Elder Kevin S. Hamilton emphasizes importance of Christ’s organized church

[Teancum]

This talk seems to drive the point home that leaders should pretty much be followed without question.  And since I allegedly "obsess" over the brethren I thought I would provide more fodder.  

https://universe.byu.edu/2023/01/24/elder-kevin-s-hamilton-emphasizes-importance-of-christs-organized-church/?fbclid=IwAR0-azNFBRVVIfSX0wUWk-dN1ir3ZChtbLcy-hPPepFWoNhlUrUs8C_jh-s

Quote

It is not possible to accept Jesus Christ and reject His Church or authorized messengers, Elder Hamilton said. According to Elder Hamilton, even though human beings are all “fallible,” when the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles speak in unity, they speak on behalf of Jesus Christ.

Is it really not possible to accept Jesus without accepting the Church and its leaders?  Do other good faithful non LDS Christians not accept Jesus?

Quote

 

Elder Hamilton said he has encountered people who feel they are loyal to the Savior, but opposed to certain teachings of His Church. He said occasionally these people will say how they do not agree with the way the Church does certain things.

Elder Hamilton encouraged the audience to substitute the words “the Church” for the word “Savior” in those sentences because it puts a different perspective on things when one says they disagree with the Savior.

“Sometimes we just don’t know every reason and every rationale behind every point of doctrine or every Church policy. When this happens, we simply move forward in faith

 

So if one questions what church leaders say, past and present, they are questioning Jesus?  This seems to promote a level on infallibility and unquestioning loyalty to the brethren because it is really Jesus speaking.  So even if something feels wrong, seems wrong or maybe is wrong just follow with faith anyway.

Quote

Elder Hamilton said students must settle this important issue of an organized church deep in their hearts. He said, “The Savior Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ are inseparably joined together.

And there you have it.  Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus. Follow and obey and don't ask questions. @pogiwhat are your thoughts?

 

[Vanguard]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This talk seems to drive the point home that leaders should pretty much be followed without question.  And since I allegedly "obsess" over the brethren I thought I would provide more fodder.  

https://universe.byu.edu/2023/01/24/elder-kevin-s-hamilton-emphasizes-importance-of-christs-organized-church/?fbclid=IwAR0-azNFBRVVIfSX0wUWk-dN1ir3ZChtbLcy-hPPepFWoNhlUrUs8C_jh-s

Is it really not possible to accept Jesus without accepting the Church and its leaders?  Do other good faithful non LDS Christians not accept Jesus?

So if one questions what church leaders say, past and present, they are questioning Jesus?  This seems to promote a level on infallibility and unquestioning loyalty to the brethren because it is really Jesus speaking.  So even if something feels wrong, seems wrong or maybe is wrong just follow with faith anyway.

And there you have it.  Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus. Follow and obey and don't ask questions. @pogiwhat are your thoughts?

 

I guess according to his own criteria (i.e., when the First Presidency and Quorum speak in unity) this is just his opinion. ; )

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I guess according to his own criteria (i.e., when the First Presidency and Quorum speak in unity) this is just his opinion. ; )

So that is the only time one cannot question then? Everything else is fair game?  What about policy?

[Vanguard]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

So that is the only time one cannot question then? Everything else is fair game?  What about policy?

According to his opinion, yes.

[Teancum]

Just now, Vanguard said:

According to his opinion, yes.

Clear as mud.

[Vanguard]

Just now, Teancum said:

Clear as mud.

Now that we can agree on. ; )

[Thinking]

So...am I allowed to plan my own finances, or must I use the services of a certified financial planner?

[The Nehor]

“The leaders of the Church made an error and hurt me and my family.”

”The Savior made an error and hurt me and my family.”

Hmmmmm…….not sure this one works that well.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

This talk seems to drive the point home that leaders should pretty much be followed without question.  And since I allegedly "obsess" over the brethren I thought I would provide more fodder.  

https://universe.byu.edu/2023/01/24/elder-kevin-s-hamilton-emphasizes-importance-of-christs-organized-church/?fbclid=IwAR0-azNFBRVVIfSX0wUWk-dN1ir3ZChtbLcy-hPPepFWoNhlUrUs8C_jh-s

Is it really not possible to accept Jesus without accepting the Church and its leaders?  Do other good faithful non LDS Christians not accept Jesus?

