Birth control

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would like to see a first person quote claiming that from anyone in the church.  "I am God's spokeperson on earth and ........"

Well perhaps not those exact words but the concept is certainly taught that the LDS prophet is how we get God's word.  That doesn't mean we cannot access God ourselves as well but the prophet has God's direction for the church in general.

Quote

 

D&C 5

9 Behold, verily I say unto you, I have ^areserved those things which I have entrusted unto you, my servant Joseph, for a wise purpose in me, and it shall be made known unto future generations;

10 But this generation shall have my word ^athrough you;

 

 

Then there is this "classic"

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

 

Quote

 

irst: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

In section 132, verse 7, of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks of the Prophet—the President—and says: “There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.”

Then in section 21, verses 4–6, the Lord states:

Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to “give heed unto all his words”—as if from the Lord’s “own mouth.”

 

Sounds like God's spokesperson to me.

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who's "teachings" where and when and in what context?   I don't understand how ambiguity is such a problem for folks.   We are ENCOURAGED to be our own PROPHET.  SOMETIMES. 

The problem word is "their". Over 200 years there have been a lot of people saying a lot of stuff, you seem to want to pick and choose which represents "the church".  So do I.  I follow the idea that there is no problem with picking and choosing- you are the one who apparantly sees that as a problem.

Well maybe.  BUt there are plenty of current statements by LDS leaders about the authority the  hold and that a devote member needs to follow them.  I just read an hear what they say.  This is not an infrequent subject or a few smatterings or statement here and there.

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"The Church" intentionally has no creed and avoids statements of "doctrine".  The articles of faith were originally a quick summary of some beliefs to answer a question in a newspaper.  More recently an incredibly ambiguous statement was officially issued about what "constitutes doctrine" which really defines nothing.

Here is the statement:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

So now tell me what "The Church Teaches?"

Yep pretty ambiguous. Referring to doctrine at least.

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Take your pick.

WE ARE TO BE GUIDED BY THE SPIRIT.   Why is this so hard to figure out?

The answer is found only by studying psychology, imo.

I don't think it is hard to figure out.  But I am not the one saying constantly to follow the brethern.

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

https://www.idsa.org/sites/default/files/Tolerance for Ambiguity by Paul Skaggs.pdf

This incidentally fits well with Radical Empiricism- all factors affecting the conclusion must be considered in deciding who will find the paradigm "true"

This is precisely why our church fits so well with postmodernism.  What is "your truth"?

This is why our Kevin Christensen repeats quotes about psychological maturity and the Perry Scheme.

https://www.jmu.edu/geology/_files/willperry21.pdf

 

 

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I didn’t mean it as a judgement of your life as a whole, but when you say stuff like “just believe like me and your life will be so much better” then you are inviting me to judge the merits of your life choices.

And the only thing I have to judge is your presence here.

Still better not to make such personal comments IMO.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I agree that misunderstanding, misinterpretation and ignorance of correct principles are still perpetuated in families and cultures, but leadership disavowal only addresses false principles on paper, and then people often still hold on to them. The disavowal only enables potential ecclesiastical discipline for apostasy. I don't see the subject / offending quotes as qualifying for disavowal.

Also incorrect. The disavowal lets faithful, rank and file members (who look to church leaders as prophets) know that those particular teachings are not supported by the church. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who's "teachings" where and when and in what context?   I don't understand how ambiguity is such a problem for folks.   We are ENCOURAGED to be our own PROPHET.  SOMETIMES. 

The problem word is "their". Over 200 years there have been a lot of people saying a lot of stuff, you seem to want to pick and choose which represents "the church".  So do I.  I follow the idea that there is no problem with picking and choosing- you are the one who apparantly sees that as a problem.

"The Church" intentionally has no creed and avoids statements of "doctrine".  The articles of faith were originally a quick summary of some beliefs to answer a question in a newspaper.  More recently an incredibly ambiguous statement was officially issued about what "constitutes doctrine" which really defines nothing.

Here is the statement:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

So now tell me what "The Church Teaches?"

Take your pick.

WE ARE TO BE GUIDED BY THE SPIRIT.   Why is this so hard to figure out?

The answer is found only by studying psychology, imo.

https://www.idsa.org/sites/default/files/Tolerance for Ambiguity by Paul Skaggs.pdf

This incidentally fits well with Radical Empiricism- all factors affecting the conclusion must be considered in deciding who will find the paradigm "true"

This is precisely why our church fits so well with postmodernism.  What is "your truth"?

