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

[manol]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Indeed, extending some past-earned trust in your leaders should be worth something before the questionable request arises.

I agree with this.  If someone in a leadership position has proven themselves trustworthy, that counts for something, and sometimes it counts for a great deal.

My objection is to using "whose head is it going to fall on" to inform one's moral compass.  

Edited January 31, 2023 by manol

[Buckeye]

7 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 all responses. You won’t be surprised that I think this notion is bunk. We are saved through faith in Christ, not faith in the church. Christ does much good through the church but it is not synonymous with him. The church makes many errors and is in constant need of repentance to align with him (just as I do). Unity of the FP/Q12 is a good policy to reduce error but is not a panacea and is not historically our standard for doctrine. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am not the one that said when you have a criticism of something from "the church" to replace it with Jesus. 

He didn't say that, either.

Boy, is seems like you just can't help yourself.  You could quote, but you paraphrase instead.  And you could paraphrase to fairly convey the context and meaning, but you instead rely on pedantic exaggeration to distort and put the worst possible spin and slant on what he said.  

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

How you can conclude that he didn't say this when he absolutely did

He absolutely did not.  We are now two iterations removed what he said.  

Elder Hamilton said X.

The BYU article you linked to heavily paraphrases X ("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.")

You then presented a hostile, tendentious, pedantic distortion of the article's paraphrase of X ("And there you have it.  Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus. Follow and obey and don't ask questions.")

I think it would be an interesting exercise to email Elder Hamilton and ask him this: "Would you recognize this ('Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus. Follow and obey and don't ask questions.') as a reasonable characterization and paraphrase of either your BYU devotional address?"  I suspect he would say no. 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

demonstrates a wonderful exercise in mental gymnastics. 

This coming from the guy working hard to cram "Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus. Follow and obey and don't ask questions" into Elder Hamilton's mouth.

The irony.  It burns.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

I have done no such thing.

Meanwhile, you have the typical anti-mormon trope of trying to pass off pedantic nitpicks and hostile and distorted caricatures as a fair representation of what the Brethren are saying.  It's ain't working.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 31, 2023 by smac97

[mrmarklin]

I have not read the whole speech, or even the above comments. 
 

But I will state that every member of this Church has within him/herself the right to revelation before they follow the counsels of the prophet. We are not a church of blind obedience. 
All of us need to take advantage of this promise……..”Upon this rock……..”. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

I have not read the whole speech, or even the above comments. 
 

But I will state that every member of this Church has within him/herself the right to revelation before they follow the counsels of the prophet. We are not a church of blind obedience. 
All of us need to take advantage of this promise……..”Upon this rock……..”. 

Countdown to Catholics grabbing this in 3…..2…..1…

[mrmarklin]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Countdown to Catholics grabbing this in 3…..2…..1…

Both interpretations are correct. 

[2BizE]

This is another example of Mormon extremism.  Obey, obey, obey without question.

[rodheadlee]

31 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

This is another example of Mormon extremism.  Obey, obey, obey without question.

Too bad that's not actually true. 

 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

Where?

According to this post to which I replied, but for some reason was not fully captured/copied in my reply post: Posted 13 hours ago :

I see your issue as lying in your understanding that Church members, presumably a subset, "need to replace church and leaders with Jesus," and not just substitute the respective words (church, leaders, Jesus) for the purpose of understanding the alignment between the three parties in recognition of the Lord's way of doing things.

Now what would really be helpful for my engagement is your answering the questions I asked here: Posted 13 hours ago

 

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

He didn't say that, either.

Boy, is seems like you just can't help yourself.  You could quote, but you paraphrase instead.  And you could paraphrase to fairly convey the context and meaning, but you instead rely on pedantic exaggeration to distort and put the worst possible spin and slant on what he said. 

 

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.

This and other quotes were all in my first post.

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

He absolutely did not.  We are now two iterations removed what he said. 

See above.  Seems pretty obvious to me.

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Elder Hamilton said X.

