Jump to content

Reconciling bruce r. McConkie


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Teancum said:

a member if there is a non member present. 

Would telling them you are no longer a believer allow them to waive the requirement or would it prevent any meals, I wonder….

Link to comment
On 7/22/2021 at 9:20 AM, CV75 said:

Should He be displeased or disappointed with the direction the Church leaders are taking today, I think He would prick their conscience as He does ours;

I think this is an interesting expectation. To @Kevin Christensen
question, I wonder if this is a reasonable expectation. It seems like many of the hard questions around the Church include a "Why didn't God prick their conscience?" element.

In another direction, can we expect that God will sometimes use laypeople to prick their conscience? I know we are very uncomfortable with anything that looks like bottom up revelation, but maybe it happens?

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Emily said:

To my grandson, it's all about what is happening to the "ball" even though in reality, molecules bear no resemblance to stuck together balls, quantum levels do not resemble the rings of Saturn, and space is not a bedsheet. But it's a start. It's a necessary start for any student who will go on to learn the mathematical language  needed to understand higher concepts. Until a student is familiar with that language, they will NEVER understand what an atom really is or what "warping space" really means. But you can't teach babies advanced math in preschool, even though that's what is required to teach them the real truth

Well said, but of course we can never get beyond the limited vision our paltry senses and brains and devices allow- it is inevitable that humanity lives in a world of paradigms of their own invention, and never can arrive at "what really is". 

"Through a glass darkly" and all of that!

All we have is what works best for now until another paradigm comes along, while we try to look through the glass, mostly seeing our own image looking back at us ;)

But it sounds like your grandson could be one of those builders of future paradigms, that might just make everything we DO "know" better for all!   You sound like a wonderful grandma!

We are trying to do the same with our grandkids too! And our son now teaches STEAM and robotics in high school, carrying out the same dream, teaching math etc

Best wishes!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 7/23/2021 at 11:21 AM, Calm said:

Would telling them you are no longer a believer allow them to waive the requirement or would it prevent any meals, I wonder….

I tried that.  And "you mean a former bishop that is now an inactive member would not get you around that?"

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think this is an interesting expectation. To @Kevin Christensen
question, I wonder if this is a reasonable expectation. It seems like many of the hard questions around the Church include a "Why didn't God prick their conscience?" element.

In another direction, can we expect that God will sometimes use laypeople to prick their conscience? I know we are very uncomfortable with anything that looks like bottom up revelation, but maybe it happens?

Regarding bottom up revelation, it happens.  Todd Compton wrote an essay on that, about instances in conventional LDS historical accounts.  I watched him give the presentation upon which it is based.

https://sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/082-34-41.pdf

He notes that there is something to be learned from the cases in which it happens.  And there is something to be learned from the stories of people who have taken it upon themselves make it happen or else.

Nibley has a wonderful quote on that topic in "Brigham Young as a Leader", page 476-77 in Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints.  At moments like this I dearly miss the old Maxwell Institute website, with all Nibley available and easy to access and share.

And in all of this something to be learned from looking up the word "sustain" in a good dictionary.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment
5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think this is an interesting expectation. To @Kevin Christensen
question, I wonder if this is a reasonable expectation. It seems like many of the hard questions around the Church include a "Why didn't God prick their conscience?" element.

In another direction, can we expect that God will sometimes use laypeople to prick their conscience? I know we are very uncomfortable with anything that looks like bottom up revelation, but maybe it happens?

The way I see this is, if I were to receive a personal revelation about a socially-driven issue that the brethren hadn’t, I would honor it a) with a “There but for the grace of God there go I” humility, and b) avoiding the spirit of contention at all costs. This ties in with several of the nine expectations you first posted. God will either give us opportunities, or support appropriate proactive opportunities to share. Or He will tell us what He told the brother of Jared (Ether 3:21 in so many words: "Keep this to yourself."). This is why I place keeping the companionship of the Holy Ghost as the primary means to moderate expectations.

On the topic of the connection between authority, ordinances, blessings and fallibility, I just happened to come across this article in the Liahona today: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/08/authority-ordinances-and-preparation?lang=eng A couple of pertinent quotes:

“Ordinances and priesthood are inseparable. An ordinance is a sacred act of eternal significance, done with priesthood authority.”

“We are surrounded by challenges on all sides, but with faith in God, we trust in the blessings He has promised those who keep His commandments and prepare.”

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
On 7/22/2021 at 12:10 PM, JLHPROF said:

If it was actually a revelation then a new revelation won't contradict it.  Increasing light and knowledge means more information, not different.

This is another interesting expectation.it seems that some of the difficult issues involve difficulties judging what is "more" and what is "different." It seems that a big part of the splintering around The Manifesto was from judging that the shift to monogamy contradicted what had been said about polygamy, for just one example. Is it reasonable to expect that new revelation will never seem to contradict prior revelation?

Link to comment
On 7/23/2021 at 7:12 AM, Teancum said:

I can assure you that my level of understanding about things LDS has been and is well beyond primary level. 

Then you should refrain from "Primary language", particularly when it's been adjusted to the point that it is no longer true, even on a "Primary" level.