So if one questions what church leaders say, past and present, they are questioning Jesus?  This seems to promote a level on infallibility and unquestioning loyalty to the brethren because it is really Jesus speaking.  So even if something feels wrong, seems wrong or maybe is wrong just follow with faith anyway.

And there you have it.  Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus. Follow and obey and don't ask questions. @pogiwhat are your thoughts?

 

First, I would like to see the transcript.

But given the OP/Daily Universe, I think another way of looking at this is, if you accept Jesus Christ and that He says He works through His Church and authorized servants, it makes sense that the disciple views all three as functionally the same and accept Christ’s allowance for fallibility. This is a thought experiment for some and a life experience for others. I think discipleship is focused on Christ and calls for following leaders and the Church because that is what Christ asked us to do. The gift of the Holy Ghost helps us practice.

[Eschaton]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“The leaders of the Church made an error and hurt me and my family.”

”The Savior made an error and hurt me and my family.”

Hmmmmm…….not sure this one works that well.

"The church used to discourage birth control"

"The Savior used to discourage birth control"

"The church is hosting a linger longer this Sunday"

"The Savior is hosting a linger longer this Sunday" 

"The church needs to be cleaned this weekend."

Well, you know the rest. Pretty poor talk. 

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

This talk seems to drive the point home that leaders should pretty much be followed without question.  And since I allegedly "obsess" over the brethren I thought I would provide more fodder.  

https://universe.byu.edu/2023/01/24/elder-kevin-s-hamilton-emphasizes-importance-of-christs-organized-church/?fbclid=IwAR0-azNFBRVVIfSX0wUWk-dN1ir3ZChtbLcy-hPPepFWoNhlUrUs8C_jh-s

Is it really not possible to accept Jesus without accepting the Church and its leaders?  Do other good faithful non LDS Christians not accept Jesus?

So if one questions what church leaders say, past and present, they are questioning Jesus?  This seems to promote a level on infallibility and unquestioning loyalty to the brethren because it is really Jesus speaking.  So even if something feels wrong, seems wrong or maybe is wrong just follow with faith anyway.

And there you have it.  Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus. Follow and obey and don't ask questions. @pogiwhat are your thoughts?

Questions are the bread and butter of the church, though venue is an issue. In Biblical terms, you are rejecting Jesus if you reject those he sends. When the missionary knocks, submit to their teaching and ordinances. Agree that the leaders have authority to lead and understand they are entitled to inspiration over their stewardship, that doesn't mean the Prophet, Bishop, or Missionary, are always inspired. Once you have your own testimony of the church and that its leaders can be inspired, ideally obedience is best course, unless you are inspired otherwise. You should indeed always listen to your own promptings, but try not to work against them, in the modern context of activism. After all, policy is not from the bottom up.

For many instances, obedience is ideal over rebellion, not because a leader is infallible, but rather the consequence of error is, for the most part, on their head, not yours. Being on the correct side of an issue isn't necessarily an excuse to openly rebel against it. Like the film States of Grace where the missionaries were constantly facing moral dilemmas and ultimately breaking the mission rules to make a morally correct choice. They should follow their own promptings, but the Church should send them home (or merely release Elder Lozano who for his final act of subversion is to not go home).

Edited January 30, 2023 by Pyreaux

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

This talk seems to drive the point home that leaders should pretty much be followed without question. 

Haven't even read the article and I already suspect is does not say this.  The clues were "pretty much" and "without question."

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

And since I allegedly "obsess" over the brethren I thought I would provide more fodder.  

https://universe.byu.edu/2023/01/24/elder-kevin-s-hamilton-emphasizes-importance-of-christs-organized-church/?fbclid=IwAR0-azNFBRVVIfSX0wUWk-dN1ir3ZChtbLcy-hPPepFWoNhlUrUs8C_jh-s

Quote

It is not possible to accept Jesus Christ and reject His Church or authorized messengers, Elder Hamilton said. According to Elder Hamilton, even though human beings are all “fallible,” when the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles speak in unity, they speak on behalf of Jesus Christ.

Is it really not possible to accept Jesus without accepting the Church and its leaders?  Do other good faithful non LDS Christians not accept Jesus?

Here is what Elder Hamilton actually said: "This is the plan of our Heavenly Father for His children, to help them realize their full, divine potential.  This is how we come to Christ.  This is how we enter and stay on the covenant pathway.  The Church of Jesus Christ enables us to come to Christ.  It's simply not possible to completely follow the Savior without following His church.  You cannot 'come to Christ' without coming to His church, and you cannot come to His church without accepting His prophets."

