The Prophet And Leadership Of The Church

[Outshined]

Serg has made some claims concerning the Prophet and the leadership of the Church, so I wanted to give him a chance to explain his position.

What mistakes has President Hinckley made or is he making as the Lord's mouthpiece on the earth today? How has he misled or harmed the Church through his leadership? What are the changes you believe must be made to the Church?

[Nate]

This question reminds me of some covenant I made some were, hint. On top of that Joseph Smith taught that you will never be lead astray by following the council of the either the first presidency or the majority of the twelve. Im curious now, ....Serg?

[Serg]

After reading that past thread, and how it ended, now you know Outshined that I am not the only one who takes your attitude to be anything BUT tolerant...

However, to sum up the past deal:

I never in my inicial post intended to recapitulate or expose reasons as to why we shouldnt trust leaders, nor a particular one(i.e.Hinckley), but after being drawned by OPutshined did I just pointed out that I did believe there have been mistakes(intentional) in our history and that yes, Hinckley is not absent from those.

Never did I started a crusade against Hinckley, but used him as an example(of teh postulate) to make logical conlusions on the frailty of leadership. However, aside that you misunderstood and took my remarks as to a total disapproval of the leadership, you centered in such irrelevant(and out of your grasping) topics, as my worthiness...pathetic.

To the deal:

We could start by the very first prophet of our dispensation, Joseph. Though I regard him as the foremost valuable one of the 15 we've had, yet even he(as HE RECALLED) was not without willingful mistakes.

Joseph Smith:

Willingly, lied to the public(lds and non lds) and authorities concerning his factual practice of plural marriage, excommunicated(thus unjustly) those who practiced it and tenderly accepted it(thus compromising his word), coceiled form emma mariages(so much that he actually sealed himself two times to two women to react it so Emma would think it was ' by her choice' , managed wrongly the money of both Kirtland and Navoo as to lie to members issuing void credits, etc...

Brigham Young:

Willingly, excommunicated members who disagreed with him in terms of accepting plural marriage or giving him their wives, excommunicated members for political reasons, took away the priesthood that Joseph gave to black members, started slavery in Utah in 1852, resisted State Law, dared to declare war(unnecesarily), spent very large sums of money in the adquiring of rum, concelied information while the Meadow Mountains case, proposed violence(death) against teh ' gentile' , Lied to the government, challenged doctrine of Joseph and reinterpreted his whole biography, usurped the position of Joseph the 3rd and admitted it, etc...

Snow, Woodruff, Fielding Smith:

Willingly, lied to the state, lied to the Church, kept practicing plural marriages after the Manifiesto, Fielding Smith actually said he ' never received or imparted any revelation to the church since his presidency' because he ' never intended to function as a receiver of such or guidiance' to no Church(Reed Smoot Church), excommunicated unjustly those members who revealed the situation, etc...

McConkie:

Willingly(because after all president McKay disaproved it), imparted doctrines as commands concerning the unworthiness of not only black people but those white related to blacks, hence in 1970's a white member(that I know of personally) was told that after discovering an african american in his genealogy(very faaaar away) he couldnt anymore use his priesthood, thus deprived of blessings the people of the Church and promoted it as true, knowing that previous historians, prophets and thinkers in teh Church disapproved of it.

I dont remember the name now:

The seventy that up tp teh other days told incredible stories of his veteran affairs and ST.Louis team, and was reprehended by teh Church for LYING.

Patriarch Smith:

Willingly lied to the leaders while having an affair with a fellow priesthood holder, teh Church didn't excommunicate him(thank God!), but sent him to Hawwai to preside a mission.

Hinckley, The First presidency:

Willingly, adquired a set of fraudent papers for a total sum of almost 115,000, because such ' spoke' bad of the roots of teh church and Joseph's authenticity, surprisingly, an anti-mormon told the First presidency that such papers weren't real, of course, our Seer came to know that later, not after revelation, but after specialists confirmed it, of course, the guy killed a bishop's wife with a bomb, and another authority, and when he himself died accidentally while taking the bomb to another person and the police in due time started seeing that he was the author the Church didnt cooperate to infor them of thei rdealings(which WERE the motive) and left the police lost because it didnt want the world to know what just happened(the buying things fraudent while not knowing so), excommunicated historians and teachers of the Church & BYU beacause of exposing historical sources in a manner of scholarly intention, excommunicated thinkers who protested of bad politics concerning the women and a so pronounced patriarcal order, was involved in the issue of the Olympics of utah concerning money(scholarships for sons of people) wrongly given, etc...

You see, this is no good manner of dealing with my reasons, this just lookes like profiles I keep at home. But you intended it this way. Now you may try to justify each of these willfully acts, but again , is your blind commitment not mine. Never did I say that because of such willful mistakes(because, indeed i have not mentioned those I consider to be non-willed), we ought to reject Hinckley, just that WHILE speaking to the brother of teh past thread, though yes, we have to change some things in teh Church, yet that was no complete reason to abandon it. Now in teh head of such literalists as Outshined it rained fire, and I said a thing like " death with Hinckley, up with Serg!" , a thing obviously taken out of context.

