Just_A_Guy Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 So, the only way to be in line with the current Church's stance is to shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno...."? Ignorance and unknowable mystery are the defining traits of Satan's organizations, not God's (Revelation 17:5; Alma 12:10-11). Matthew, with all due respect, it was you who initiated the talk about who would be "in harmony" versus "out of harmony" with the Church. You're kind of changing the argument now. I don't think anyone has claimed that the truth of this question, or any other matter, is "unknowable". What has been suggested is that certain theories do not have Church backing and should not be advanced as though they do; and I would further suggest that it is not always our prerogative to teach everything we know at the immediate moment we first (think we) know it. The NT and D&C, at least, contain numerous endorsements of this idea. The recent essay on blacks and the priesthood pins the origin of the priesthood on... well, it wasn't God. The essay contextualizes the ban, but does not presume to "pin the origin" of the ban on anything. By the way, your replies (JAG, anatess, and thefolkprophet) emphasize the point I was making. Marion G. Romney, in his remarks, described being in "harmony with the leaders of the Church and the counsel and direction they give" as part of the "full spirit of the gospel". The changing position on blacks and the priesthood (from what it used to be--blacks couldn't hold the priesthood because of the "curse of Cain"--to today) and the ban itself highlights the difficulties that position presents. If the Gospel is eternal and unchanging but Church practices change radically with no reason given from God and no explanation even being attempted by the leaders, then can lockstep obedience with Church leaders really be considered one of the basic requirements of Christ's eternal Gospel? Or is that level of strict obedience one of the hedges we make around the law? I'm afraid that maybe you didn't quite catch my point--which is that sometimes God does give instructions to one set of people that materially differ from the instructions previously given to another set of people. That is precisely what makes modern prophets so important, even if they do confine themselves to the "what" without always offering the "why". (This isn't a defense of "lockstep obedience", by the way; but it's a defense of a generally deferential approach that assumes the LDS leadership at both the general and local levels are correct unless or until they are convincingly shown to be incorrect, rather than assuming that--in the event of a difference of opinion between a leader and myself--my own proclivities and prejudices will necessarily and inevitably come up trumps.) Leah, jerome1232 and The Folk Prophet 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.