "rare occasion when these (principles and authority) are at odds," it my perception that this is a manifestation of a misuse of authority, rather than a lack of authority.

I am not entirely sure, but, I am inclined to agree based on my personal (be it limited) experience.

Let me illustrate: As an attorney, I regularly file paperwork in court and ask the judge to do something (such as, say, granting a motion to dismiss the case).  Now, let's say that the judge denies my motion on spurious grounds (such as the judge having a private, undisclosed hostility against my client).  I later find out that the judge acted improperly. 

If this were to happen, I would likely file an appeal, but the appeal would not be that the judge lacked authority.  I would also not challenge the authority of the State of Utah (which is the source of the adjudicative authority granted to the judge), or the authority of the United States (from which the State of Utah derives its authority).  I would not deny that the judge was invested with authority from the state to adjudicate legal disputes.  I would, instead, argue that the judge did have authority, but that he misused it.  Or that he acted outside its scope (in legal parlance, this would be called "ultra vires" - Latin for "beyond the powers" (meaning outside the scope of the judge's authority)).  A misuse of authority, yes.  But not an overall lack of authority.

I think similar principles apply to matters of governance, administration, authority, etc. in the Church.  An example: Many years ago I witnessed a bishop misuse his authority in a particular way.  In retrospect, I wish I had approached the bishop (privately) and offered an objection to his behavior.  I also wish I had written to the stake president about it.  If I had, I would not have done so by denying that the bishop has authority from the Church.  I also would not have challenged the authority of the Church.  As an observant member, I believe in the foundational theophanies by which Joseph Smith was ordained with priesthood power and authority, and I believe this authority continues to be held by the Church.  Consequently, my communications to the bishop and/or stake president would not have been about the bishop lacking authority, but rather misusing his authority.

Meadow seems to be conflating misuse of authority with an overall lack of authority.  I do not understand how she is doing this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

I still don't understand your position.  I don't follow the Pope because, though he is a good man, I don't believe he was called and ordained by those in authority.

Meanwhile, you are saying you had to choose "between" two things: A) "principles of what is right" and B) "church leaders' authority."  Again, I don't understand the purported need to choose one to the exclusion of the other.

Your comment ("It may be the same reason why you're not choosing to follow the Pope") does not clarify your position.

I think it does. Just apply that same reasoning, but in the other direction: with more information, one can cease believing that they are called and ordained by those in authority.

I still don't understand.  You seem to be saying you "cease{d} believing that they are called and ordained by those in authority," and that this occurred because "they" did something wrong.  Is that a correct summary of your position?  If so, who is "they," and what was it that they did which was "wrong"?

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You haven't begun believing in the Pope for the same essential reason that I stopped believing in LDS leaders.

I don't believe the was called and ordained by those in authority.  But that is disconnected from anything he did or did not do.

You, however, seem to be pointing to some person(s) in authority in the Church having done something wrong, and that their actions falsify the theophanies of Joseph Smith (by which their authority originates).  Is that a correct statement of your position?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

On 3/23/2020 at 7:48 PM, smac97 said:

I still don't understand.  You seem to be saying you "cease{d} believing that they are called and ordained by those in authority," and that this occurred because "they" did something wrong.  Is that a correct summary of your position?  If so, who is "they," and what was it that they did which was "wrong"?

I don't believe the was called and ordained by those in authority.  But that is disconnected from anything he did or did not do.

You, however, seem to be pointing to some person(s) in authority in the Church having done something wrong, and that their actions falsify the theophanies of Joseph Smith (by which their authority originates).  Is that a correct statement of your position?

Thanks,

-Smac

What I witnessed and personally experienced was a misuse of ostensible authority. This impacted the spiritual process wherein I understood that their ostensible authority was also wrong and against what I believe God would approve.

In short, I no longer believe that a good and just God would authorize the level of authority claimed by Joseph Smith or current church leaders. I think it is fundamentally wrong.

