Vort

My understanding is that Paul was contrasting faith, hope, and charity (love), three virtues that were to remain, with prophecy, tongues, and knowledge (i.e. testimony), three virtues that were to be taken. Note in 1 Cor 13 how Paul explicitly contrasts prophecy, tongues, and gnosis (translated knowledge, but according to Nibley more accurately rendered testimony) as departing virtues ("vanish away") with faith, hope, and charity as abiding virtues, i.e. those that would remain. I believe that Paul's first epistle to Corinth was written at least in part to prepare the minds of the people for the great apostasy that was to come within the lifetime of some of those then living -- that in fact had already begun in some parts of the Church where the apostles could not regularly minister. 1 Cor 13 is obviously a sermon on the importance of charity as a crowning virtue of Christianity, but the subtext of impending apostasy seems fairly clear.

Thank you, Snow. This was actually useful. (And believe me, I am as surprised to be saying this to the likes of you as you are to be hearing it from the likes of me.)

This sounds right to me. The phrase "to do violence to" has a well-established meaning in this context, and does not imply that homosexuals are going around beating up married people. Redefining marriage to include marital status between same-sex partners, as between humans and vegetables or planets, would indeed do violence to the traditional concept of marriage. It's a perfectly valid use of the phrase. You are, perhaps, conversing with exactly the wrong person on this topic. It seems that no matter how precise I am in phrasing my responses (or questions), someone is sure to misunderstand me and attribute malice where none was intended. If I try to explain myself using careful word choice, people just get madder and madder. When I ask for explanations of what they mean, even if I provide exhaustive documentation of what they said and when, they just continue to get more angry, usually without ever bothering to actually respond to anything I am asking. (Note that this is true even, or especially, when I take great pains to answer all of their questions or points in detail.) So I understood Br. Otterson's phraseology and found nothing objectionable in it. I have to think that even if I were on the other side of the fence, I would not find the use of that phrase objectionable, since it accurately reflects exactly what he meant. But then, I will never get elected president, either. If this is literally true, then such people are too ignorant to get involved in public conversations with adults. But of course, such legalization would unarguably do great violence to the very idea of traditional marriage, if not to the actual individual marriages themselves. To say you don't like a stated fact because you don't like how it sounds seems absurd to me. From a purely pragmatic and political point of view, you may be absolutely right. But if our ability for public discourse is so broken that it becomes politically incorrect for someone to use a well-established and well-understood phrase in exactly the way it is appropriate to use, then our problems go far deeper than a few hypersensitive souls taking offense where, very clearly, none was intended.

What other answer is possible? "I deserve to live in the celestial kingdom because I am meritorious"? The only possible answer is, "I deserve to live in the celestial kingdom because I have been invited by one who has authority to invite me." I can see no other possible answer. Certainly, the idea that you have earned exaltation because you served a mission and paid your tithing is an absurd conceit.

Weird. It seems like I see that number twice a day! Except when I go to bed early.

I suppose I consider being instructed by the bishop to leave one's spouse to be an immoral act, and thus outside the scope of the question. This poll question is based on some other threads, where I suggested the scenario where a bishop asked or instructed a ward member to sign his/her house over to the Church. Some opined that a bishop has no such authority, while others seemed to suggest that the Lord would always tell you through revelation what you should do in that situation. This question was designed to discover the thinking and opinions of the site membership on that latter possibility. Is it the case that the Lord will always provide revelatory confirmation or denial of any major request your bishop might make?

It's called "conversation on a discussion list." If you have answered N times, I was hoping for N+1. Huh. Didn't expect that from you.

LDS only, please: Is it possible that the bishop might tell you to do some life-changing (BUT NOT OVERTLY IMMORAL) thing -- something that definitely has ramifications for the rest of your life, and perhaps your children's lives, too -- and when you ask the Lord for confirmation, God neither tells you that the directive is from him nor that the bishop is a loose cannon that should be ignored? Or do you believe that the Lord is always obligated in every such instance to give you confirming guidance one way or the other?

