The LDS Church is true or it is not true. Therefore...

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm glad someone mentioned ark-steadying, because it sums up my thoughts on this fairly well.

I do have a few other thoughts. I know of no direct and specific “covenant” to sustain my leaders. I would call that more of a commandment...and the covenant is to obey the commandments. Regardless, interpretation of how to follow certain commandments is certainly left to the individual. Some are laid out in black and white, others are not.

I also think that viewpoints of how one does or does not steady the ark are not black and white. And we should not presume that an individual’s choice to join a campaign, in every case, is ark-steadying behavior. That being said, taken as a whole, I believe it fair to view the practices in question as such. In other words, I know some well meaning and righteous people who have interpreted things similarly as some in these threads and take it as their obligation to join in some of these causes. I know these people's hearts and intents. I think they are dead wrong in the approach, but I do not believe they are actively breaking a covenant. I think they are simply blinded by mortal weakness, the same as all of us. I hope that as they continue to push forward in understanding and spirituality that they will eventually see their actions as ark-steadying, unnecessary, and harmful. But we all do things that are unnecessary and harmful. Heaven knows I have. I would hope that when I make those poor choices that others would be patient with me. I would also hope that I eventually get past my silly, selfish, immature, mortal perspective.

I think the logic behind Vort’s thinking is sound. However, people, in general are not logical. And this has to be accounted for in how we view their choices and actions. It doesn’t change the fact that we should speak truth clearly and distinctly, but it does apply to how we temper our views of others.

I’m a black-and-white thinker with many points of view similar to Vort’s. But most people don’t think that way. Most people are more Kirk than Spock (inner nerd coming out). This doesn’t change the reality of black-and-white in truth, but it does change how we need to communicate, share, debate, and address each other.

This is a challenging thing for me. I think the letter-writing-pants-wearing approach is ridiculous. But I can’t honestly believe that everyone involved are covenant breakers.

I do, however, based on the same logic, wonder wherein people can view any sort of rebellious action as valid in a church that they supposedly know to be true. If they do not know the church is true, then either get down on your knees, or go follow something that makes more sense. Logically this is valid. But I think we also need to understand that testimony is not a black-and-white state. In many ways it is a journey. I think it’s valid that someone could believe the church is true--even hope the church is true--but struggle with that at some level, perhaps intellectually. In any person’s journey, their testimony and their understanding of the hierarchy of the church, how it works, how change is and should be effected, etc., etc., is a needle on a scale rather than a simple switch. Not being “ON” in this regard does not necessarily equate to being “OFF”. The initial proposition, while sound, does not allow for this.

[Maureen]

Maureen, if I publicly asked - say - five of the most conservative members of LDS.net to reply to your post and tell you why they think you're wrong, would you say that I was simply trying to facilitate respectful and productive communication?

For my part, I would say I was being condescending, churlish, and a bit of a bully.

Well for one thing, this letter campaign was not about telling the LDS leaders they were or are wrong; it was about bringing something that had been overlooked to their attention in a very polite and thoughtful way.

M.

[Maureen]

church, you are a great example of someone who does not agree with the letter writing campaign group, but you are tactful and still charitable to those in that group. Thank you.

M.

[The Folk Prophet]

Well for one thing, this letter campaign was not about telling the LDS leaders they were or are wrong; it was about bringing something that had been overlooked to their attention in a very polite and thoughtful way.

M.

The presumption in this sort of thinking, however, is that it was, actually, overlooked. I have a hard time with that, while admitting it is possible.

I tend to not see the First Presidency as that naive in most regards. I believe they are well aware of these issues even before the letter-writing and pants-wearing brigades took up their march.

It comes down to a matter of trust. Do we trust our leaders know what they're doing or not? I tend to fall on the side of, explicitly and unconditionally YES!

Why? Because I believe that they are led by God. I believe that if and when something is important that God will lead them to change. Even if someone believed the leaders of the church were ultimately doddering old fools, but they had a testimony that God leads His church, it would imply that in spite of the doddering natures that the church would, actually be guided, in all things, according to the will of God and not according to the doddering natures.