ETA: While like most of us I previously in my life observed misuse of authority in the church, I think that my intention to make righteous decisions in the midst of the intensity of that conflict really laid open that fundamental problem of LDS authority claims.

Edited March 25, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

On 3/23/2020 at 7:37 PM, Calm said:

I think I see idealizing as a different process than you do.

As far as I can tell, the line of conversation stemmed from Thinking's statement:

Quote

Blame the idealized narrative that the Church presented for so many years.

as a response to SMAC saying

Quote

My sense is that some members of the Church are harboring idealized, unrealistic expectations about the Church, and its leaders and members, and its history.  This is the "perfect" part of Voltaire's maxim.

An idealized narrative about the church is more than just the formation of "ideal" leaders. Among many things like the historical narrative, it can include ideals of how the church works in human life and then the implications of how we respond to it. Some might, for example, place the church in a binary as wholly on the good side as an institution, and thus anyone who disagrees with it or leaves it on a bad side. Yet a more rational approach can be one that encompasses a church that is not just made by flawed leaders but is itself flawed, systemically and theologically, and that therefore there can be objections that are based on legitimate evaluations where, for a given person, the righteous benefit of leaving outweighs staying.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

I still don't understand.  You seem to be saying you "cease{d} believing that they are called and ordained by those in authority," and that this occurred because "they" did something wrong.  Is that a correct summary of your position?  If so, who is "they," and what was it that they did which was "wrong"?

I don't believe the was called and ordained by those in authority.  But that is disconnected from anything he did or did not do.

You, however, seem to be pointing to some person(s) in authority in the Church having done something wrong, and that their actions falsify the theophanies of Joseph Smith (by which their authority originates).  Is that a correct statement of your position?

What I witnessed and personally experienced was a misuse of ostensible authority.

By qualifying "authority" as being "ostensible" (as in "stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so"), you seem to be wanting to have it both ways.

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

This impacted the spiritual process wherein I understood that their ostensible authority was also wrong and against what I believe God would approve.

If authority is non-existent, then it cannot be "misused."  

However, I quite agree that extant authority can be misused.  To be sure, the scriptures specifically address and condemn the abuse of priesthood authority:

Quote

36 {T}he rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and {}t the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 ... {The honors of men} may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

So for me, I do not see how the misuse of authority by, say, a bishop in 2020 retroactively affects the verity of the theophanies of Joseph Smith (by which priesthood authority was restored to the earth).  Either those events happened, or they did not.  If they did happen, then either that priesthood authority has been preserved to the present day, or it has not.  If that priesthood authority has been preserved, then it is possible for some of those who hold it to misuse it.  If that happens, then such circumstances should be addressed and corrected.

The misuse of authority contemplates the existence of that authority.  

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In short, I no longer believe that a good and just God would authorize the level of authority claimed by Joseph Smith or current church leaders. I think it is fundamentally wrong.

I am curious, then, how you account for the "level of authority" claimed by biblical prophets and apostles.

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

ETA: While like most of us I previously in my life observed misuse of authority in the church, I think that my intention to make righteous decisions in the midst of the intensity of that conflict really laid open that fundamental problem of LDS authority claims.

What is that "fundamental problem"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By qualifying "authority" as being "ostensible" (as in "stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so"), you seem to be wanting to have it both ways.

Well I have to have some way to talk about it that does not presume the church has divine authority. Such language is essential if one is going to question whether such authority exists.

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By qualifying "authority" as being "ostensible" (as in "stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so"), you seem to be wanting to have it both ways.

One must think about it from both ways to even approach a rational evaluation I think.

Of course the church has authority over itself, as an institution. The core question to me is the claims of divine authority, but of course the use of authority in both contexts is relevant to the existence (or lack of) of divine authority.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So for me, I do not see how the misuse of authority by, say, a bishop in 2020 retroactively affects the verity of the theophanies of Joseph Smith (by which priesthood authority was restored to the earth).  Either those events happened, or they did not.  If they did happen, then either that priesthood authority has been preserved to the present day, or it has not.  If that priesthood authority has been preserved, then it is possible for some of those who hold it to misuse it.  If that happens, then such circumstances should be addressed and corrected

The misuse of authority can occur in the context of a broader spiritual experience and thus inform broader spiritual questions, like the theophanies of Joseph Smith.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The misuse of authority contemplates the existence of that authority.  