However, though those are only examples of how willfuly a leader can act wrongly, what |I believe needs to be changed are, as examples:

The overall policy of excommunicating disagreeing people

The policy of excluding women form ministrating offices

The silence atitude towards blacks, and the vindication they need, becasue, though they now, of course, enjoy the priesthood, NOBODY has yet disapporved and considered heretical(in teh Leadership level) teh thoughts of mcConkie or Fielding Smith, or Young, and still we find a lot of adherents that teach it , but worse, BEHAVE as if it were true,

The lack of appreciation and commitment to scholarship and coordinated efforts to improve understanding when facing new issues(or old)

The authoritarism within local and world wide levels, the ' reverence' and ' holiness' needed to even adress an authority(i.e. Outshined's rage because I didnt adress Hinckley-that is in fact his name- as president or prophet, or dear?!!!),

The concepts of worthiness dependant on an interview of such mechganical nature and cultic commitment

The pressing attitude of tithes and worthiness

The attitude of (not reenterpreting) but recreating lds history in videos that LIE of what and how it was, but as K.Packer said " truth is so hurtful, that only faith-promoting history can be said" . Well, that(if roughly) I could agree with in some respects, but not when it came not only to HIDE wrong deeds but to deny them altogether!

Etc....

This, will take time, and correctness in thought and politics of our Church will improve in due time, no revolt or attempts against anyone's worthiness are necessary but of dialogue and argumentation, only severly blind people (of cultic attitudes) would conmsider my position as a destructive force towards the Church.

Regards,

[Outshined]

After reading that past thread, and how it ended, now you know Outshined that I am not the only one who takes your attitude to be anything BUT tolerant...

And you know that I am not the only one who considers your attitudes toward Church leadership a concern. In fact some members here I discussed this with refuse to even read your posts. I note in your post you devote nearly as much time to griping about me and painting yourself as a martyr of sorts as you do trying to address the issue; unfortunate (or as you'd say, pathetic).

To your points:

I see you could provide no examples of "intentional" mistakes made by President Hinckley. As CK suggested, I focused the questions on him rather than Church history in general, as your biggest problem seems to be with present leadership of the Church.

I note that most of your complaints were heresay; little more than rumor. That's fine if that's what you base you own opinions on, but others will need more to go on than that. I was also told your gripe against President Hinckley would probably focus on the Salamander Letter, and yep, that's exactly what you went for. Hardly evidence of "intentional mistakes". Some sources for you to read up on this:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons.../salamander.htm

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_proph...html#salamander

http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Church_react...fmann_forgeries

You see, this is no good manner of dealing with my reasons, this just lookes like profiles I keep at home. But you intended it this way.

No, paranoia aside, this was intended as a forum for you to clearly express to us your views on the Prophet and the Church leadership. You have failed to give a single example of his misleading the Church or of mistakes he has made that harmed the Church.

what |I believe needs to be changed are, as examples: The overall policy of excommunicating disagreeing people

The Church cannot be blown about with every wind of doctrine. If someone opposes the Church, they should leave it. Policies and doctrines cannot be changed for those who decide the present doctrines no longer suit them.

The policy of excluding women form ministrating offices

Again, what possible difference would that make? The Priesthood is a male office, and Bishops, Stake Presidents and such are Priesthood offices.

The silence atitude towards blacks, and the vindication they need, becasue, though they now, of course, enjoy the priesthood, NOBODY has yet disapporved and considered heretical(in teh Leadership level) teh thoughts of mcConkie or Fielding Smith, or Young, and still we find a lot of adherents that teach it , but worse, BEHAVE as if it were true

None that I have met. Nor have the black members in my stake ever mentioned a need for "vindication". In fact, one recent speaker said his greatest day was when the Priesthood was extended to all worthy men. Perhaps you can give references concerning those "lot of adherents" who teach doctrines denigrating blacks.

The lack of appreciation and commitment to scholarship and coordinated efforts to improve understanding when facing new issues(or old)

Such as?

The authoritarism within local and world wide levels, the ' reverence' and ' holiness' needed to even adress an authority(i.e. Outshined's rage because I didnt adress Hinckley-that is in fact his name- as president or prophet, or dear?!!!)

I'm not sure what position you believe you hold, or should hold, that you wish to place yourself above men who have devoted their lives to serving God and His Church. I think you know your attitude has been lacking here, as you allude to "rage" where none existed. I merely (rightly) pointed out the arrogance of a youth who denigrates Church leadership because it does not bend to suit him.

The concepts of worthiness dependant on an interview of such mechganical nature and cultic commitment

This indicates a misunderstanding of the interview process; there is much more to it than the questions or your answers. You will appreciate this when you learn more about it.

The pressing attitude of tithes and worthiness

Based on such "antiquated" sources as the scriptures themselves...

The attitude of (not reenterpreting) but recreating lds history in videos that LIE of what and how it was, but as K.Packer said " truth is so hurtful, that only faith-promoting history can be said" . Well, that(if roughly) I could agree with in some respects, but not when it came not only to HIDE wrong deeds but to deny them altogether!

What would such videos add to a Primary class, pray tell? They are faith-promoting videos that are meant to show the good, just the Bible story videos do.

This, will take time, and correctness in thought and politics of our Church will improve in due time, no revolt or attempts against anyone's worthiness are necessary but of dialogue and argumentation, only severly blind people (of cultic attitudes) would conmsider my position as a destructive force towards the Church.

And I posit that no such changes are warranted nor likely to occur. More damage has been done to the Gospel of Christ by those who think they can "improve" it than by any mob. Claims that those who disagree with your views are "blind cultists" aside, I consider any attempts to adapt the doctrines of Christ to fit with more secular attitudes destructive, and you should as well.

[Nate]

managed wrongly the money of both Kirtland and Navoo as to lie to members issuing void credits, etc...