I think the article's summary of this ("It is not possible...") ought to have been more clear, as he said it is "not possible to completely follow the Savior without following His church."  One word, but a pretty important qualifier.

The Church of Jesus Christ is, doctrinally, far more "universalist" than virtually all of the rest of Christendom.  

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Elder Hamilton said he has encountered people who feel they are loyal to the Savior, but opposed to certain teachings of His Church. He said occasionally these people will say how they do not agree with the way the Church does certain things.

Elder Hamilton encouraged the audience to substitute the words “the Church” for the word “Savior” in those sentences because it puts a different perspective on things when one says they disagree with the Savior.

“Sometimes we just don’t know every reason and every rationale behind every point of doctrine or every Church policy. When this happens, we simply move forward in faith

So if one questions what church leaders say, past and present, they are questioning Jesus? 

No.

It helps to contextualize Elder Hamilton's remarks.  He is speaking to BYU students, to members of the Church who are likely familiar with the concept of “a prophet [is] a prophet only when . . . acting as such," and with the fairly consistent caveat that prophets and apostles are fallible, that they make mistakes.

By way of illustration: One of my nieces was born with a sixth finger on one of her hands.  If I say "Human beings are five-fingered," I am not denying her existence, or that she was born with six fingers.  I am stating a general principle that, at its margins, has some exceptions, and that ought not to viewed in absolutist terms.  Virtually all broad statements out to be construed this way. 

Another illustration: If "the earth is spherical" or "the earth is round," when in fact I know that it is technically an oblate spheroid, am I lying?  Am I distorting the truth?  No.  To suggest that I am would be pedantic and unreasonable.

Another: If I say, without more, that "under the laws of the State of Utah, a person is bound to a contract he has freely signed," am I lying because I have not also included exceptions to that general concept (such as a contract being void ab initio if signed under duress, or signed by someone lacking mental competency, or signed based on reliance on through fraudulent statements)?  I think . . . not.  To insist that ever general statement be declared with such absolute precision would, again, be pedantic and unreasonable.

And so on.  I think what you are doing here is an example of the fallacy of "Logic Chopping," defined here:

Quote

Logic Chopping

(also known as: quibbling, nit-picking, smokescreen, splitting-hairs, trivial objections)

Description: Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute.  Irrelevant over precision.
...

Logical Form:

A claim is made.
An objection is made regarding a trivial part of the claim, distracting from the main point.

Example #1:

John: Can you please help me push my car to the side of the road until the tow truck comes?
Paul: Why push it to the side of the road?  Why not just leave it?
John: It is slowing down traffic unnecessarily where it is.
Paul: Many things slow down traffic—do you feel you need to do something about all them?
John: No, but this was my fault.
Paul: Was it really? Were you the direct cause of your car breaking down?
John: Are you going to help me move this damn car or not?!

Explanation: You can see here that Paul is avoiding the request for assistance by attempting to make a deep philosophical issue out of a simple request.  While Paul may have some good points, not every situation in life calls for deep critical thought.  This situation being one of them.

I think you are doing what Paul is doing above.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

This seems to promote a level on infallibility and unquestioning loyalty to the brethren because it is really Jesus speaking. 

"Seems to" being the operative wording.

The "leaders should pretty much be followed without question" and "infallibility and unquestioning loyalty" are the product of your hostile and pedantic interpretation of Elder Hamilton's remarks, as opposed to the remarks themselves.  As I recently noted here:

Quote

My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it. 

When I was in the military, huge amounts of time and effort were expended to drill into us the concept of rank and structure, and of following orders.  However, these concepts are not absolute.  In fact, there can be extreme and unusual circumstances in which a solder is required to disobey an order.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

It's generally called a "duty to disobey," and is empowered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is more concerned about the need to obey orders, but specifies the conditions when military personnel may feel justified in not following them:

• If the order is "contrary to the constitution" or "the laws of the United States."
• If the order is "patently illegal, ... such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

Paying the Price for Following Bad Orders

Over the years, there's been a recognition that "duty to disobey" is sometimes warranted. Former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, for instance, has suggested that military members could be justified in refusing to torture prisoners.

The most famous of them, perhaps, have been instances where prosecutors felt that people should have disobeyed orders. Nazi defendants in the Nuremberg Trials after World War II argued, to limited effect, that they were just following orders. U.S. Army Lt. William Calley used the same argument in defending himself against murder charges following the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. (He ultimately served 3 1/2 years in military prison.)