I agree, the misuse of authority cannot occur if the authority does not exist, that's why I qualified it above. If the church has no divine authority, then it cannot misuse divine authority, only the lesser, institutional authority.

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am curious, then, how you account for the "level of authority" claimed by biblical prophets and apostles.

What is that "fundamental problem"?

How do I account for the level of authority claimed by Biblical prophets and apostles? Are you asking how I can explain the divine authority of Biblical prophets and apostles? If so, I don't account for it, I reject the validity of such claims to authority.

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What is that "fundamental problem"?

The fundamental problem is when humans claim that they stand as the necessary go-between for God and man.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Quote

In short, I no longer believe that a good and just God would authorize the level of authority claimed by Joseph Smith or current church leaders. I think it is fundamentally wrong.

I am curious, then, how you account for the "level of authority" claimed by biblical prophets and apostles.

What is that "fundamental problem"?

How do I account for the level of authority claimed by Biblical prophets and apostles?

Yes.  The OT prophets claimed to have substantial authority.  Do you reject all of those claims?

Same question for the NT prophets and apostles.

The Bible is shot through which claims to authority which, according to you, are "fundamentally wrong."  So I'm curious if you have rejected the biblical prophets/apostles' claims to divine authority along with the claims made by Joseph Smith and the Church's current leaders.

Quote

Are you asking how I can explain the divine authority of Biblical prophets and apostles? If so, I don't account for it, I reject the validity of such claims to authority.

Well, that's clear enough.  You reject the Bible in its entirety, then?

For example, per Mark 3, Jesus "ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach."  

In Matthew 16, Jesus told Peter: "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  

In Luke 9, Jesus "called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.  And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick."

You reject all of these?

Quote

The fundamental problem is when humans claim that they stand as the necessary go-between for God and man.

So you reject the very idea of such "go-betweens."  In your view, God never calls prophets, apostles, etc.?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 25, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  The OT prophets claimed to have substantial authority.  Do you reject all of those claims?

Same question for the NT prophets and apostles.

The Bible is shot through which claims to authority which, according to you, are "fundamentally wrong."  So I'm curious if you have rejected the biblical prophets/apostles' claims to divine authority along with the claims made by Joseph Smith and the Church's current leaders.

Well, that's clear enough.  You reject the Bible in its entirety, then?

For example, per Mark 3, Jesus "ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach."  

In Matthew 16, Jesus told Peter: "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  

In Luke 9, Jesus "called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.  And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick."

You reject all of these?

So you reject the very idea of such "go-betweens."  In your view, God never calls prophets, apostles, etc.?

Thanks,

-Smac

I reject any claim that humans stand as the necessary go-between for God and man. So I am sure that this does not represent a rejection of the Bible entire. I reject the concept of man having divine authority, however, I do not reject the possibility that people can operate under divine influence or inspiration. There is a line beyond which it is wrong to cross.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I reject any claim that humans stand as the necessary go-between for God and man. So I am sure that this does not represent a rejection of the Bible entire.

"This does not represent a rejection of the Bible entire?"  How can it be anything but an "entire" rejection?  The Bible was authored by people claiming to "stand as the necessary go-between for God and man."  The Biblical text/narrative positions Noah, Abraham, Moses, Peter, Paul, etc. as "the necessary go-between for God and man."

Quote

I reject the concept of man having divine authority, however, I do not reject the possibility that people can operate under divine influence or inspiration. There is a line beyond which it is wrong to cross.

So Moses did not have "divine authority?"  He claimed to speak for God, and this was "a line ... which ... is wrong to cross?"