This is why our Kevin Christensen repeats quotes about psychological maturity and the Perry Scheme.

https://www.jmu.edu/geology/_files/willperry21.pdf

 

This is all well and good. Members are encouraged to seek answers from the spirit. Unless they start getting answers that run counter to the brethren, then they lose their jobs at BYU. So yes members are encouraged to be their own prophets as long as they stay in line with current priesthood authorities. 

Edited January 3, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[webbles]

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is a very common misunderstanding. Elder Mcconkie disavowed only the timing of the ban reversal (which he previously said would come at the end of the millennium I believe but don’t quote me on it). He continued to teach the racist doctrine in his revised (post priesthood ban) book Mormon Doctrine which was on shelves until relatively recently. It was only after Bott that the church official distanced itself from this message. 

The race and the priesthood essays is the first disavowal. 

I think this actually agrees with my point.  I took Elder McConkie's statement as a disavowal.  I also took the race and the priesthood essays as a disavowal.  I found them both to be very direct.  But other members don't see those as disavowals.  They still teach the other theories.  There will always be people who either don't understand the disavowal, outright ignore it, misinterpret it, etc.  I'm not against the church leaders disavowing things and I'm glad that they do it but that will not stop people from teaching the disavowed things, even in official settings (seminary, Sunday school, CES, missions, etc).

For example, this topic about birth control.  My mother, who is extremely TBM, encouraged me and all my siblings to use birth control.  She was pretty adamant about it.  She grew up with the anti-birth control statements.  Yet, she had no problems teaching her children to use birth control.  She saw the more recent statements as disavowals.  Why did she see it that way and yet others don't?

Humans hear what they want to hear.  I don't believe there is a disavowal direct or strong enough to stop that.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, webbles said:

Humans hear what they want to hear.

Or sometimes it is more what they expect to hear even if they hate what they think they are hearing….and sometimes because they hate it since when they get all geared up to fight, it is likely difficult to not find reasons that appear to justify a fight.

Or they may feel they deserve a particular treatment even if they don’t want it.  I have a friend who has expressed the need to be consciously included/invited, but who often interprets the efforts to do so as expressing a reluctance to include her, the opposite of the intent.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Also incorrect. The disavowal lets faithful, rank and file members (who look to church leaders as prophets) know that those particular teachings are not supported by the church. 

I think that is a good point.  Many continue to try and reconcile old teachings with modern policy, and continue to live by and support these ideas/teachings in principle.   The prophets consistently taught it, and it has not been disavowed - so they look at it like a mere policy change without change to the core principles/messages.  It is perceived to this day by some as still in-tact and in effect, and to be followed as a guiding standard.  These things will not just quietly disappear on their own after generations of very clear and strong teachings on the subject.  Many will never acknowledge that a prophet was mistaken without another prophet first making the disavowal. 

Edited January 3, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Also incorrect. The disavowal lets faithful, rank and file members (who look to church leaders as prophets) know that those particular teachings are not supported by the church. 

Easy for you to say! Plus,the Church doesn't disavow things like Elder Cannon's quote because it isn't, in context, wrong. She recognizes that responsible people who are interested and vested in this topic discuss it among themselves in context of the Family Proclamation, Handbook, Gospel Topics, etc., each of which carry the same principles that have been understood in the Church for a long, long time. Maybe they even prayerfully consider the scriptures and seek personal revelation in the process.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Still better not to make such personal comments IMO.

For myself, I try not to do or say something to another that I would personally find offensive if they did it back to me and that's how I tend to manage my posting style.  Saying that, much of what is posted on here is personal in some way or form, so I don't see the value in steering clear from personal subjects in general. 

Specifically, I did not find your comment (the one that started this whole conversation about how my life could be so much better if I just believed like you do) to be offensive in any way, but I did find it inaccurate, so I responded outlining what I disagreed with it.  Because I didn't find your personal comment to me (judging the merits of my life) to be offensive, I didn't believe that you would find reply offensive either.  

But you did, because we are different people obviously.  I sincerely apologize for any hurt because as I said, it was not my intention or the response I expected. 

Having said that, I honestly feel that you are sometimes comfortable judging others and their beliefs or actions in ways that you quickly bristle at (and call out) if you believe someone is doing the same back.  That seems like a double standard to me and I struggle with communicating when the rules of what is acceptable to post seem to change based on who is posting.

Edited January 3, 2023 by bluebell

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For myself, I try not to do or say something to another that I would personally find offensive if they did it back to me and that's how I tend to manage my posting style.  Saying that, much of what is posted on here is personal in some way or form, so I don't see the value in steering clear from personal subjects in general. 

Specifically, I did not find your comment (the one that started this whole conversation about how my life could be so much better if I just believed like you do) to be offensive in any way, but I did find it inaccurate, so I responded outlining what I disagreed with it.  Because I didn't find your personal comment to me (judging the merits of my life) to be offensive, I didn't believe that you would find reply offensive either.  