The generalized statement of "When you are in the Army you are obligated to follow the orders of your superiors" is not incompatible with the foregoing "duty to disobey."  Virtually every law or moral principle allows for exceptions in extraordinary or very unusual circumstances.

Similarly, the generalized statement of "the prophet will never lead us astray, meaning that we can always trust them" is not incompatible with the foregoing statements from Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee and others.  

Teancum, I think you are a good person.  That statement does not impute onto you an expectation of perfection and infallibility.  It's a generalization that, at its margins, likely has some limitations/exceptions. 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

So even if something feels wrong, seems wrong or maybe is wrong just follow with faith anyway.

And yet . . . he didn't say that.  You did.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Elder Hamilton said students must settle this important issue of an organized church deep in their hearts. He said, “The Savior Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ are inseparably joined together.

And there you have it. 

Have what?

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus.

Um, no.  He didn't say that.  You did.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Follow and obey and don't ask questions.

Again, he didn't say that.  You did.

Funny how often that happens with critics who presume to speak for the Latter-day Saints, rather than let them speak for themselves.

The "don't ask questions" trope is one of the unfair and uncharitable distortions of the counsel of the Brethren.  It's a distorted caricature.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 30, 2023 by smac97

[Nofear]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here is what Elder Hamilton actually said: "This is the plan of our Heavenly Father for His children, to help them realize their full, divine potential.  This is how we come to Christ.  This is how we enter and stay on the covenant pathway.  The Church of Jesus Christ enables us to come to Christ.  It's simply not possible to completely follow the Savior without following His church.  You cannot 'come to Christ' without coming to His church, and you cannot come to His church without accepting His prophets."

I think the article's summary of this ("It is not possible...") ought to have been more clear, as he said it is "not possible to completely follow the Savior without following His church."  One word, but a pretty important qualifier.

I agree that the Church is essential to completely following the Savior. I don't think we disagree but I'll put it slightly differently for others.  One can be very active in the Church but not the Gospel. One can be very active in the Gospel but not the Church (though, participation in the Church (e.g. the sacrament) and one's covenants made via the Church is still needed). Elder Packer put it this way:

"Once in a stake meeting, I noticed a larger than usual number of older members, most of them widows. I mentioned to the stake president how impressive they were.
The president replied, 'Yes, but they are not active in the Church,' meaning they did not serve as leaders or teachers. He spoke as though they were a burden.
I repeated his words, 'Not active in the Church?' and asked, 'Are they active in the gospel?' He did not quite understand the difference at first.
Like many of us, he concentrated so much on what people do that he overlooked what they are, a priceless resource of experience, wisdom, and inspiration." -- Elder Packer, The Golden Years

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

First, I would like to see the transcript.

text available soon at https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-s-hamilton/why-a-church/ 

Edited January 30, 2023 by JustAnAustralian

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

This talk seems to drive the point home that leaders should pretty much be followed without question.  And since I allegedly "obsess" over the brethren I thought I would provide more fodder.  

https://universe.byu.edu/2023/01/24/elder-kevin-s-hamilton-emphasizes-importance-of-christs-organized-church/?fbclid=IwAR0-azNFBRVVIfSX0wUWk-dN1ir3ZChtbLcy-hPPepFWoNhlUrUs8C_jh-s

Is it really not possible to accept Jesus without accepting the Church and its leaders?  Do other good faithful non LDS Christians not accept Jesus?

So if one questions what church leaders say, past and present, they are questioning Jesus?  This seems to promote a level on infallibility and unquestioning loyalty to the brethren because it is really Jesus speaking.  So even if something feels wrong, seems wrong or maybe is wrong just follow with faith anyway.

And there you have it.  Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus. Follow and obey and don't ask questions. @pogiwhat are your thoughts?

I haven't read the talk yet, but from the few quotes it sounds like a pretty good representation of the school of thought that I grew up in.  Luckily, it is not the only school of thought in the church - allowing us to pick and choose (which might upset Elder Hamilton).  This is especially egregious to me:

Quote

 

Elder Hamilton said he has encountered people who feel they are loyal to the Savior, but opposed to certain teachings of His Church. He said occasionally these people will say how they do not agree with the way the Church does certain things.

Elder Hamilton encouraged the audience to substitute the words “the Church” for the word “Savior” in those sentences because it puts a different perspective on things when one says they disagree with the Savior.