The ledger book was found in an library in Chicago (I think). It was examined by historians and economists and found it completely legit. Assuming you are referring to the bank.

Serg, please give some references to these claims so we can stop the continue flood of rumor.

[Serg]

Interestingly, what I intend solely is not to prove that Hinckley is mistaken in some things, but that he can be.

What do you say for Fielding Smith in the Reed Smoot case? Tell me if he didnt LIE!!!

Is then Hinckley a beter or more of a prophet that the such was? No.

I do not intend to prove how we have to get rid of all ledares, I just pointed out in no more controversial way, that i believe that changes must come to some things in the church, ah, for example, worship music. Music, you may check in ALL manuals(of leadership), proclaim or quote leaders proclaiming that music by iinstruments OTHER than piano or organ(slow) instruments, are, to say, " against teh spirit" , that they should not be allowed because they " offend the spirit" and to let them in is to "let them crawl into" our wordhip.... That is an offence and narrow minded view of what netrual music, and all sorts of instruments depending on the culture, can help to promote spiritual experience. In fact, it is an evil deed, to proclaim to some saints of some countries that they not only ' ought' not use them but ' if they do they offend the spirit' . This I am sure you wont deny that happens.

But even so, I just went tired of this thread, I never even wanted to discuss such things with you, nor did I ever focused on Hinckley, but on present leadership, though logically one refers to the other, ' present' refered to th ereality of our abstract conclusion of frailty within leadership of my postulate, but anyways, you are not only blind against other appreciations, but to discoursive rethorical logics.

Again, those who do know me, or of me, in this forum, know, aside of mere outrage, of the whys and hows of my positions.

They all, as GENTLEMEN accept that, they dont fight it as the solitary cowboy.

I have felt completely bad about this discussion we have had, I feel totally drained and guilty, I should not have engaged on such a topic with you, knowing that you are unable to reason, I am truly sorry if I offended you, it was not, again, my intention, but your sudden reaction to my post to somebody else(who in fact....what does he say about all this?)....ahh....were you so savage on him for mistrusting the Church too?

Hum...

Sincerely, this thread is over for me.

Regards,

[Outshined]

I see a major flaw in your argument, of course. Just because the Prophet is human and able to make mistakes does not mean he has done so in his position as Church leader, nor that he has ever misled the Church membership.

One view that should have leapt at you when you decided to question the leadership of the Church is this: if they are human and capable of error, then so are you, and you may be quite mistaken in the direction of your thoughts on this.

I find my view of your position on the Church confirmed as untenable. No intentional mistakes, no policy changes that should be made. Your attempts to paint me as "blind" and "unable to reason" fail to disguise the fact that your claims honestly have no merit.

Serg, please give some references to these claims so we can stop the continue flood of rumor.

I noticed a lack of references for several wild accusations there...

[Dr T]

One view that should have leapt at you when you decided to question the leadership of the Church is this: if they are human and capable of error, then so are you, and you may be quite mistaken in the direction of your thoughts on this.

Sobering thought Outshined. Something to think about. Thank you :)

[CrimsonKairos]

Serg, I cannot agree with most of what you say.

You're entitled to think that women ought to have the priesthood, but to go around saying the leaders need to get with it and extend it to them is unwise. The Lord will extend the priesthood to the sisters, if it is his will, through the Prophet and Quorum of the Twelve apostles.

I won't go through and respond to everything you said. I did want to point out a passage of scripture, as a warning that hopefully will guide you to a better path:

"And when they came to Nachon’s threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.

"And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God." (2 Sam. 6:6-7)

God calls those whom He wants to leadership positions. Those of us who think we can do better, or know better, are not authorized to "steady the ark." It is against the order of heaven. Blessings come by sustaining righteous prietshood leaders, not by acting like the "Iraq Study Group" and tendering a report cataloguing all perceived mistakes and what to do about them.

I see nothing wrong with demanding that we address the Prophet of the Lord with the prefix of President, and not refering to him by his last name alone. At least saying Mr. Hinckley would be better. What do you have against showing respect for the man that the Lord has chosen to guide His Church?

I sense a slight spirit of rebellion in you...I merely hope you do not feed it and end up regretting it. Your other posts are generally good, Serg. You're a good guy. Stick to the doctrines of salvation, focus on the ordinances, worship God in the name of Christ, rejoice in the blessing of belonging to His Church on the earth, and thank God for a prophet to guide us.

The ark does not need steadying. Truly.

[Traveler]

Having served myself in various "leadership" positions in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I can honestly say that I have never seen, experienced or heard of a priesthood holder in a leadership position that has done or could do a poor enough job for me to volunteer to replace them. All comments in this thread included.

I have sat with priesthood leaders over concerns to myself about various policies and practices that I though questionable and even then I have never encountered a leader that I could not support. I have never heard of or encountered an organization that I can support more than that which is in place in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

With all the criticism and all that nut cases that think they could do better – I have never encountered any such nut case even come close to anything better.

Yes, I know that the L-rd has put some rather strange individuals into roles within his Kingdom that from everything that I can see may not be a flawless fit but I have learned to be patient with G-d, his prophets and his saints. I am honored to be allowed fellowship in the priesthood with the likes of such great men.

The Traveler

[Serg]

Serg, I cannot agree with most of what you say.

You're entitled to think that women ought to have the priesthood, but to go around saying the leaders need to get with it and extend it to them is unwise. The Lord will extend the priesthood to the sisters, if it is his will, through the Prophet and Quorum of the Twelve apostles.