I asked my mom when I was four, and she pulled out a pencil and a pad of paper and started drawing pictures. To this day, I have never told her this, but it was TMI. A simple explanation like, "A baby grows inside the mommy's body from a seed that both the daddy and the mommy give" would probably have been much more useful to me at that time, and much more understandable. But my point was, questions mean different things in different contexts and require different types of answers.

I don't. Then perhaps I misunderstood your intent. What did you mean when you responded to my question "Is it unwise to follow the direction of our Priesthood leaders?" by saying, "It's unwise to do anything without using the good sense God gave you. Consecration is another way to guide our agency and the intent of our hearts. I can't enjoy those refining effects if I am running on autopilot."? That isn't what I said, nor the position I would take. Again, perhaps I have misunderstood. What did you mean when you wrote, "Following a bishop who is headed in the way of apostasy is NOT fulfilling my convent obligations. In fact, holding back and waiting for God to instruct would be"? (In this response, please note that you specifically disclaimed passing any judgment on the bishop, even though you stated that he was "headed in the way of apostasy". I still haven't figured that one out, but I take it on blind faith that you were being sincere in stating that you would not be trying to pass judgment on the bishop even while proclaiming him as following the path to apostasy.) In my life long experience with listening to prophets and trying to heed their counsel, it has been my experience to enjoy the blessings of spiritual tutorials when their words are spoken. Following the prophets and following the spirit becomes a simultaeous and streamlined process. There have been very few, if I can even remember one, where I disagreed ... or agreed for that matter.... with the brethren without the presence of the spirit. I have not had such an experience with bishops. In fact, quite the opposite. So, in other words, you were mistaken. In your view, obeying instruction from your bishop IS different from obeying instruction from President Monson. By all means. At this juncture, your point seems to be that you were mistaken in claiming you saw no difference between obeying the instruction of your ward president and obeying the instruction of your church president. If the prophet said something that felt wrong to me, it would then be my work to find out why. Is it me? What part of my heart isn't in the right place? I would, again, go to the Lord for help. And as near perfect as I want the prophets to be, they are still human and still subject to the frailties of what it means to be human. I support them, even in their weakness. Even the early saints needed to pray for strength to obey. Once they understood that the command came from God, they complied. But as I recall, many were alarmed and angry at the beginning. Something I feel is absolutely ok. God lets us process things and our emotions help us do that. Such is NOT a sign that devotion is weak. This is all true, Miss½, but it avoids the question. Would you, or would you not, consider yourself obligated to follow President Monson's directions if they didn't "feel right" to you? I'm not talking about a divine manifestation that they are wrong. I'm talking about they don't "feel right" to you, as polygamy most certainly did not "feel right" to the vast majority of Saints early in this dispensation. This is where you are deliberately turning my words against me. What do you mean? I am quoting stuff you said and asking for clarification. Did I misquote you? If so, please tell me where, because I copied and pasted. Am I misconstruing your meaning? If so, please clarify. That's what I'm asking for. You have been talking about the evils of "blind faith" and about how you are OBLIGATED to seek the spirit. So my question seems perfectly natural: Given your abhorrence of "blind faith" and your obligation to seek the spirit, do you believe that NOT receiving a spiritual confirmation relieves you of the burden of obedience? No I am not saying that obedience is safer ... and I think you know that. I assume you meant to write "disobedience", not "obedience". And obviously I assumed you didn't believe that, because that would be a rather absurd thing to think, and I don't believe you think in absurdities. (In fact, if you read even not-very-closely, you will see that immediately afterward, I added, "If not...") But it sure does sound almost exactly like what you wrote: "[L]et's just say I don't obey the counsel of the bishop when I should. The spirit teaches me in that circumstance too." And this is wonderful. So the question is: If your bishop asked you to sign over your house, would you do it? Assume God neither confirmed that you were supposed to do so, nor revealed to you that the bishop was running amok. Of course, if you insist that the scenario is impossible, that God would certainly and without any possible doubt reveal to you one way or the other, then you can simply say that.

So we are not to have unquestioning (that is, "blind") faith in God?

Cute but unhelpful.