But you did, because we are different people obviously.  I sincerely apologize for any hurt because as I said, it was not my intention or the response I expected. 

Having said that, I honestly feel that you are sometimes comfortable judging others and their beliefs or actions in ways that you quickly bristle at (and call out) if you believe someone is doing the same back.  That seems like a double standard to me and I struggle with communicating when the rules of what is acceptable to post seem to change based on who is posting.

Fair enough.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

That they are God’s spokesperson or the latter part of what he said?

The statement was:

"Any men or women who claim to be God's spokesperson on earth and that they have God's word to us should be held to a higher standard than other organizations that make no such claim. "

Yes we have a panel of 15 who together make statements CLAIMING to be God's representatives, if they reach unanimity.

But we still get to vote with our feet and have the final veto for ourselves. Is the point clearer now?

Have you ever seen a church statement preceeded by "Thus sayeth the Lord..." ?

Where does such a claim in first (I or we) person exist?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't think it is hard to figure out.  But I am not the one saying constantly to follow the brethern.

And neither am I.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Easy for you to say! Plus,the Church doesn't disavow things like Elder Cannon's quote because it isn't, in context, wrong.

Exactly. You think it’s right. Others think it’s wrong. If the church disavowed the teaching, instead of quietly ignoring it and distancing themselves from it, there would be no need for confusion. 

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Exactly. You think it’s right. Others think it’s wrong. If the church disavowed the teaching, instead of quietly ignoring it and distancing themselves from it, there would be no need for confusion. 

You're assuming there is a widespread, objective level of polarizing confusion and concern that the community cannot bear. (See the rest of my post you didn't adress). Maybe you need to picket more! 😀

Edited January 3, 2023 by CV75

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You're assuming there is a widespread, objective level of polarizing confusion and concern

Have you read the thread?

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

that the community cannot bear.

Never said nor implied any such thing. 

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

(See the rest of my post you didn't adress). Maybe you need to picket more! 😀

Honestly, your posts make my head spin, so I limit my interaction to the parts that are understandable to someone who who doesn’t have a spiritual PhD in spinology. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well perhaps not those exact words but the concept is certainly taught that the LDS prophet is how we get God's word.  That doesn't mean we cannot access God ourselves as well but the prophet has God's direction for the church in general.

 

Then there is this "classic"

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

 

Sounds like God's spokesperson to me.

 

Ok, Yes I can imagine President Benson saying that. Fair enough, but that is not first person, and clearly by saying that he was being cautious in his wording.

But we still are to follow our own heart in making the decision to stay or walk.  As a convert it is abundantly clear that you have a "testimony" and yes, that must be a two-way door.

That is what overrides everything; Alma 32, Moroni 10:4 James  1:5 and more 

 

[Teancum]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And neither am I.

No.  But they are.

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You're assuming there is a widespread, objective level of polarizing confusion and concern that the community cannot bear. (See the rest of my post you didn't adress). Maybe you need to picket more! 😀

And yet the savior sought the one.  If Seeking could benefit from clarity, I’m sure there are others.  It doesn’t seem to me to be a big ask? 

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok, Yes I can imagine President Benson saying that. Fair enough, but that is not first person, and clearly by saying that he was being cautious in his wording.

Well sure but the point is that the concept of what I am trying to explain IS being taught.  @pogi was talking about this recently on another thread.  Some members like you and Pogi may be able to wade through this.  But in my own personal experience, which I concede is limited but valid, many members tend towards a "if the leaders say it the thinking is done."  Heck I was always trying to bring my life into compliance with what the leaders said.  Sure I would pray about some things but as an active member I do not recall ever feeling like I got an answer that disputed what GAs said.  I remember is a y0ung immature 2 something EQ president telling a lovely woman that had joined the church a year or so before our conversation with her family that if she did not like something that was her problem.  But she needed to get her thinking in line with the GA ( this was on the priesthood ban and she was struggling with what had been taught).  So maybe I was a "fundamentalist's" Latter-day Saint to some extent.

And then we get stuff like this.  Granted this is an area authority not a GA or in the upper quorus of the church but themes like this are not uncommon. And they get perpetuated.

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But we still are to follow our own heart in making the decision to stay or walk.  As a convert it is abundantly clear that you have a "testimony" and yes, that must be a two-way door.

Well sure.  I am not arguing against that.  My point is simply that the Church leaders emphasize heavily that we should follow what they say.