That being said, and in fairness, I do think that the Lord sometimes works in mysterious ways, and it is a possibility that the rampaging of the masses could be the catalyst for a query to the Lord that then inspired policy or procedural changes. Fair enough. But does that justify me to take it upon myself to be a part of those raging masses? That's a different question entirely. I would answer absolutely not. The Lord may use the most vile scum of creation to His ends, but that does not justify me becoming vile scum. (And so we don't fall into meaningless banter, I am not calling letter-writers vile scum (though some of them may well be...who knows) but simply making a point). :)

[The Folk Prophet]

church, you are a great example of someone who does not agree with the letter writing campaign group, but you are tactful and still charitable to those in that group. Thank you.

M.

This is interesting in my life actually. To individuals, I think I am understanding. To the forces en masse, I am not. In battle with the Lamanites, I say, "kill, kill, kill!!!" But to the individual Lamanite I hope to be able to say, "Come unto Christ, I will be your servant, no I don't need to marry your daughter or be given half your kingdom....." Er...I digress...

But it is an interesting challenge and perhaps an interesting point of discussion (maybe another thread someday). That is a balance that we are facing in our current world. How do you toe the line and stand strong in principle and remain charitable and tactful without compromising standards or inadvertently condoning behavior? How do you take up your sword against the Lamanite hordes without them feeling like you're being intolerant?

[selek]

This is interesting in my life actually. To individuals, I think I am understanding. To the forces en masse, I am not. In battle with the Lamanites, I say, "kill, kill, kill!!!" But to the individual Lamanite I hope to be able to say, "Come unto Christ, I will be your servant, no I don't need to marry your daughter or be given half your kingdom....." Er...I digress...

Because the system is rather stingy in only allowing you to either "laugh" or "thank" a particular post, I chose to go with the former.

I would have much preferred an "all of the above" option.

Welcome to the boards.

I appreciate your thoughts and insights here.

[Vort]

Well for one thing, this letter campaign was not about telling the LDS leaders they were or are wrong; it was about bringing something that had been overlooked to their attention in a very polite and thoughtful way.

Nonsense. The subtext was not, "Oops, you poor men must have just plumb forgotten that no women have ever prayed in General Conference. We're sure it's just an oversight." The subtext was, "Women should pray in General Conference." To pretend otherwise is silly.

[Suzie]

Maureen, if I publicly asked - say - five of the most conservative members of LDS.net to reply to your post and tell you why they think you're wrong, would you say that I was simply trying to facilitate respectful and productive communication?

For my part, I would say I was being condescending, churlish, and a bit of a bully.

JAG, I read a lot of sample letters regarding the issue and I am sure you did as well. None of the ones I read condemned or told the Brethren they were "wrong" for not allowing sisters to pray in Conference. By the contrary, the letters were phrased very carefully, respectfully, and tactfully, simply requesting if a sister could pray in Conference. If anyone is "reading" more than that, they are making their own interpretation, let's stick to what the sample letters actually stated in words rather than what we think they meant.

[Just_A_Guy]

Would five of the most conservative members of this board care to PM Suzie and ask her if she'd like to reconsider her opinion? And be sure you post the full texts of your PMs here.

(No--not really. Suzie, I hope you know I love ya. )

[Suzie]

Would five of the most conservative members of this board care to PM Suzie and ask her if she'd like to reconsider her opinion? And be sure you post the full texts of your PMs here.

We have conservatives in lds.net? Really?

[prisonchaplain]

I hinted at this earlier, but if a lady is now chosen to pray at General Conference, it will be thought that this was possibly due to social pressure, etc. It makes the Church and its meetings appear political (broadly, not partisan). What if the leaders had been considering this very thing? Now they may have to wait, just so it will be clear that the Spirit is leading, not the social desires of factions.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I hinted at this earlier, but if a lady is now chosen to pray at General Conference, it will be thought that this was possibly due to social pressure, etc.

No, it was explained to me in the other thread that any such conclusion would be post hoc fallacy, so no worries. There's no connection whatsoever apparently.