I won't go through and respond to everything you said. I did want to point out a passage of scripture, as a warning that hopefully will guide you to a better path:

"And when they came to Nachon’s threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.

"And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God." (2 Sam. 6:6-7)

God calls those whom He wants to leadership positions. Those of us who think we can do better, or know better, are not authorized to "steady the ark." It is against the order of heaven. Blessings come by sustaining righteous prietshood leaders, not by acting like the "Iraq Study Group" and tendering a report cataloguing all perceived mistakes and what to do about them.

I see nothing wrong with demanding that we address the Prophet of the Lord with the prefix of President, and not refering to him by his last name alone. At least saying Mr. Hinckley would be better. What do you have against showing respect for the man that the Lord has chosen to guide His Church?

I sense a slight spirit of rebellion in you...I merely hope you do not feed it and end up regretting it. Your other posts are generally good, Serg. You're a good guy. Stick to the doctrines of salvation, focus on the ordinances, worship God in the name of Christ, rejoice in the blessing of belonging to His Church on the earth, and thank God for a prophet to guide us.

The ark does not need steadying. Truly.

The problem is, that, when we say as Outshined that no changes 'should'be made, we are saying that no 'need' for them we have, but what do we logically and unavoidably conceive of the changes that DO take place? Please!

How do you account for th echanges in our temple ceremony?

A hardminded perosn with no notions of óughtness'or 'should'in change would have to say"I dont know", because to say otherwise(as would logically be), that if there WERE changes we expect that they wer for the better, that person would be unavoidably asserting my case. Now, you may rationalize and justify all you want concerning the possibilities of changes, but they do happen and they DO for a REASON. Now, that reason is not voluntarism, is a based desicion, not on God's necessary opinion, bbut on the logical good that comes from it. Hence, we may say, that the change of policy in behalf of blacks, was good, and if so, it is BETTER NOW than before. To say that is the same, is to value the black's experience of priesthood as unimportant, because if being and not being are equally valuable, only indifference resides. Now, we all conceive that is better now than before, and while saying this, we logically admit that saying BEFORE that it would be BETTER(as our now) to make the change, was equally true. Hence a persue of change can be justified, even while speaking of the 'annointed'. If Outshined's position is to be hold, that no changes are in no way NEEDED(or even POSSIBLY admitted), then it follows some postulates:

A) that the change that was made(as example) in the priesthood ban issue was not necessary then, to deny it is to say that the leaders of those times were more suseptible of growth and learning(i,e.improvement) than present ones, a thing that is incoherent.

B ) if not necessary then it didnt do either good or bad, thus we ought to consider the black's experience of priesthood as an unexplainable condesendation of all knowing untouachable leaders towards them

C) If it didnt do bad or good, and it was unnecessary(because the reasons dont concern it's outcomes,i.e.improvement), then God is a God of unnecesary politics, and heaven forbid, how do we know which commandments ar of these nature, and we so hardly try to keep them?

D) If it is said that this was so, then the member who before the lifting of the ban protested or considered it an unjustice, was wrong, it wasnt an unjustice, it just was*

E) If it just was*, then those hurt by it matter not, neither those who feel better now

F) But this gibberish to mantain the leadership's capacity for no need of change or improbvement, is not so.

G) A change is made, and it either makes an addition or a reduction

I) This made both, it abstracted from our math the unworthiness/unnecessary experience of blacks and added the such new experience

J) If it added or reducted, either it improved or made worse the x given

K) If it did improve the x given, then it followed that: it was needed(for to look to grow and to have more goodness is rational), there were reasons for it, and those who considered it's absense as an evil, were right, just as those who consider themselves more happy when having two legs than one are also right.

L) If so, then he who protested could rightly do so,

M) If he protested and no change was made, this didnt mean that his position was unnecesary, but that those responsable for making that Change were not in accord

N) If not in accord, and later came to accord, they by necessity learned, decided, poundered and made a better desicion than before

O) Thus the leadership improved in understanding(i.e.Kimball says"the long" awaited moment, McConkie says 'we spoke by a limited light', etc...

P) Hence, both the persons who protested were right in doing so, because a change was needed

R) If it was a better state of affairs in 1978, it would also have been so in 1910,(or from the very beggining as Smith did with blacks)

S) If just as good at any prior time, then just as necessary at such a prior time

T) Thus the leaders that held the power to make the change prior to the time it was made lacked such understanding, moreover needed such

U) To say that it wouldnt have been just as good an necessary for the change in any prior time would have to be proven by some other merits than our present logic

V) To recuur to teh Lord's desicion would be to refuge in voluntarism, and say that becase He didnt want to, blacks didnt have such change prior to 1978

W) That would be a very difficult concept to prove in the light of th etrue historical process of the situation of the ban, where it didnt occur as sheer revelation or occurance among 1978's leaders, nor did it started as a reveletion or sheer occurance

X) Hence to admitt this is to admitt it of most others(if not properly all) changes in politics coming from the leaders at all times

Y) To say this is to say that Serg is as potentially right to look for a change as those who did before the 1978 issue

z) Thus, to say otherwise than this, and contradict serg saying how illogicla and rebellious he is failing to recognize all this necessary contemplation

For those, who as Outshined, either ignores or knows and willingly ignores the process of this historical(and representative) event, here partake of some fact:

Joseph Smith did give freely the priesthood to blacks

Brigham Young decided based on his sole will to withdraw such experience from them