“Sometimes we just don’t know every reason and every rationale behind every point of doctrine or every Church policy. When this happens, we simply move forward in faith

 

That is total cult-like nonsense and needs to be challenged by members if the church will not step-up to rebut it.  To elevate the reputation and equivalence of the church to the level of the Savior is really damaging to the church.  It is simply an unsustainable standard.  Hello disillusionment and faith crisis!  Perfect set-up!  He is practically paving the way for people who actually trust and believe in him and what he says, to leave the church. 

Like it or not, we are all cafeteria Mormons.  That is how it is supposed to be. 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by pogi

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

First, I would like to see the transcript.

I don't have it nor did I search for it.  But I found the excerpts interesting and it is from the BYU paper.

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

But given the OP/Daily Universe, I think another way of looking at this is, if you accept Jesus Christ and that He says He works through His Church and authorized servants, it makes sense that the disciple views all three as functionally the same and accept Christ’s allowance for fallibility. This is a thought experiment for some and a life experience for others. I think discipleship is focused on Christ and calls for following leaders and the Church because that is what Christ asked us to do. The gift of the Holy Ghost helps us practice.

So you agree that we need to replace church and leaders with Jesus.  And this is why I argue that the leaders pretty much expect members to do what they say without question.  Take on faith.  This past and present.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Teancum

[manol]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

For many instances, obedience is ideal over rebellion, not because a leader is infallible, but rather the consequence of error is, for the most part, on their head, not yours.

Trying to parse right and wrong based on the technicalities of whose head the error would fall upon just feels icky to me.

How about this instead:  "Do what is right, let the consequence follow"? 

Edited January 30, 2023 by manol

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I haven't read the talk yet, but from the few quotes it sounds like a pretty good representation of the school of thought that I grew up in.  Luckily, it is not the only school of thought in the church.

I don't disagree but it seems the prevalent one and it certainly was the one I grew up with and pretty much lived until I was 52.

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

 This is especially egregious to me:

That is total cult-like nonsense and needs to be challenged by members if the church will not step-up to rebut it.  To elevate the reputation and equivalence of the church to the level of the Savior is really damaging to the church.  It is simply an unsustainable standard.  Hello disillusionment and faith crisis!  Perfect set-up!  He is practically paving the way for people who actually trust and believe in him and what he says, to leave the church. 

Like it or not, we are all cafeteria Mormons.  That is how it is supposed to be. 

 

Again I agree. And it is one of a number of problems I ended up having with the church and keeps me away from it.  Not the only one but it is among a number of them.

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't have it nor dis I search for it.  But I found the excerpts interesting and it is from the BYU paper.

So you agree that we need to replace church and leaders with Jesus.  And this is why I argue that the leaders pretty much expect members to do what they say without question.  Take on faith.  This past and present.

Who is the "we" in "we need to replace church and leaders with Jesus"? Why replace them when one accepts that they (as we) abide in Him and are functioning according to His intentions -- that would not be replacing them with Jesus, but simply eliminating these elements of the way the Lord prefers to work. How would "the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem" function without the church of the firstborn (Hebrews 12)? How is eliminating fallible people and an earthly organization from Jesus today any different than separating the recipients of His grace and a heavenly organization from Him?

Given that you have a bias against, and I a bias in favor for this construct, how would you imagine yourself being comfortable accepting it? For example, I would be uncomfortable with it if I understood the arrangement to be "follow Christ blindly" -- I simply could not abide that. Your turn!  

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Haven't even read the article and I already suspect is does not say this.  The clues were "pretty much" and "without question."

Here is what Elder Hamilton actually said: "This is the plan of our Heavenly Father for His children, to help them realize their full, divine potential.  This is how we come to Christ.  This is how we enter and stay on the covenant pathway.  The Church of Jesus Christ enables us to come to Christ.  It's simply not possible to completely follow the Savior without following His church.  You cannot 'come to Christ' without coming to His church, and you cannot come to His church without accepting His prophets."

I think the article's summary of this ("It is not possible...") ought to have been more clear, as he said it is "not possible to completely follow the Savior without following His church."  One word, but a pretty important qualifier.

The Church of Jesus Christ is, doctrinally, far more "universalist" than virtually all of the rest of Christendom.  

No.

It helps to contextualize Elder Hamilton's remarks.  He is speaking to BYU students, to members of the Church who are likely familiar with the concept of “a prophet [is] a prophet only when . . . acting as such," and with the fairly consistent caveat that prophets and apostles are fallible, that they make mistakes.