Thanks for your charitable assessment. I'll keep it in mind in future dealings with you. On the contrary, I have been as explicit as I know how to be in trying to clarify what she meant. Okay...so then, as long as you had been given a testimony of your bishop's Godly calling, then you would sign over your house. Right? Three thoughts on that: What did I write that indicates anything even remotely approaching what you claim?Even if we assume what you write is true -- why should that "really bug" you?If you are "really bugged" by something I say, that sounds like your problem, not mine. Why is it my responsibility to fix something that bugs you? I claim that you are making a false accusation, anatess. Please back up (or else retract) this false statement. Which courtesy, anatess? The courtesy of avoiding false accusations? Sorry, but that does not help at all. Yet we are taught that we receive no witness until AFTER the trial of our faith. We do not tell people to gain a testimony of the Word of Wisdom, and then go ahead and live it. We do not tell people to gain a testimony of tithing, and then go ahead and start paying it. Testimony FOLLOWS obedience. In other words, your definition of "blind faith" sounds to me like plain old faith. Your implicit definition of "informed faith" sounds to me like faithlessness.

No. I believe Adam and Eve to have been real, actual, breathing human beings, and the primal ancestors to the human race on earth today. I think the religious account exists for an entirely different reason, and that it has little to do with the mechanics of creation. For example, suppose your three-year-old asks, "Where do babies come from?" Is this your big opportunity to describe the wonders of human sexuality and the variety of pleasuring techniques available to each partner? To a three-year-old? Or is a better response to say something like (depending on your own religious and philosophical beliefs), "Babies come from heavenly Father"? Another example: Suppose a medical student, being introduced to a type of cancer, asks: "What comes next?" He probably wants to know the oncological progression. Now suppose a lawyer asks the same question about the cancer. He probably wants to know the legal ramifications and protections involved when someone has that type of cancer. Now suppose a patient asks that upon diagnosis. He's probably asking about what treatments are available, what his options are, and so forth. Same question with different intents and different answers. Science and religion may both be asked to describe the creation of the earth. Science attempts to describe the mechanics of creation. Religion, on the other hand, will probably attempt to describe the much more important idea of the ends of the earth's creation and what it means to human beings. The fact that the planet may have coalesced out of a cloud of hydrogen and heavier elements thrown off from ancient supernovae really has nothing at all to do with God's purpose for us here. That's my opinion, anyway.

I am not sure, Moksha, because I don't know what "blind faith" means. I have asked Miss½ and others for clarification on the issues of "blind faith" and "blind obedience", but so far no one was explained to me what they mean. Can you do so?

I'll try to make it easier. Then you will be happy to know that you are mistaken. I am not deliberately missing any point. It appears that you are totally missing the point, though I choose to believe that you are not deliberately doing so. Frankly, you have been much sweeter and kinder in your conversation than some others, which I appreciate. I apologize for my own occasional snippiness toward you -- including in my initial response in this post. I'll summarize a few of my questions that you have not yet answered to save you the energy of going back and answering them in the original posts, and hope you'll do me the favor of answering them now. Why do you think that obeying a Priesthood leader is "running on autopilot"?Which part of your covenant instructs you not to obey your bishop until God himself speaks to you?You claimed that obeying instruction from your bishop was no different from obeying the instruction from President Monson. You also claim in this most recent post that you would not bother to pray for verification about President Monson's instruction, because "THe spirit just spoke to my heart." Then why do you balk at doing the same with your bishop? Are you now claiming that they are in fact not the same?I assume that if President Monson wants you to do something that doesn't feel right to you, you believe that you likewise have no obligation to do what he says. Correct? Do you believe this also applied to the early Saints of this dispensation who were instructed to live plural marriage?You claim that "My covenants to this gospel OBLIGATE ME to seek the spirit in all things." If you fail to obtain the Spirit in a thing, do you therefore believe that means you are obligated not to obey in that thing? For example, if you didn't receive a testimony of tithing, are you therefore under covenant obligation NOT to pay tithing until you have received that witness? Because you surely realize that this is in direct conflict with the teaching found in Ether 12:6, that "ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith."You also wrote, "[L]et's just say I don't obey the counsel of the bishop when I should. The spirit teaches me in that circumstance too. My conscience is pricked or my path is stopped in some other way. Then I know I need to repent and change my course." So then, are you saying that disobedience is always the safer course, because God can always correct us? If not, what was your point?