The Such Young instituted slavery in Utah(a thing mostly despised by Smith)

No revelation or new light, or concent from members in general conference, or Presidency proclamation was said of such desicion

Later prophets until McKay believed in a rationalization of this desicion(as to avoid to llok at it as a mere willful groundless desicion because then it would have looked bad), that included a doctrine of damnation and unworthiness on black people

The very prophet who instituted it(Young) said prophetically and ex catedra, that no change would be made

McKay didnt believe this doctrine of damnation, and proposed meetings with the Quorum to settle this matter

Other leaders in the quorum denied his position and voted against it,

McKay nevertheless started a movement(as president) to accept some 'negroes', he started, playng the game of racists in the Church, by admitting any male of sark color to the priesthood, that was not of african descent(because here the racists had no other way to escape, if they were to sustain the interpretation of Cain's curse, it was restricted to these)

People, natives and many others commenced thanks to mcKay and reluctant leaders to come

Kimball was not in agreement with the racist position, therefore he started this tactic again among his fellow leaders, by allowing the Church to be built in places as Brasil, and a temple be constructed there(before the lifting of the ban)

When inevitable for racists, Kimball suggested a meeting, at which he explained to them why he FELT and KNEW that this change was NEEDED(for indeed, if not NEEDED it wouldnt have been adreed as 'awaited')

Such leaders were very much more receptive to RECEIVE this light, and accepted it.

After this, is proper to adress the following:

The Lord does not expect to COMMAND His Servant in ALL, but HE ALONE and out of HIS OWN will is expected to DO works(changes). This was the case.

The very 'revelation' explains how it was REALLY received(not as a miracle unexpected sudden new* vision of social equality), but as a thought and throughly studied case!

Look at what the revelation Kimball received originally said: 10. And lo, likewise the doctrine of the curse of Cain and the mark of blackness, as well as everything pertaining thereto, is also repugnant to me, but was given unto my Saints as a test.

11. And ye have been valiant and righteous in obeying the words of my mouth which were given not as true doctrine but only as a test for your benefit.

12. Now, therefore, rejoice in my blessing and receive my Word! For no more shall ye make any distinction among my Saints as to their race or as to the color of their skin; for I the Lord God am no respecter of persons, but all shall come unto me and all may be worthy to receive all the blessings of my Gospel without let or hindrance.

What do we think of this? The Lord is practically saying: Hey, you know, I tested you, with a false doctrien, that you may come to be obedient in this, but noe, I assure you(and take off my mask), this is repugnant, lets change it because(out of all sudden) you have learned somehow from it!!!!

This is Kimballs mere(but GENUINE) attitude towards the justification of this. But this doesnt stand. Because if such were true, then Kimball would have had to believe that this doctrine was true(in order to be tested) but he didnt! Or McKay! Or Joseph! If true, then Kimball would have had to receive with amzement the declaration, and not with the predictive attitude with which it starts, note it:

'Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood'

'aware' when and how??? Up to that time, only the doctrine that the Lord had intentionally allowed to be believed was not pointing to this moment but on the contrary, because it never pointed at this moment was that it played the role of probation(in the logic employed by racists)!

But it was thought: " As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords."

The key words are that because 'we' have 'contemplated' the expansion(i.e.necesity) of the work 'we' have 'been inspired ' with a DESIRE to EXTEND' these privilages, where here is teh ' Thus says the Lord' ? Where is it 'we never imagined that such trhing would happen but the Lord aside of any contemplation of ours arose and said this to us'? No! Because they had SEEN , they felt inspired to DESIRE to extend this.

Now, on what does Outshined bases his thought against this? Sheer idolatry.

In fact all I have to say to prove my point is to ask is THIS TRUE? :

"The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, ...but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their First Estate [the pre-existence]." Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 - 528, 1966 edition

The answer is yes or no.

If yes: Then it follows that present situation of the ' negroe' is contradictory to this all eternal decree. And a rational explanation ought be given, concerning how to allow for such an unpredictable change.

If no: Then is not only thsi false TODAY, but at ALL TIMES prior to now, and hence, McConkie was lying(even if convinced of it) and was better when he was convinced of the opposite than when not, hence, the member who proclaimed falsehood in this prior to 1978 WAS right, and the leaders WERE wrong. This, is to say, is no mere matter of opinion, this doctrien was practiced, revealed and proposed as teachings of the annointed and prophets, and it's radical abbandonment can only be explained by accepting their mistake and their now greatly valuied change of attitude(and learning). Blacklds.org sustains that ordanations to Abel's descendants were carried throught the century.

here is another refference http://www.ldshistory.net/1990/embry.htm

My point is that , if there WAS a change(as a solitary example, we may talk of many others-starting with the design of our garments) at that time with leaders of same capacity for inspiration than present ones, we may now also be justified in oppose some politics because they make US feel how those FELT before this change, hence, as Hinckley is nOT excluded of this phenomenon, it is proper not to cuestion as an irrational person Serg's adolesence, or rebellion or groundless attitude, but th ereasons for such a justified possibility.

Now, tp set an example that unless it is adressed by outshined it will remain to him as an ignored fact, we postulate that MUSIC in the Church ought and must change. Why? I already said. Why not? Outshined has not dared to adrees it.