[prisonchaplain]

Literate...only if MSNBC offers it...I'm like CSPAN, so I have a 50% chance of being on to something, even if I do commit such fallacies in logic.

BTW, I took a Community College course in logic once...I'm finding it hard to conjur up gratitude for the flash backs you've induced in me. :-)

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

LOL, my sincere apologies PC!

[Just_A_Guy]

No, it was explained to me in the other thread that any such conclusion would be post hoc fallacy, so no worries. There's no connection whatsoever apparently.

And the fact that something is a logical fallacy means that no one finds it convincing, naturally.

[Maureen]

I hinted at this earlier, but if a lady is now chosen to pray at General Conference, it will be thought that this was possibly due to social pressure, etc. It makes the Church and its meetings appear political (broadly, not partisan). What if the leaders had been considering this very thing? Now they may have to wait, just so it will be clear that the Spirit is leading, not the social desires of factions.

A leader could mention that at GC, that they had already chosen a woman to offer prayer before the campaign even started; which would show that some members and leaders are on the same page. If that's not inspiration and unity, I don't know what is. :)

M.

[The Folk Prophet]

A leader could mention that at GC, that they had already chosen a woman to offer prayer before the campaign even started; which would show that some members and leaders are on the same page. If that's not inspiration and unity, I don't know what is. :)

M.

Uh...technically that conclusion would also be a logical fallacy. :)

[prisonchaplain]

A leader could mention that at GC, that they had already chosen a woman to offer prayer before the campaign even started; which would show that some members and leaders are on the same page. If that's not inspiration and unity, I don't know what is. :)

M.

A lot of this surrounds issues of trust. Do the GAs need to be nudged, lobbied, publicly encouraged? If so, and they comply with the urging of the interest group, then will this group not believe that they succeeded in bringing about change? For the Brethren to then say, "We were planning this all along," might get some polite nods in public, but probably some smirks elsewhere. The fact that this is making non-LDS headlines is particularly disturbing to many, I would imagine. I know I'd be disappointing to see groups with my denomination campaigning for change by going to the media.

[Maureen]

A lot of this surrounds issues of trust. Do the GAs need to be nudged, lobbied, publicly encouraged? If so, and they comply with the urging of the interest group, then will this group not believe that they succeeded in bringing about change? For the Brethren to then say, "We were planning this all along," might get some polite nods in public, but probably some smirks elsewhere. The fact that this is making non-LDS headlines is particularly disturbing to many, I would imagine. I know I'd be disappointing to see groups with my denomination campaigning for change by going to the media.

I think the LDS church has "been there and don't that" already concerning the priesthood ban being lifted. It was years of pressure but eventually the priesthood was given to blacks.

Black History Timeline | Blacklds.org

M.

[prisonchaplain]

I read through the latter part of the timeline. The pressure was almost exclusively from non-members. The story of the member who baptized a black convert and anointed him for the Aaronic priesthood, prior to the lifting of the ban, was a notable exception. Given the era, it's no surprise that the policy created social criticism. I suspect that LDS will join a great many conservative Christians in feeling this pressure, in coming years, concerning gay marriage. Yet, my heart grieves to see factions within denominations, over such issues, operating almost like political parties. A movement that believes it is led by modern prophets must have particular heartburn over any such activity.

[Magus]

@prisonchaplain:

i understand why you feel there was a great deal of political pressure on the Church about the blacks and the priesthood thing.

but i think the bigger pressure was just the practicality of it. the Church was having serious issues growing in areas around the world where you were having to get nitty gritty with someone's racial background. it was making things really complicated.

either way, i believe that Kimball and others of the Prophets were sincere when they say that they went to the Lord many times over the previous decades to ask the Lord's will on this matter (when there wasn't political pressure). I also believe the accounts of a powerful spiritual, even pentacostal experience in the temple when they received the answer that blacks could now have the priesthood.

I understand the cynicism about letting the Church eventually recognizing gay marriage. But on faith, I'm gonna have to disagree about the eventuality of this happening. Blacks receiving the priesthood was not a MORAL issue, it was a tactical issue that was prophecied would eventually happen anyway (by Brigham Young no less). But the issue of gay marriage is indeed a MORAL issue, and I do not think the Church will bend on this. I think the times are coming when the USA, culturally and politically, is going to become quite weak, if not collapse, and the political kingdom of Zion is going to begin its rise and mark the line in the sand between black and white.