By way of illustration: One of my nieces was born with a sixth finger on one of her hands.  If I say "Human beings are five-fingered," I am not denying her existence, or that she was born with six fingers.  I am stating a general principle that, at its margins, has some exceptions, and that ought not to viewed in absolutist terms.  Virtually all broad statements out to be construed this way. 

Another illustration: If "the earth is spherical" or "the earth is round," when in fact I know that it is technically an oblate spheroid, am I lying?  Am I distorting the truth?  No.  To suggest that I am would be pedantic and unreasonable.

Another: If I say, without more, that "under the laws of the State of Utah, a person is bound to a contract he has freely signed," am I lying because I have not also included exceptions to that general concept (such as a contract being void ab initio if signed under duress, or signed by someone lacking mental competency, or signed based on reliance on through fraudulent statements)?  I think . . . not.  To insist that ever general statement be declared with such absolute precision would, again, be pedantic and unreasonable.

And so on.  I think what you are doing here is an example of the fallacy of "Logic Chopping," defined here:

I think you are doing what Paul is doing above.

"Seems to" being the operative wording.

The "leaders should pretty much be followed without question" and "infallibility and unquestioning loyalty" are the product of your hostile and pedantic interpretation of Elder Hamilton's remarks, as opposed to the remarks themselves.  As I recently noted here:

Teancum, I think you are a good person.  That statement does not impute onto you an expectation of perfection and infallibility.  It's a generalization that, at its margins, likely has some limitations/exceptions. 

And yet . . . he didn't say that.  You did.

Have what?

Um, no.  He didn't say that.  You did.

Again, he didn't say that.  You did.

Funny how often that happens with critics who presume to speak for the Latter-day Saints, rather than let them speak for themselves.

The "don't ask questions" trope is one of the unfair and uncharitable distortions of the counsel of the Brethren.  It's a distorted caricature.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not the one that said when you have a criticism of something from "the church" to replace it with Jesus.  How you can conclude that he didn't say this when he absolutely did demonstrates a wonderful exercise in mental gymnastics.  You have the typical apologetic trope of downplaying what the leaders have consistently said about their words and the import they hold as to members following them even if they do not agree-on what basis?  Faith.

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Who is the "we" in "we need to replace church and leaders with Jesus"?

Church members. 

Quote

Elder Hamilton encouraged the audience to substitute the words “the Church” for the word “Savior” in those sentences because it puts a different perspective on things when one says they disagree with the Savior.

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

Why replace them when one accepts that they (as we) abide in Him and are functioning according to His intentions -- that would not be replacing them with Jesus, but simply eliminating these elements of the way the Lord prefers to work. How would "the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem" function without the church of the firstborn (Hebrews 12)? How is eliminating fallible people and an earthly organization from Jesus today any different than separating the recipients of His grace and a heavenly organization from Him?

Given that you have a bias against, and I a bias in favor for this construct, how would you imagine yourself being comfortable accepting it? For example, I would be uncomfortable with it if I understood the arrangement to be "follow Christ blindly" -- I simply could not abide that. Your turn!  

 

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't disagree but it seems the prevalent one and it certainly was the one I grew up with and pretty much lived until I was 52.

Again I agree. And it is one of a number of problems I ended up having with the church and keeps me away from it.  Not the only one but it is among a number of them.

So, having faith in the restored gospel is met with all sorts of opposition undermining our personal experience with the God we believe in.

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Church members. 

 

I can see where your issue lies. 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Trying to parse right and wrong based on the technicalities of whose head the error would fall upon just feels icky to me.

How about this instead:  "Do what is right, let the consequence follow"? 

Indeed, extending some past-earned trust in your leaders should be worth something before the questionable request arises. If a US soldier has never been asked to do anything morally questionable before and trusts his superiors is one day ordered to shoot an Arab child crying and running towards them, a misjudgment is on their superior's head. You know you aren't working for the Nazis, though it may not be apparent to you that the consequence of disobedience to your superior might only be apparent once the suicide vest goes off.

Like Adam and the Altar; Adam obediently built an altar without knowing why. He did however know and trust the character of God who told him, and it ultimately seemed insufficient to the angel for Adam to remain in ignorance. The moral of the story is it seems a virtue to extend some trust, at least for a little while, when asked to do something.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Teancum]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I can see where your issue lies. 

Where?