Every one of the above mentioned willful acts of presidents(in previous post) can I sustain. It is easy to just dismiss them as sheer adolesence of serg and say that I dont show any reference, but there they are! And anyone including lds historians that look at them, accept them, and they dont deny them or attack the worthiness of the person that brings them up, I mentioned them, I cant go to your home and show the books to you with the proofs, you can learn of these facts in any respectable history of iour religion, in fact, is YOUR prerogative to show why historically 'such' and 'such' is not true, to tell me that you dont believe that if I am married and say that \i am not simultaneously is not williful lying, then you are simply neurotic and need a reconstructive therapy for the blindness that leadership idolatry causes on you.

regards,

[Serg]

And Dr.T:

Though the comment of Outshined of ' if they are human you are also' is a logical necesity but simply harmless and redundant!

It does no harm to my argument, because it works in a circular thought:

I say they are human, then if I am human, I also can do(mistakes) as they. But nowhere did I say the contrary! But to reduindantly say this is an attempt to make persons feel that if MY humanity is now taken into account then theirs simply disappears.

This does nto work that way!

If Socrates told me ' all men are mortal' and I replied 'yes' but you are also, so you may be mistaken about it, it would sound as mere incoherence. Because for me toassert that I would have to be taking for granted(that all men are mortal) what he says that later i say maybe the contrary(and because all men are mortals-socrates' x conclusion- then he is mortal-derivative truth coming from my acceptance of socrates'x conclusion- thus as he is also mortal it follows that he may be wrong-assuming he is potentially wrong in saying that they are all mortals, because he is mortal as all-again what he had said...)

Circular logic, bad.

Dont be so quickly amazed by the distractions in though that Outshined so embarrased by his failure to adress my points trys to provoke.

[Dr T]

Hello Serg,

You are jumping to conclusions about what I meant in my response about it being "sobering." You example of mortals is also mis guided. I know what circular reasoning is sir. Please do think I have taken sides on this issue and be offended by a simple reply.

Thank you,

Dr. T

[Serg]

I am in no way offended or convinced that you have taken any sides(because in fact, as the very core of the issue is foreign to your experience of faith, it is thus unreasonable for you to do so), but aside possibility of being such, my concern was that whatever you come to believe on what he pointed out, it is a circular though in that it does nothing to my argument. It was a rather needless comment that only played it's role in distracting.

When Wittgenstein spoke of language usage, he asserted a most recognizeble and notorious truth: That when in a conversation, a party sudden SAID an obvious truth, it would dramatically affect the tone of the conversation, as to induce the receptive paty believe that the one that utters it doesnt consider 'such' x said known to him. In that manner, I reason that what Outshined meant by that was:

You say that because they are humans leaders make mistakes(premise 1), but you are also human(premise 2), thus you may be mistaken about 'your views' (premise 3). The ambiguity comes right at the end, when ' your views' is not properly explained(intentionally!!!). It would(a tone with our conversation) be one out of two: That leaders can be now making mistakes(what I in fact said in premise 1, and what he is formerly using as a deductive instrument-hence asserting it true) or that hinckley NOW is making a particular(in this case music) mistake.

To sustain the former in the context of teh comment would be rather nonsense and circular though if is intended to contribute to his intention of correcting me. Well, in sense 1 it doesnt but reaserts my point needlessly. To ustain teh later would be thoughful and just, but it would require that he actually replies to my argument of music to tell me at which point am I wrong to believe that Hinckley is making a mistake in this regard.

I just think that he out of no notable brilliance said what he said in the first manner, and as shown that is needless comment(if not intended to further a thesis-this is, I am wrong) or circular thinking(if intended to further such notion).

At any extent, what ARE your comments, if there are?

Regards,

[Dr T]

I have none to share at this time. The reason for his post being "sobering" was because, we, as humans, being fallible creatures, and making assertions with the possibility of not being fallible was interesting to me. That means, your thoughts, his thoughts, my thought might be incorrect. That's all I was commenting on from his post.

Dr. T

[CrimsonKairos]

So Serg, let me make sure I get what you're saying.

Because the Church doesn't allow more upbeat and diverse types of music in worship services, the prophet needs correcting?

[Outshined]

I had hoped serg might make some semblance of a real point on this thread, but he just makes ambiguous accusations of "mistakes" and dances around with faulty logic while insulting those who oppose his master plan to usurp Church authority. I remain unimpressed with his hollow argument.

The foundation of his basic point is that President Hinckley is human, and capable of error, so "it follows" that he has made mistakes in his leadership of the Church. This is badly flawed logic, and the rest of his case falls apart on its shoulders. The fact that he does not understand the point about his own mortality and flawed nature says much. Dr. T, I see you at least got the point. B)

Serg is trying to create mistakes and evil where none exists, to what end we can only speculate. He is wrong, of course. He gives us not reasoned points or evidence that God guides his thoughts, but (as before) mere youthful arrogance and pride; he wants changes made because it would suit him, not for the better of the Church. He presumes to "correct" the Prophet, when it is not his place nor capacity to do so.

Utter foolishness.

[Outshined]

Serg, I cannot agree with most of what you say.

You're entitled to think that women ought to have the priesthood, but to go around saying the leaders need to get with it and extend it to them is unwise. The Lord will extend the priesthood to the sisters, if it is his will, through the Prophet and Quorum of the Twelve apostles.

I won't go through and respond to everything you said. I did want to point out a passage of scripture, as a warning that hopefully will guide you to a better path:

"And when they came to Nachon’s threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.

"And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God." (2 Sam. 6:6-7)

God calls those whom He wants to leadership positions. Those of us who think we can do better, or know better, are not authorized to "steady the ark." It is against the order of heaven. Blessings come by sustaining righteous prietshood leaders, not by acting like the "Iraq Study Group" and tendering a report cataloguing all perceived mistakes and what to do about them.