Regarding the phrase in question: "Members are taught to follow what the leaders say and not deviate"

I have never, at any point in my lifelong membership in the church heard this concept taught within the official curriculum of the church. Indeed, your phrase is the antithesis of "search, ponder and pray" and admonitions to seek personal testimonies of the doctrines of the church and guidance of the Prophet.

I have heard similar phrases used, but only in anti-Mormon literature, usually accompanied by quotes from early member diaries, speeches or notes (invariably out of context) that would appear to support the idea that the goal of the church is to turn members into mindless sheep that will happily drink poisoned koolaid on the basis of something their Bishop said at the ward BBQ. (Granted, there are members like that, but the church and it's doctrines don't encourage that kind of behavior.)

I was giving the benefit of the doubt, by assuming this comment was the result of "Primary understanding." If that is not the case, then my next assumption would be deliberate and hostile misrepresentation of church teachings.

I'm sure, however, that's not what you were trying to do, since you say you are not hostile to the church. So perhaps it was just a really badly phrased comment or joke.

Link to comment

@Kevin Christensen
I finally read the Compton essay, thanks for sharing it.

One statement stood out to me. In commenting on Paul and Peter's disagreements in the New Testament, Compton draws the conclusion that, "according to Paul, if we follow Church leaders who are not doing right, we are not absolved from wrongdoing; we share their guilt. And the conclusion is inescapable: sometimes obedience to Church leaders and obedience to God and moral justice are not the same thing"

It is interesting how this seems to contradict the idea from the popular Fourteen Fundamentals talk that we are blessed when following the prophet, even when the prophet is wrong.

Which version do we really believe? Or do we somehow believe both?

Link to comment

@Emily
I have not thoroughly scoured the curriculum, but I think it is over stated to claim that "follow the prophet" has never been taught. As one counter example, I first thought of Elder and Sister Rasband's face to face from Sept 2020 when they fielded a question about disagreements with the prophets (about the 18th minute, if you are looking at the video of the full event). In responding to the question, the double down on the follow the prophet message.

 As I mentioned up thread, I think we are taught both to follow the prophet and seek our own witness. I think part of the problem is that we assume that the resulting witness will unfailingly affirm the prophet's teaching. We never adequately address scenarios where the promised testimony does not come or we feel God is telling us something different.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Emily
I have not thoroughly scoured the curriculum, but I think it is over stated to claim that "follow the prophet" has never been taught. As one counter example, I first thought of Elder and Sister Rasband's face to face from Sept 2020 when they fielded a question about disagreements with the prophets (about the 18th minute, if you are looking at the video of the full event). In responding to the question, the double down on the follow the prophet message.

 As I mentioned up thread, I think we are taught both to follow the prophet and seek our own witness. I think part of the problem is that we assume that the resulting witness will unfailingly affirm the prophet's teaching. We never adequately address scenarios where the promised testimony does not come or we feel God is telling us something different.

Someone claimed that? It is taught quite a bit. It is not a central teaching but I think I got it as a kid at least once a year.

Also sang the “Follow the Prophet” Primary song a lot.

I have a conviction that following the prophet will not lead you away from exaltation or lead you to hell. Other then that the Prophet can make errors and mistakes and all the rest and even come up with reasoning behind commandments or one shot comments I don’t find helpful or just suspect are not accurate.

34 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Kevin Christensen
I finally read the Compton essay, thanks for sharing it.

One statement stood out to me. In commenting on Paul and Peter's disagreements in the New Testament, Compton draws the conclusion that, "according to Paul, if we follow Church leaders who are not doing right, we are not absolved from wrongdoing; we share their guilt. And the conclusion is inescapable: sometimes obedience to Church leaders and obedience to God and moral justice are not the same thing"

It is interesting how this seems to contradict the idea from the popular Fourteen Fundamentals talk that we are blessed when following the prophet, even when the prophet is wrong.

Which version do we really believe? Or do we somehow believe both?

I believe both.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Kevin Christensen

It is interesting how this seems to contradict the idea from the popular Fourteen Fundamentals talk that we are blessed when following the prophet, even when the prophet is wrong.

That talk has many doctrinal issues and some very brilliant insights.

Link to comment
On 7/23/2021 at 3:23 PM, Teancum said:

The why is because Joseph Smith was not a prophet and the truth claims around the foundation of the LDS Church are not true. 

I indend no humour in this post.  I am only posting to share a part of being human.  I have many times thought what would I feel when I die then being told Joseph was a fraud.  The first emotion would be anger, then disappointment.  And for myself then self hatred for being taken in.   I know after I settled down what I would think to console myself would be what a great fraud he committed.  I hope not to have that experience.

Edited by Metis_LDS
grammar
Link to comment
On 7/30/2021 at 4:17 PM, Emily said:

Regarding the phrase in question: "Members are taught to follow what the leaders say and not deviate"

I have never, at any point in my lifelong membership in the church heard this concept taught within the official curriculum of the church.