Then perhaps the problem is your interpretation. It's all in how you ask the question. Joseph Smith did not say, "I'm going to follow this protestant faith until you tell me otherwise" he asked, "which church is correct that I may join them." Completely different attitudes.So then, what is the appropriate attitude to take if your bishop asks you to sign your house over? "Not on your life! Unless I receive absolute confirmation from God FIRST!"? This is where the witness is received after the trial of your faith comes in. Following the direction to test your faith under those circumstances would not potentially harm you or your family, unlike signing away your house which could leave you homeless.On the contrary, many people have exposed themselves and their families to potentially grave harm by paying tithing when they didn't have enough money to make rent or buy food. Yet the principle of obedience still applied to them. Why is signing over your house so fundamentally different?

Are you sure? Even if the bishop asks you to sign over your home? :)

Yes, yes, probably, about 13 billion years, about 4.7 billion years, more or less, no, probably not but I would have to know the specifics of the supposed contradiction first.

Has anyone suggested that such a thing is problematic? Is that true with other commandments? Am I justified in saying, "Lord, I need additional revelation regarding the law of chastity, and I have no intention of abrogating my free agency by living such a stupid law until and unless you provide me convincing revelation and some time to come to grips with this"? I submit that sexuality is far more important than a house. Do you likewise agree that refusing to abide by the laws of chastity, tithing, and the word of wisdom until you have received sufficiently convincing revelation also "does not mean that you do not support church authorities"?

So then, disobedience is always the safer course, because God can always correct us. Is this what you're saying? Jesus told his disciples to submit to the requirements of the scribes and Pharisees merely by virtue of their position of "sit[ting] in Moses' seat", despite their manifest hypocrisy. So yes, it is your right to be protected by God's influence, but that does not mean you are justified in disobeying legitimate leaders, even if [you think] they may be wrong. Just how important do you think your house is, anyway?

It's not.So then, if President Monson personally instructed you to sign over your house and possessions to the Church, you would refuse to do so until you received adequate and convincing spiritual confirmation of the directive? I am not passing "judgment".You wrote: "Following a bishop who is headed in the way of apostasy is NOT fulfilling my convent obligations." Determining that the bishop in question "is headed in the way of apostasy" requires passing judgment on him. I assume that if President Monson wants you to do something that doesn't feel right to you, you likewise have no obligation to do what he says. Correct? Do you believe this also applied to the early Saints of this dispensation who were instructed to live plural marriage? What does it mean for a man to be authorized of God? Does that not then mean that he speaks with the authority of the Spirit? If you fail to obtain the Spirit in a thing, do you believe that means you are obligated not to obey in that thing? For example, if you didn't receive a testimony of tithing, are you therefore under covenant obligation NOT to pay tithing until you have received that witness? Because you surely realize that this is in direct conflict with the teaching found in Ether 12:6, that "ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith."

Given laws making it illegal to discriminate against gays have no effect on traditional marriage whatsoever, I fail to see how the phrase do violence was appropriate. Not sure of your objection. Let's try recasting this. Suppose the LDS Church approved of a law forbidding discrimination based on weight. In their explanation, they said, "This ordinance is fair and reasonable, and does not do violence to the interests of public health." Would you then object that the Church was somehow insulting fat people by suggesting that they did "do violence" to the public health? When they explicitly stated the opposite? Then why would the Church's saying "this does not do violence to the institution of marriage" make you think they were saying the opposite -- that protection of the civil rights of homosexuals does "do violence" to marriage?

Perhaps because that man is authorized of God. What do you think it means to "blindly follow"? You and Miss½ have been using that term, but I have yet to see it defined.

How is this any different from obeying the president of the Church? Sure, but it's a start. Any kind of obedience is better than disobedience. Are you in a position to pass judgment on your bishop? Which part of your covenant instructs you not to obey your bishop until God himself speaks to you?