I see nothing wrong with demanding that we address the Prophet of the Lord with the prefix of President, and not refering to him by his last name alone. At least saying Mr. Hinckley would be better. What do you have against showing respect for the man that the Lord has chosen to guide His Church?

I sense a slight spirit of rebellion in you...I merely hope you do not feed it and end up regretting it. Your other posts are generally good, Serg. You're a good guy. Stick to the doctrines of salvation, focus on the ordinances, worship God in the name of Christ, rejoice in the blessing of belonging to His Church on the earth, and thank God for a prophet to guide us.

The ark does not need steadying. Truly.

Very wise counsel, CK; though I doubt serg is of the mind to accept it. He seems to have placed himself above the counsel of others; it appears that in his mind, he is the authority to give counsel to those who know better.

[CrimsonKairos]

Yeah, I was hoping Serg would've replied to my question about music in the Church, but his failure to do so leads me to believe he has no concrete complaints. Thanks for your analysis of Serg's argument; I completely agree with it.

[Serg]

First:

Outshined, you have been dishonest in this thread, you do not adress my arguments but wave at them. I proposed a logical argument that explicitly went to affirm that change is real in leadership and that they DO learn from mistakes, to what follows(not that as childishly you ay) Hinckley is therefore culpable of mistake, but that he is not logically excluded by no hiher power. Now based on that possibility(i.e.reality) I based one example, that of worship music.

Second:

It is inconceivable how CrimsonKiros values as less other's people's need, way and reality of worship. This may virtually be seen as , yes, a ' lack of upbeat', but is not profoundly. That is so in your view, because in reality you either do not value properly the reality and depth of worship or just value it too much to the point of letting others call any other sort of worship(aside of yours) as lame and sinful.

Pity on you. We are persons, and each deserves(in as much as another is obligated) to be respected and valued in OUR CONTEXTS.

Now, I adressed the issue, you are the one who (along with Outshined) doesnt adress them particularly:

1) How is it that worship OTHER than anglo-victorian worship is sinful? Needless? Or wrong?

2) How scripturally and on Whose authority do actual leaders base these doctrines? Where all porphets of times past in different contexts worshipped with a pragmatic and all inclusive way of music(Scriptures, history), our nowadays procliam that to be both needless to explain or justify!

3) If the conclusion is an allowable need of change(or improvement) then it FOLLOWS(why dont any of you GET that lofical necessity???) that one can and sholud persue it.

4) How does it folow that this is an invention of mine? Do you sincerely believe* that other cultures agree with this? there are a lot of other prople who feel like me. But even if only one person recognized this fault, would it make any difference? If only i(that is not so in reality) recognized an evil in my comunity(a rapist and my neighbor's girls), would it alter the fact that is evil and needs changing the fact that only I say so?? Please!!!

5) We cant actually support this thought of exclusiveness based on a authoritative obedience to less important conceptions(invented by these felloww leaders!), remember the words of the lord: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the WEIGHTIER provisions of the law: JUSTICE and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done WITHOUT NEGLECTING the others." WE cant justify this exclusiveness, at least for those as i , who value worship experience, who value differently instrumental inspiration, is unspeakable to accept this because it goes against our very selves! This is not a mere matter of music, but even in principle, lets say, if we all(of other mormon cultures), decided to get along and value in th extrme the anglo-victorian worship, yet to insist even then that if it were otherwise it would be wrong, is to contradict the very sayings of the Lord!

The only things that hereto have not been adreesed or justified are Outshined's conception of me(personal/spiritual), historical(virtually speechless) and logical(evidently non-related to it).

In fact Crimson, in regard to the jesus' marriage i hold the same position as you, and the post you presented there to sustain it, including both historical and scriptural supports, were awkardly good. Why not the same technique to adress the music issue? The lack of that (true and expected0 way of argumentation HERE shows that at least either you find no way to do it again with this topic or utterly consider your leader's ideas as groundless.

It is a shame that you who consider yourselves my brother in the Church not try to understand and honestly adress each premise. But not with mere voluntarists conclusions, but with arguable logic-based ones!

I am not the one who is in fault here(though I have many in other respects), but you, cause even while I hold all these ideals, I always try to tolerate and not insult a person, neither to (in the craziest manner) stablish concepts of worthiness in such, or ignorance, but I always listen and pounder, then I react but not as a child's outrage but in a concern for the other party to understand (not MY ponit necessarily) but WHY/HOW I arrived at it, so it doesnt come to be in the end, any sort of ' I say' - ' You say" . Forums were not intended to present such format-conversations.

In fact Outshined, in my thread On Melquisedec priesthood, in the context of Joseph Smith intentionally lying, and further possibilities of mistakes in leaders, this was said:

"QUOTE

'We as LDS do not consider the prophet to be infalable (sp). He too is a mortal man just like the rest of us but chosen for his special mission. Were mistakes made? I am sure. Does it change what happened that day and many other times during his life? I don't believe so. '

Also quite true, of pretty much every prophet in history."

You quoted ben Raines, and said the last phrase. What happened to that conviction??

If you are not up to these standards of scrutiny, then leave it.

Regards,

[CrimsonKairos]

First off Serg, thanks for giving your specific complaint. Up until now we had no way of knowing what you disagreed with the Prophet about. So it's music (at least one of your concerns).