Per Mark 3, Jesus "ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach."  And in Luke 9, he "called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.  And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick."  If Jesus "ordained" then men and "gave them power and authority," how is that "wrong"?

In Matthew 16, Jesus told Peter: "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  As you reject this, however, what was it that Jesus was doing here, if not giving Peter "divine authority?"

I'm struggling to understand how you can reject the idea of prophets, and yet retain belief in prophetic writings.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26, 2020 by smac97

[Navidad]

To use Smac's illustration of the authority of the judge in modern days - If Smac's Utah judge tried to subject folks in Vermont to his "authority" they would not agree to that, would they? His or her authority stops at the border of Colorado or Arizona, right? One would have to go all the way up to the supreme court to find judges who have authority over all the USA, is that not right? Even then, they could cross the border here into Mexico and try to exercise their authority. They would be respected; they would also be ignored.

I don't question the authority of the LDS general authorities (that is their name after all) in the LDS church. It is clear they can shut down services in the LDS community all over the world with one email. They exert phenomenal authority and power (two different things) over one of a number of highly hierarchical Christian groups. They cannot, by authority shut down services in a Catholic church in SLC, Utah or anywhere else. They could only do that by force, but not by a Biblical authority. That is a pragmatic reality.

No LDS priesthood holder has authority over baptism, sacrament, or any other ordinance in any other Christian church in this dispensation. That is reality. To claim such is to deny reality.  In two Christian groups I have held certain levels of authority. At no time did I ever think of walking into an LDS chapel and declaring my authority because that would be categorically rejected regardless of what I claimed to be the truth. Wouldn't it? In fact I am consistently reminded of that: I wasn't baptized by someone with authority; I wasn't confirmed by someone with authority; I wasn't married by someone in authority, and so on. By the same token, I would reject the authority claims of any LDS leader unless I was in an LDS ward, which I often am. If I am going to place myself on a Sunday morning in an LDS ward; I will logically and consistently place myself under their authority. Whenever I engage in ward or stake activities I am under their authority. That is my chosen reality.  When I drive in Utah, I place myself under Utah authorities. Oh, I can drive legally in Utah with my Chihuahua driver's license. I will drive legally in heaven, not by virtue of my Mennonite license, but by virtue of the shed blood of Christ and my commitment to that. I am sure of that. Christ's atonement, mercy, and grace is somehow mingled with my faith to form my heavenly license and passport. Nothing else. 

In the same way I do not believe that any LDS leader will have authority in heaven. Neither will any Mennonite or Catholic have authority there. Neither will Peter, Paul, Moses, or Elijah. Heaven is God's kingdom. He will be the authority there. It is His and His alone. There will be no Mormons, Mennonites, Methodists, or Catholics in heaven. There will only be those who God judges worthy to be there regardless of earthly affiliation or the lack thereof. Deciding who that will be, will be way over any human's pay grade. The original purpose, intent, and structure of the New Testament church will finally be restored under God's leadership in heaven. No man or woman (prophet or otherwise) will be in charge of anything in heaven. Not Menno Simons, Peter, James, John, Moses, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham, Mother Teresa, or any other human will have any authority in heaven. 

So, I fully believe in the existence of authority, but I believe that like Smac's judge that authority is limited to one branch of Christianity in this dispensation, however long it lasts. Today there are many branches and thus, many authorities. It is an imperfect system. Then in the heavenly dispensation all authority will reside in the One who created authority and who has allowed it be scattered around His Kingdom in this dispensation in a still imperfect way. I Cor 13 makes it really clear: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." Twice these verses use the word "then." When is the "then?" When the perfect is come. That didn't happen when the Catholic church was founded. The perfect wasn't in the Protestant Reformation. The perfect did not arrive in 1820. The perfect will never exist in the imperfect state of this dispensation. The perfect is translated from the Greek telion. It means "complete." The perfect comes when history is complete and eternity takes over. It (the perfect) will exist in the heavenly kingdom - the perfect state of heaven when in righteousness and truth Heavenly Father and Christ will reign. Now that's authority!  I have said a lot here. I hope no one suggests I am criticizing the LDS church. I am merely stating what I believe about authority, its bounds and limitations in this dispensation and the next. Please don't suggest I am trolling (a new word I learned here), criticizing, or maligning anyone's faith. I am for once simply stating my own beliefs (opinions, convictions, truth, etc.)  A number of you have encouraged me to do that. So I just did!  