[Traveler]

It is my belief that as with many important concepts concerning religion - there is a great deal of misunderstanding and unprofitable directions. I think the concept of the “True and Living Church” is another prime example. So often in the LDS church we say and are encouraged to say that this is the “True Church” or that we have a testimony that this is the “True Church” without really knowing to what we witness. Thus I believe the term “True Church” is referenced and used so often that many do not realize what it is that they believe or ought to believe in regards to the True Church.

Some things that I do not believe are meant by term “True Church” that I have the impression that many that use the term are thinking it means is in essence their use of the term is incorrect and misleading. For example, I do not believe that the “True Church” is as implicitly connected to “all things true” as many seem to think. I do not believe that the “True and Living Church” needs to possess all the correct doctrine.

WOW - did I just say the “True Church is not about correct doctrine? Yes I did!!! Hopefully I now have your attention to finish reading this post. Anciently the term “Church” really was not in the concept of a religious quest for G-d. Instead the term or concept utilized was “The Way” or “The Path”. This concept is first introduced in the scriptures when Adam and Eve were sent from the garden and told about the way to the “Tree of Life” which represents the “presents” of G-d. What is so interesting to me is, that so often my opinions concerning “Truth” and the quest for truth is criticized for being too slanted towards the sciences and not in seeking the “Truths” of eternal or divine importance. But the simple “Truth” is that the “True Church” is not about true doctrine as it is focused directly on the “True Path” or “True Way” first introduced to Adam and Eve. The path or way has never changed even though there has been significant evolution in the laws, commandments and doctrines associated with the covenant peoples of G-d. Thus the True Church is not so much about doctrine as it is about leading us to the wisdom and love (or presents) of the True and Living G-d. Doctrine and information really are not the focus. Jesus clearly taught this when he said that to love G-d and our fellow men is more important than doctrine in that doctrine is formulate from the principles of love - not the other way around.

It appears to me that “The Way of Man” is to define “correct and true doctrine” thus the philosophies of men mingled with scripture thinks “TADA!” to Love G-d is the correct doctrine that will save us. And so sadly they turn away from the True Way or path that leads back to G-d and wrap themselves up in their doctrine thinking they have discovered the meaning of life. So they imagine to themselves that since they believe the truth of G-d that they have finished their task and arrived at their quest destination and the correct unchanging religion of G-d - when in reality they may not have actually even started or taken a step on “The Path” or “Way” spoken of anciently.

It is my belief that the “True Church” is “The Way” of G-d to G-d and G-dlyness. As we walk the walk - we are in the very foot prints or path of G-d’s walk or his path or journey. That as man walks such a walk they walk as G-d has walked or walks (As man is G-d once was) and that this “Way” or “Path” leads to where G-d is (As G-d is man may become).

So I see the summary of “As man is G-d once was and as G-d is man may become” as the one of the best representations of “The True Church” or only way of G-d given man. And that until we understands this as a principle and not just some supposed “true doctrine” we will not understand the “Way” of G-d - despite all the “true” doctrine we think we can accumulate - or as said in scripture “ever learning but never understanding the truth” - never walking the path or even taking a step in the walk of G-d.

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

It is my belief that as with many important concepts concerning religion - there is a great deal of misunderstanding and unprofitable directions. I think the concept of the “True and Living Church” is another prime example. So often in the LDS church we say and are encouraged to say that this is the “True Church” or that we have a testimony that this is the “True Church” without really knowing to what we witness. Thus I believe the term “True Church” is referenced and used so often that many do not realize what it is that they believe or ought to believe in regards to the True Church.

Some things that I do not believe are meant by term “True Church” that I have the impression that many that use the term are thinking it means is in essence their use of the term is incorrect and misleading. For example, I do not believe that the “True Church” is as implicitly connected to “all things true” as many seem to think. I do not believe that the “True and Living Church” needs to possess all the correct doctrine.