It is inconceivable how CrimsonKiros values as less other's people's need, way and reality of worship.

Before I spend alot of time typing stuff that may not apply, I need clarification. Serg, what kind of music would help you worship God better in Church? Are you talking about changing Sacrament meeting music? What exactly is it that's eating you up? Until you tell me, it's not really fair to tell me I don't value other peoples' needs or way of worship, since I haven't condemned any sort of music.

1) How is it that worship OTHER than anglo-victorian worship is sinful? Needless? Or wrong?

Again, what do you mean by "other" worship? Specifically, how would you like to see Church meetings run?

2) How scripturally and on Whose authority do actual leaders base these doctrines?

I can't address this until I know what music you're talking about.

3) If the conclusion is an allowable need of change(or improvement) then it FOLLOWS(why dont any of you GET that lofical necessity???) that one can and sholud persue it.

So far your premise is sound, if I understand it. For example, if you're saying, "The Church should allow guitars in Sacrament meeting; God never forbade it, it's just not allowed because of the culture of the Church leadership in America; since it's not doctrine, there's nothing wrong with writing letters to the Prophet asking him to change policy in that regard." Let's not jump ahead, though. I still want to know exactly what changes in worship you would like to see.

4) How does it folow that this is an invention of mine? Do you sincerely believe* that other cultures agree with this?

No one said you "invented" this concern. We simply don't understand what it is you're talking about because up until now you've only mentioned "music" in a vague sense. Tell us specifically what you dislike about current Church policy regarding what music is appropriate in Church.

5) We cant actually support this thought of exclusiveness based on a authoritative obedience to less important conceptions(invented by these felloww leaders!)...WE cant justify this exclusiveness, at least for those as i , who value worship experience, who value differently instrumental inspiration, is unspeakable to accept this because it goes against our very selves!

Again, what type of instrumental inspiration? And you do know, Serg, that the Church doesn't ban any type of music outside of Church, right? The fact that for one day of the week, for three hours of that one day, we sing traditional hymns to piano or organ music, does not seem callous or unreasonable. But again, what music are you referring to?

In fact Crimson...Why not the same technique to adress the music issue?

Because I still don't know what you're talking about. I can't argue against a position if I don't know what it is. Once you've told me clearly what changes you'd like to see, then I can respond (if I disagree at all, perhaps I won't). Please tell me what instruments you would like to see involved in Church services, what genre or style of music, etc...

It is a shame that you who consider yourselves my brother in the Church not try to understand and honestly adress each premise. But not with mere voluntarists conclusions, but with arguable logic-based ones!

We haven't been able to Serg. We're waiting for you to fill in the gaps in our understanding of your complaint.

I look forward to your response, so I can actually address in detail what you're concerned about.

[Outshined]

I believe serg's false accusation of "dishonesty" is a smokescreen for his failure to point out any mistakes President Hinckley has made or how he may have harmed the Church. Serg claims the Prophet is guilty of mistakes, but cannot give a single actual example, especially of one which has harmed the Church.

Yes, President Hinckley is human and fallible, as all men are, but we've been shown no evidence that he is guilty of any of the above. He holds the keys of the office of Prophet, and he knows better than anyone here how to wield them.

As I've said, even with all the pontification, all I am seeing is an eager youth who thinks he knows better than the Church leadership how the Church should be run, and he is sadly mistaken. If he can let go of the anger and malice, he might be able to see that as well.

[BenRaines]

Having lived on two islands in the Caribbean, Puerto Rico and Grand Cayman, I have a little bit of an idea of the different types of music that people use to worship other than how we as LDS do it.

I have been to churches where there are full bands, guitars-electric, drums, trumpets, tamborines. These were in non LDS churches. Was the music very uplifting and emotional? Yes it was. Was it particularly spiritual or reverent? Not in the way I practice my religion but I wasn't about to tell them not to do it their way.

In our LDS ward we have had violin solos and duets, cello musical performances, flute and clarinet performances, all during sacrament meeting. When I served as leader in LDS church in the Caribbean we had vocal solos that sounded like a cat with it's tail caught under a rocking chair but the spirit in the sister's performance moved people to tears, not her singing but the spirit and love that was felt. In the US there would have been snickering and laughter.

In many of the Polynesian cultures the men wear skirts to church. Lavalava skirts with white shirts and ties.

As we go forward continuing to feel and embrace the cultural differences of a worldwide church there will be subtile changes. I do not expect to see rock bands in church any day soon.

Ben Raines

[CrimsonKairos]

Thanks for the perspective Ben.

My brothers have performed a clarinet duet in sacrament meeting, and when I lived in England a sister actually played a solo on her acoustic guitar (religious music of course) in sacrament meeting.

I wish I could play my alto saxophone in sacrament, but I think brass instruments aren't allowed (even though the sax is technically a woodwind).

The reason I'm asking Serg to tell me precisely what music he's talking about is because I may not have a problem with it at all. I do not think that drums or electric guitars should ever have a place in sacrament meeting. The Spirit speaks in a still, small voice...a driving beat and distorted guitar sound wouldn't help me feel the Spirit during sacrament meeting.

Oustide of Church, however, I enjoy all sorts of music. Particularly, some of my favorite Christian bands are 3rd Day and Mercy Me. They use guitars, drums, the works, and I love it. I just wouldn't want to listen to it before or after taking the sacrament.

[Outshined]

I agree that music can add to (or take away from) worship, but it's quite a leap from that to saying that a lack of "updated" music is a failure on the part of Church leadership...