Edited March 27, 2020 by Navidad

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

"This does not represent a rejection of the Bible entire?"  How can it be anything but an "entire" rejection?  The Bible was authored by people claiming to "stand as the necessary go-between for God and man."  The Biblical text/narrative positions Noah, Abraham, Moses, Peter, Paul, etc. as "the necessary go-between for God and man."

So Moses did not have "divine authority?"  He claimed to speak for God, and this was "a line ... which ... is wrong to cross?"

Per Mark 3, Jesus "ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach."  And in Luke 9, he "called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.  And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick."  If Jesus "ordained" then men and "gave them power and authority," how is that "wrong"?

In Matthew 16, Jesus told Peter: "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  As you reject this, however, what was it that Jesus was doing here, if not giving Peter "divine authority?"

I'm struggling to understand how you can reject the idea of prophets, and yet retain belief in prophetic writings.

Thanks,

-Smac

I can agree with writings because of their merit alone, independent of any presumption that they are divinely supported. That's not a complicated concept.

Claiming to speak for God is a huge claim. If I suddenly claimed to speak for God to you and you were somehow inclined to believe me, that would be an enormous amount of power and influence I would have over you and over anyone else who acted similarly. I reject that kind of relationship between people, and between God and people.

I believe that, if God exists, God is good. Therefore I do don't believe that God obligates any person to abdicate their relationship to God to a human go-between, not even a partial abdication. No. And I don't say that without remembering the LDS caveat of confirmation. 

I do not believe that authoritarian spirituality is good.

[Bob Crockett]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I reject any claim that humans stand as the necessary go-between for God and man. So I am sure that this does not represent a rejection of the Bible entire. I reject the concept of man having divine authority, however, I do not reject the possibility that people can operate under divine influence or inspiration. There is a line beyond which it is wrong to cross.

I call that New Age thought. 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I can agree with writings because of their merit alone, independent of any presumption that they are divinely supported. That's not a complicated concept.

So you look at the Bible as being writings with some interesting/useful things to say, but not involving inspiration from God?

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Claiming to speak for God is a huge claim. If I suddenly claimed to speak for God to you and you were somehow inclined to believe me, that would be an enormous amount of power and influence I would have over you and over anyone else who acted similarly.

I quite agree.

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I reject that kind of relationship between people, and between God and people.

I guess the question comes down to whether God establishes such relationships.  He sure seems to do that in the Bible.  A lot.  One might say that this state of things - God speaking to man through prophets - is the sine qua non of the Bible.  If that is rejected, then the Bible becomes a mere curiosity.  Useful suggestions, sure, but nothing more.  Certainly not influential in terms of helping us discern God's plan for us.

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I believe that, if God exists, God is good.

So do I.

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Therefore I do don't believe that God obligates any person to abdicate their relationship to God to a human go-between, not even a partial abdication. No.

I don't believe in such abdication, either.  Hence the Church's emphasis on personal revelation.

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And I don't say that without remembering the LDS caveat of confirmation. 

I do not believe that authoritarian spirituality is good.

I'm not sure what "authoritarian spirituality" means.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I call that New Age thought. 

I think it's simply valuing human beings and their agency.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what "authoritarian spirituality" means.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why don't you, isn't it clear? "Authoritarian" has clear meaning, and the only qualifier is the context, spirituality.

 

[Bob Crockett]

New Age thought emphasizes humanism.  The doctrine is actually as old as the hills and dates back to at least Erasmus. 

Read the poem Invictus. 

Humanism rejects the notion that submission to other people, or men if you are a woman, or to a god is necessary.