WOW - did I just say the “True Church is not about correct doctrine? Yes I did!!! Hopefully I now have your attention to finish reading this post. Anciently the term “Church” really was not in the concept of a religious quest for G-d. Instead the term or concept utilized was “The Way” or “The Path”. This concept is first introduced in the scriptures when Adam and Eve were sent from the garden and told about the way to the “Tree of Life” which represents the “presents” of G-d. What is so interesting to me is, that so often my opinions concerning “Truth” and the quest for truth is criticized for being too slanted towards the sciences and not in seeking the “Truths” of eternal or divine importance. But the simple “Truth” is that the “True Church” is not about true doctrine as it is focused directly on the “True Path” or “True Way” first introduced to Adam and Eve. The path or way has never changed even though there has been significant evolution in the laws, commandments and doctrines associated with the covenant peoples of G-d. Thus the True Church is not so much about doctrine as it is about leading us to the wisdom and love (or presents) of the True and Living G-d. Doctrine and information really are not the focus. Jesus clearly taught this when he said that to love G-d and our fellow men is more important than doctrine in that doctrine is formulate from the principles of love - not the other way around.

It appears to me that “The Way of Man” is to define “correct and true doctrine” thus the philosophies of men mingled with scripture thinks “TADA!” to Love G-d is the correct doctrine that will save us. And so sadly they turn away from the True Way or path that leads back to G-d and wrap themselves up in their doctrine thinking they have discovered the meaning of life. So they imagine to themselves that since they believe the truth of G-d that they have finished their task and arrived at their quest destination and the correct unchanging religion of G-d - when in reality they may not have actually even started or taken a step on “The Path” or “Way” spoken of anciently.

It is my belief that the “True Church” is “The Way” of G-d to G-d and G-dlyness. As we walk the walk - we are in the very foot prints or path of G-d’s walk or his path or journey. That as man walks such a walk they walk as G-d has walked or walks (As man is G-d once was) and that this “Way” or “Path” leads to where G-d is (As G-d is man may become).

So I see the summary of “As man is G-d once was and as G-d is man may become” as the one of the best representations of “The True Church” or only way of G-d given man. And that until we understands this as a principle and not just some supposed “true doctrine” we will not understand the “Way” of G-d - despite all the “true” doctrine we think we can accumulate - or as said in scripture “ever learning but never understanding the truth” - never walking the path or even taking a step in the walk of G-d.

The Traveler

Interesting theory. But I think you're misinterpreting "doctrine" a bit. You talk about the "true way" and doctrine like they're different. But they are not. Doctrine = the true way. I think I understand what you're getting at, but I think it's slanting some things a bit to suit a theory.

[Traveler]

Interesting theory. But I think you're misinterpreting "doctrine" a bit. You talk about the "true way" and doctrine like they're different. But they are not. Doctrine = the true way. I think I understand what you're getting at, but I think it's slanting some things a bit to suit a theory.

What better demonstrates a disciple of Christ - Belief in "correct" doctrine or love of others.

Or - which did Jesus say:

A. By this shall you know my disciples - They believe and teach true doctrine

B. By this shall you know my disciples - They shall love one another.

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

What better demonstrates a disciple of Christ - Belief in "correct" doctrine or love of others.

Or - which did Jesus say:

A. By this shall you know my disciples - They believe and teach true doctrine

B. By this shall you know my disciples - They shall love one another.

The Traveler

I buy the theory in part, and think I understand what you're saying. But as I see it the logic isn't complete. Firstly B is part of A. Loving one another is true doctrine, and the key doctrine to knowing His disciples. But it is not the complete doctrine. The implication that it is the only doctrine that really ultimately matters is where it falls apart.

If I understand what you're saying, loving God and your neighbor matters more than paying tithing and obeying the Word of Wisdom. Well...true. But that does not mean that not paying tithing or breaking the WOW is acceptable as long as you love others.

True doctrine can be for a specific time or people (as the examples above) and may not be eternal. But that does not downplay the importance of primary law of the gospel, which is obedience.

Charity is the why. Obedience is the how.