The BYU article you linked to heavily paraphrases X ("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.")

Yep

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

You then presented a hostile, tendentious, pedantic distortion of the article's paraphrase of X

 

More SMAC style over the top hyperbole.  🙄

 

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

("And there you have it.  Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus. Follow and obey and don't ask questions.")

 

Quote

It is not possible to accept Jesus Christ and reject His Church or authorized messengers, Elder Hamilton 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 I inseparably joined together.”

I guess readers can decide for themselves what these words really mean. They seem obvious to me. You spin them as much if not more than I do.

Question for you.  Can one accept Jesus without accepting the Church and its leaders?

 

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it would be an interesting exercise to email Elder Hamilton and ask him this: "Would you recognize this ('Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus. Follow and obey and don't ask questions.') as a reasonable characterization and paraphrase of either your BYU devotional address?"  I suspect he would say no. 

Maybe.

Another question for you.  Do the primary children of the church still sing the song Follow the Prophet where that phrase is sung around 50 plus times to creepy musical melody?  What message does that convey to young children. 

Does the church still teach this:

Quote

The Lord Will Never Permit the Living Prophet to Lead the Church Astray. President Wilford Woodruff (1807–98) declared that we can have full confidence in the direction the prophet is leading the Church: “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration 1, “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto”; emphasis added).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual-2016/chapter-2?lang=eng

And this which has bee quoted in recent conferences:

And this:

 

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

 

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

This coming from the guy working hard to cram "Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus. Follow and obey and don't ask questions" into Elder Hamilton's mouth.

His talk along with numerous others over the years teach that we need to follow the words of prophets seers with fealty. 

Another question. What happens when someone who is a member openly disagrees and opposes what the church leaders say and teach?

 

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

The irony.  It burns.

I have done no such thing.

Meanwhile, you have the typical anti-mormon trope of trying to pass off pedantic nitpicks and hostile and distorted caricatures as a fair representation of what the Brethren are saying.  It's ain't working.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am just repeating what your leaders teach.  You need to spin it because it comes back to bite the church quite often. The other thread on hate speech demonstrates that well.  But keep playing the spin doctor game. You are quite good at it.

[Rain]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 

This and other quotes were all in my first post.

See above.  Seems pretty obvious to me.

Yep

 

More SMAC style over the top hyperbole.  🙄

 

 

I guess readers can decide for themselves what these words really mean. They seem obvious to me. You spin them as much if not more than I do.

Question for you.  Can one accept Jesus without accepting the Church and its leaders?

 

Maybe.

Another question for you.  Do the primary children of the church still sing the song Follow the Prophet where that phrase is sung around 50 plus times to creepy musical melody?  What message does that convey to young children. 

Off track with this: honestly, I've never felt the melody was creepy.  To me it always sounded more like middle eastern or eastern music (may be using the wrong terms) to go along with the places of some of the OT prophets.  I wonder how the song feels to people who live in those parts of the world.

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Does the church still teach this:

And this which has bee quoted in recent conferences:

And this:

 

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

 

His talk along with numerous others over the years teach that we need to follow the words of prophets seers with fealty. 

Another question. What happens when someone who is a member openly disagrees and opposes what the church leaders say and teach?

 

I am just repeating what your leaders teach.  You need to spin it because it comes back to bite the church quite often. The other thread on hate speech demonstrates that well.  But keep playing the spin doctor game. You are quite good at it.

 

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

As mentioned it is directed at church members. I guess it may be just the faithless border line apostate members who are using their critical thinking skills to ask questions.  Could be someone sitting in the pew next to you.  Could be you someday. Who knows?

16 hours 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!  

If you want to live your life with total faith and never question I guess his admonition does not apply to you.  But maybe not based on the bolded above.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I have not read the whole speech, or even the above comments. 
 

But I will state that every member of this Church has within him/herself the right to revelation before they follow the counsels of the prophet. We are not a church of blind obedience. 
All of us need to take advantage of this promise……..”Upon this rock……..”. 