Really? From President Benson:

Quote

In a general conference of the Church, President N. Eldon Tanner stated:

“The Prophet spoke out clearly on Friday morning, telling us what our responsibilities are …

“A man said to me after that, ‘You know, there are people in our state who believe in following the Prophet in everything they think is right, but when it is something they think isn’t right, and it doesn’t appeal to them, then that’s different.’ He said, ‘Then they become their own prophet. They decide what the Lord wants and what the Lord doesn’t want.’

“I thought how true, and how serious when we begin to choose which of the covenants, which of the commandments we will keep and follow, we are taking the law of the Lord into our own hands and become our own prophets, and believe me, we will be led astray, because we are false prophets to ourselves when we do not follow the Prophet of God. No, we should never discriminate between these commandments, as to those we should and should not keep.” (CR, October 1966, p. 98.)

Sounds like we are being told to always follow what the prophet says not just what we think is right and correct. 

Link to comment
On 7/30/2021 at 6:17 PM, Emily said:

Then you should refrain from "Primary language", particularly when it's been adjusted to the point that it is no longer true, even on a "Primary" level.

Regarding the phrase in question: "Members are taught to follow what the leaders say and not deviate"

I have never, at any point in my lifelong membership in the church heard this concept taught within the official curriculum of the church. Indeed, your phrase is the antithesis of "search, ponder and pray" and admonitions to seek personal testimonies of the doctrines of the church and guidance of the Prophet.

I have heard similar phrases used, but only in anti-Mormon literature, usually accompanied by quotes from early member diaries, speeches or notes (invariably out of context) that would appear to support the idea that the goal of the church is to turn members into mindless sheep that will happily drink poisoned koolaid on the basis of something their Bishop said at the ward BBQ. (Granted, there are members like that, but the church and it's doctrines don't encourage that kind of behavior.)

I was giving the benefit of the doubt, by assuming this comment was the result of "Primary understanding." If that is not the case, then my next assumption would be deliberate and hostile misrepresentation of church teachings.

I'm sure, however, that's not what you were trying to do, since you say you are not hostile to the church. So perhaps it was just a really badly phrased comment or joke.

I will concede that the bolded comment above is an over statement.  But there certainly is a strong emphasis on following the LDS prophets and apostles.  I am sure you are ware of many comment about following the prophet and you would be blessed for it even if what he tells you to do is wrong.

P

Quote

 

resident Wilford Woodruff stated:

“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13.)

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him:

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

Indeed the entire talk liked above by Ezra Taft Benson is pretty solid on obeying and following the prophet.  And this talk is on the church web site and had been referenced the a few times in conference the past few years.  Allegedly Spencer Kimball was not happy with  President Benson about this talk but of course never publicly said so. 

 

So what is your take on this talk? Primary language perhaps? 😏

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I indend no humour in this post.  I am only posting to share a part of being human.  I have many times thought what would I feel when I die then being told Joseph was a fraud.  The first emotion would be anger, then disappointment.  And for myself then self hatred for being taken in.   I know after I settled down what I would think to console myself would be what a great fraud he committed.  I hope not to have that experience.

I am not sure I was intending humor.  I wish I could conclude differently. I have already experienced all the feelings I bolded above. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Really? From President Benson:

Sounds like we are being told to always follow what the prophet says not just what we think is right and correct. 

Prophets in the past may have made some mistakes in understanding doctrine correctly but as far as I can tell none of those mistakes have put my eternal life in jeopardy.
And even if they have it's on their heads and not mine, which still means my eternal life would not be in jeopardy? 😵

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure I was intending humor.

I knew you did not from your reading your previous posts over time.  I wanted to be sure that others did not think that I was trying to be funny.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JAHS said:

And even if they have it's on their heads and not mine, which still means my eternal life would not be in jeopardy? 😵

Not sure that's correct.  

https://images.app.goo.gl/USgiudm4ipcBxcrb9

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Prophetic counsel that would bring you to trial at Nuremberg is fortunately pretty rare.

Well, John D. Lee didn't fare so well.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, JAHS said:

Prophets in the past may have made some mistakes 

<snip>
And even if they have it's on their heads and not mine, which still means my eternal life would not be in jeopardy? 😵

How do you know that? Is that something that a fallible prophet told you? What if that’s one of their doctrinal mistakes?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Prophetic counsel that would bring you to trial at Nuremberg is fortunately pretty rare.

Perhaps prophetic counsel that is wrong to that extreme is rare. However, I would also say that many of the alleged errors are not morally neutral, either. I don't know if anyone in the 21st century would consider slavery or racial segregation or similar morally neutral, yet we find ourselves sometimes wrestling with why prophets and apostles seemed to be so accepting of these practices. In the sexology circles I frequent, we frequently wrestle with various issues like Pres. Kimball's attitude towards oral sex or other symptoms of "good girl syndrome" where much of the discussion focuses on making our own moral judgements because we don't feel we can rely on the opinions of prophets and apostles.

Perhaps prophetic mistakes will not bring us before Nuremberg like courts, but it still seems like these issues are morally significant.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How do you know that? Is that something that a fallible prophet told you? What if that’s one of their doctrinal mistakes?

President Heber H Grant once said:

"You always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it."

We can't suspect that everything they say might be wrong. We have to have some degree of trust and faith in them, otherwise there will be disorder in the church and in our minds.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...