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That is what overrides everything; Alma 32, Moroni 10:4 James  1:5 and more 

 

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The statement was:

"Any men or women who claim to be God's spokesperson on earth and that they have God's word to us should be held to a higher standard than other organizations that make no such claim. "

Yes we have a panel of 15 who together make statements CLAIMING to be God's representatives, if they reach unanimity.

Well I was referring to the top 15.....

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

But we still get to vote with our feet and have the final veto for ourselves. Is the point clearer now?

Have you ever seen a church statement preceeded by "Thus sayeth the Lord..." ?

Where does such a claim in first (I or we) person exist?

I provided a few references from the D&C....

[Rain]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well sure but the point is that the concept of what I am trying to explain IS being taught.  @pogi was talking about this recently on another thread.  Some members like you and Pogi may be able to wade through this.  But in my own personal experience, which I concede is limited but valid, many members tend towards a "if the leaders say it the thinking is done."  Heck I was always trying to bring my life into compliance with what the leaders said.  Sure I would pray about some things but as an active member I do not recall ever feeling like I got an answer that disputed what GAs said.  I remember is a y0ung immature 2 something EQ president telling a lovely woman that had joined the church a year or so before our conversation with her family that if she did not like something that was her problem.  But she needed to get her thinking in line with the GA ( this was on the priesthood ban and she was struggling with what had been taught).  So maybe I was a "fundamentalist's" Latter-day Saint to some extent.

And then we get stuff like this.  Granted this is an area authority not a GA or in the upper quorus of the church but themes like this are not uncommon. And they get perpetuated.

 

This is such an odd idea to me.  If one of my children were to ask if me my thoughts on a major life choice because they were struggling with the idea I would love it.  It would be a good time to counsel with them over it.  I would hope that not only would they feel my love more, but more sure of their direction.  I can't imagine that God who loves his children so much more than I do would tell me not to ask.

Don't get me wrong - I think there is huge value in changing how we word questions. That process helps us to work through things, but I don't think God is sitting there judging whether our questions are good or not.  Some people don't realize that when their thinking is done it doesn't mean other's thinking is done as well 

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well sure.  I am not arguing against that.  My point is simply that the Church leaders emphasize heavily that we should follow what they say.

 

 

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well sure but the point is that the concept of what I am trying to explain IS being taught.  @pogi was talking about this recently on another thread.  Some members like you and Pogi may be able to wade through this.  But in my own personal experience, which I concede is limited but valid, many members tend towards a "if the leaders say it the thinking is done."  Heck I was always trying to bring my life into compliance with what the leaders said.  Sure I would pray about some things but as an active member I do not recall ever feeling like I got an answer that disputed what GAs said.  I remember is a y0ung immature 2 something EQ president telling a lovely woman that had joined the church a year or so before our conversation with her family that if she did not like something that was her problem.  But she needed to get her thinking in line with the GA ( this was on the priesthood ban and she was struggling with what had been taught).  So maybe I was a "fundamentalist's" Latter-day Saint to some extent.

And then we get stuff like this.  Granted this is an area authority not a GA or in the upper quorus of the church but themes like this are not uncommon. And they get perpetuated.

Well sure.  I am not arguing against that.  My point is simply that the Church leaders emphasize heavily that we should follow what they say.

 

Do we have a date on when this was given?  I'd like to know if it's older or more recent.  From the hair styles it doesn't seem like it was that long ago.

Edited January 3, 2023 by bluebell

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

This is such an odd idea to me.  If one of my children were to ask if me my thoughts on a major life choice because they were struggling with the idea I would love it.  It would be a good time to counsel with them over it.  I would hope that not only would they feel my love more, but more sure of their direction.  I can't imagine that God who loves his children so much more than I do would tell me not to ask.

Don't get me wrong - I think there is huge value in changing how we word questions. That process helps us to work through things, but I don't think God is sitting there judging whether our questions are good or not.  Some people don't realize that when their thinking is done it doesn't mean other's thinking is done as well 

 

I'm out of rep points for now but I agree.

I think when we hear leaders saying that we shouldn't pray about something (and I don't think i've ever heard that personally but we have an example on this thread and it probably has happened more than this one time) it's a reflection of their fear that we don't know how to properly receive revelation from God and are in danger of believing something is from God when it's not, so it's just better not to take the chance and instead rely on the prophet's words (or something to that effect).

But it really does send the wrong message.  Thankfully I think it's a message we are getting much less of, because our leaders are seeing that the old way isn't working anymore.  People need to have a personal relationship with God and with their Savior, not so much the prophet and other leaders.  

[Teancum]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do we have a date on when this was given?  I'd like to know if it's older or more recent.  From the hair styles it doesn't seem like it was that long ago.

I am not sure.  I think it is recent.