And how often does the revelation dispute what the leaders say?

[Pyreaux]

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

This is another example of Mormon extremism.  Obey, obey, obey without question.

What do you know of obedience?

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And how often does the revelation dispute what the leaders say?

Lol, why even ask this question?

If we say never, you'll call us sheep.

If we say frequently, you'll say prophets must not be reliable. 

By thy own hand hath the well been poisoned.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Off track with this: honestly, I've never felt the melody was creepy. 

I love the melody myself. And repetitive is in the nature of children’s songs, many folk songs and how about the 12 Days of Christmas?

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/30/2023 at 1:17 PM, 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.

The Daily Universe? Why were you reading this article? Kind of obscure source.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

15 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I have not read the whole speech, or even the above comments. 
 

But I will state that every member of this Church has within him/herself the right to revelation before they follow the counsels of the prophet. We are not a church of blind obedience. 
All of us need to take advantage of this promise……..”Upon this rock……..”. 

I agree with this wholeheartedly.   We should ultimately abide by the Spirit of the Lord in all things, and allow the brethren to assist in direction.  But, we must remember and always be careful not to conflate the church with "the rock".   The church may be built upon the rock, the perfect foundation, but that doesn't mean the structure itself is perfect or equivalent to the foundation.

Quote

Elder Hamilton encouraged the audience to substitute the words “the Church” for the word “Savior”

Nope.  See the problem with this?  The building is not the foundation.  I mean who would ever question the perfect Savior?  The very thought is troubling.   It is this same school of thought that caused one Area President to say that praying if one should serve a mission is a "stupid question" because aren't the prophets called of God?   This false equivalency leads to cult-like unquestioning obedience to an institution place on the level of the Savior.  That is a recipe for disaster.   

[Teancum]

56 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Lol, why even ask this question?

If we say never, you'll call us sheep.

If we say frequently, you'll say prophets must not be reliable. 

By thy own hand hath the well been poisoned.

It is your own dilemma not mine.  I have made my determination.

It is fairly clear LDS leaders expect that members follow their words. Sure there is this teaching that you can pray for your own confirmation but it is not expected that one gets an answer that they are wrong.  Sort of like Moroni 10:3-5.  Prey with real intent, having faith in Christ and remember how merciful GOd has been and so on.  And if someone gets a no it is not true anwer?  Weill they did the formula wrong.  

By the way I would not call you a sheep. I have been there. But I have concluded that at least for me and to me, the prophets and apostles are not reliable. I do not think they are bad. I think they are mostly full of good intent.  But I don't think they have any more privileged connection with a higher power than anyone else.  And that conclusion has been painful for me because I honestly believed they did for most of my life.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Daily Universe? Why were you reading this talk? Kind of obscure source.

Came across it in a FB group I am in.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Teancum

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do the primary children of the church still sing the song Follow the Prophet where that phrase is sung around 50 plus times to creepy musical melody?  What message does that convey to young children. 

The song is written in the style of Jewish folk music, alluding to the prophets in the scriptures. It’s hardly creepy. Some might say it is cultural appropriation.
The message is to follow the Prophet.

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Too bad that's not actually true. 

 

 

Quote

 

Obedience is the first law of heaven, the cornerstone upon which all righteousness and progression rest. It consists in compliance with divine law, in conformity to the mind and will of Deity, in complete subjection to God and his commands” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 539).

 

 

• “In the political field where so much pressure is exerted on men to compromise ideals and principles for expediency, party workers early learned to admire Marion G. Romney’s intense loyalty to his own conscience as well as to the advice of his Church leaders whose pronouncements on vital issues affecting the welfare of the nation he accepted as divinely inspired even though it frequently brought him into sharp conflict with leaders of his own political party. On one such occasion when church leaders in a tersely-worded editorial had denounced the trends of the political administration then in power, he confided in me something which it might be well if all loyal Church members in public life could emulate: ‘When I read that editorial,’ he told me, ‘I knew what I should do—but that wasn’t enough. I knew that I must feel right about following the counsel of the Church leaders and know that they were right. That took a whole night on my knees to accomplish.’ I submit in that statement the difference between ‘intelligent’ and ‘blind’ obedience. Marion G. Romney, while never disloyal to authority over him, could never be rightfully accused of being ‘blindly obedient.’” (Harold B. Lee, “Marion G. Romney,” Improvement Era, Oct. 1962, 742).

• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/17-obedience?lang=eng

 

• Quote

  Our willingness to follow the Brethren, the called local and general leaders of the Church, is a show of our humility and obedience to God.https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/boyd-k-packer/follow-brethren/

   

  Quote

   

  The prophet who leads the Church will never lead us astray. He tells us things that pertain to our lives now. The prophet gives us instruction from the Lord at general conference, which is held twice each year. He also gives the Lord’s counsel to us at other conferences held throughout the world. Many of the prophet’s addresses are printed in the Church magazines.

  In addition to the President of the Church, other men are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. These are the prophet’s counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve. These Brethren also receive revelation, bring us the will of the Lord, bear witness of the divinity of Christ, teach the plan of salvation, and perform ordinances.

  President Harold B. Lee said: “If you want to know what the Lord has for this people at the present time, I would admonish you to get and read the discourses that have been delivered at this [general] conference; for what these brethren have spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost is the mind of the Lord, the will of the Lord, the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1973, 176; or Ensign, July 1973, 121).

  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-latter-day-saint-woman-basic-manual-for-women-part-b/duties-and-responsibilities/lesson-13-follow-the-brethren?lang=eng

   

   

Edited January 31, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The song is written in the style of Jewish folk music, alluding to the prophets in the scriptures. It’s hardly creepy. The message is to follow the Prophet.

 

I find the tune creepy.  You don't. Ok. It still is a tool of indoctrination the a loyal church member should follow the prophet and then they won't go astray.  Some would call it brainwashing a young child. Repeating the phrase follow the prophet over 50 time and singing it many many times in their formative years wire their brains to reject any idea of not following the prophet. Add to that the other teachings like the prophet will NEVER lead the church astray and well there you have it.

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I find the tune creepy.  You don't. Ok. It still is a tool of indoctrination the a loyal church member should follow the prophet and then they won't go astray.  Some would call it brainwashing a young child. Repeating the phrase follow the prophet over 50 time and singing it many many times in their formative years wire their brains to reject any idea of not following the prophet. Add to that the other teachings like the prophet will NEVER lead the church astray and well there you have it.

Creepy melody. OK. Seems to me the issue is more with the text.

Did you like the video?

 

I’m trying to think of times that listening to the prophets has led me astray. Coming up with a blank.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[helix]

On 1/30/2023 at 11:17 AM, 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.  

No, not it does not.  This talk is making the rounds in ex-member circles, grossly distorting the talk into something it isn't.  This is the Jeffery Holland talk to BYU faculty all over again, where one side starts up and spreads a lie: "He's telling all church members to pointing our guns and shooting gays". The other side responds "No, if you read the talk, he's telling BYU faculty to defend its mission and defend itself from metaphorical attacks from the outside." 

This talk from Elder Hamilton's is not what critics say it is.  The talk is describing the church in simple doctrinal terms: faith, baptism, covenants, priesthood, and the atonement.  These are core doctrines and will not change. The talk states that disagreeing with these disagrees with Christ.  Compare 3 Nephi chapter 11 for similar language: "And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one. And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.... And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil.... Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth."

That's it. This talk is just another 3 Nephi 11. Don't overdo it.

The ex-member circles are proclaiming that the talk means that the black priesthood ban was correct, the church is inerrant, you shouldn't question the leadership regarding their policy of tithing payments in Australia, etc., and if you do, then you don't follow Christ.  That's a complete mischaracterization.

Edited February 1, 2023 by helix