Reaching out for support after reading the Essays

[Vort]

Vort to you truly think that our Leaders want us to follow blindly?

I am willing, one time only, to treat this as a sincere question.

 

"Blind obedience" has almost no meaning. It is a lie, told by the devilish and those duped by them. If it has any real meaning, its meaning is this: To obey without making any effort to determine whether your obedience is warranted.

 

What are we to do with any gospel principle? We are to test it. How? By (1) obeying it and (2) praying about it. Both must be followed for the testimony to come to us.

 

But the foolish will insist that they will not obey until they already know the validity of the commandment. This is contrary to the meaning of both faith and testimony. As Elder Kimball pointed out in the title of another of his books, faith precedes the miracle.

 

Our leaders want us to follow. The "blindly" part is up to us. You need not follow blindly, if you don't want to. There are two ways not to follow blindly:

1. Don't follow
2. Follow and, through searching while you follow, come to know that it's the Godly path

If you choose the first, then you're wasting two perfectly good syllables by specifying "blindly." That seemed to be what you were saying. If I misunderstood you, feel free to clarify your meaning.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Vort

[Connie]

In a very real sense, the current prophet's words are more important than any other precisely because they are current.  This is what God would have us know here and now, tailored to our current circumstances and events.  For those who have prayed and received the witness of the Spirit that the current prophet is indeed the mouthpiece of God to His church, this is fairly straightforward and simple.

 

This is a nice talk:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/04/faith-obedience?lang=eng

[The Folk Prophet]

omega...

 

Just 'cause I'm in the mood...point by point...can you answer these things more specifically than you have? Which point is, specifically, not doctrinal?

 

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

 

Is there someone else who does?

 

2.The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

 

Prior to the restoration of the church they had scriptures. And yet... Clearly the scriptures are insufficient by themselves. By disagreeing you're saying that killing off the prophets would be preferable to losing all scripture. But could not the living prophet, in theory, reproduce the scriptures if necessary? And yet without prophets...Great Apostasy anyone?

 

3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

 

Haven't you been with those arguing that the new essays are overriding the "mistaken" words of dead prophets? So who's more important? Whoever sides with your personal views?

 

4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.

 

This is canonized (aka Doctrine with a capital D). Disagree if you want. 'Sup to you.

 

5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

 

This is also canonized. Meaning scriptural.

 

6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.

 

Also canon.

 

7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

 

Well...duh. Maybe not "doctrine". But...duh.

 

8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

 

Also...duh.

 

9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

 

And...also...duh. And canon via scripture.

 

10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.

 

It is his prerogative, of course (also duh). Oh...and canon.

 

11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

 

Canon.

 

12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

 

Duh.

 

13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

 

Obviously.

 

14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

 

We've been warned. Oh...and canon.

 

So...once again...which of these points, just for my entertainment, do you think non-doctrinal?

Edited December 17, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[omegaseamaster75]

I am willing, one time only, to treat this as a sincere question.

 

"Blind obedience" has almost no meaning. It is a lie, told by the devilish and those duped by them. If it has any real meaning, its meaning is this: To obey without making any effort to determine whether your obedience is warranted.

 

What are we to do with any gospel principle? We are to test it. How? By (1) obeying it and (2) praying about it. Both must be followed for the testimony to come to us.

 

But the foolish will insist that they will not obey until they already know the validity of the commandment. This is contrary to the meaning of both faith and testimony. As Elder Kimball pointed out in the title of another of his books, faith precedes the miracle.

 

Our leaders want us to follow. The "blindly" part is up to us. You need not follow blindly, if you don't want to. There are two ways not to follow blindly:

1. Don't follow
2. Follow and, through searching while you follow, come to know that it's the Godly path

If you choose the first, then you're wasting two perfectly good syllables by specifying "blindly." That seemed to be what you were saying. If I misunderstood you, feel free to clarify your meaning.

You misunderstand me. We should be obedient to Gods commands. We show our faith by following his commandments. If we have doubt we should test those commandments as you have described. 

 

When I say Blind obedience I mean specifically that every utterance from the mouth of the prophet should not be considered scripture, that every talk given in a general conference or given by a GA should not be considered doctrine. Quite frankly because it is not.

 

There is a segment of our church (you know how you are) who will not question anything.....ever......and accept hook and bait that our leaders are infallible, that they do not misspeak (Boyd K Packer), that mistakes have never been made in our history, because God would never allow that. Heaven forbid that you be one of those that think otherwise about the history of the church or that mistakes have been made in the past, because your faith will be called into question. 

 

Do we honestly think that the history of the church as we learned it as a youth (for those that are BIC) or as it is being taught today is correct and accurate? IT'S NOT, in many cases not even close, and we wonder why when essays about polygamy come out people have a "Crisis of faith".

 

Brigham Young did not lead the church astray when he denied Blacks the priesthood, think about a time frame that goes beyond 100-150 years. The mission of the church has not deviated. Gods work will and has moved forward, we do not understand the time table on which God works. 

[The Folk Prophet]

I have most certainly proved it.

 

I sure hope your career isn't dependent on your comprehension of proof. Or...worse...other's lives, health, or fortunes.

 

But it's ok, keep your head in the sand if it's more comfortable. :-)

 

Without my head in the sand, I might run the risk of seeing something, which would put a serious dent in all the following blindly I'm involved with.

[Just_A_Guy]

I have most certainly proved it. There is no correlation between masturbation and homosexuality.

But it's ok, keep your head in the sand if it's more comfortable. :-)

 

1)  That's a bit of a straw man, since Kimball wasn't making a clear argument that masturbation is a direct and sole cause of same-sex orientation; and

 

2)  What data have you reviewed to affirmatively state that there is "no correlation" between the practices?  Have you evaluated data comparing sexual orientation with that (apparently, admittedly, relatively small) segment of the population that has never masturbated?  Have you compared frequency rates between those who call themselves gay and those who call themselves straight?  Have you compared masturbation frequency rates with the percentage of the population who, while self-professedly "straight", have nevertheless had a same-gender sexual encounter?

 

Or are we just going into the analysis on the assumption that Kimball said something that is inconvenient/embarassing and, therefore, he must have been wrong?

[omegaseamaster75]

omega...

 

Just 'cause I'm in the mood...point by point...can you answer these things more specifically than you have? Which point is, specifically, not doctrinal?

 

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

 

Is there someone else who does?

 

2.The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

 

Prior to the restoration of the church they had scriptures. And yet... Clearly the scriptures are insufficient by themselves. By disagreeing you're saying that killing off the prophets would be preferable to losing all scripture. But could not the living prophet, in theory, reproduce the scriptures if necessary? And yet without prophets...Great Apostasy anyone?

 

3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

 

Haven't you been with those arguing that the new essays are overriding the "mistaken" words of dead prophets? So who's more important? Whoever sides with your personal views?

 

4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.

 

This is canonized (aka Doctrine with a capital D). Disagree if you want. 'Sup to you.

 

5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

 

This is also canonized. Meaning scriptural.

 

6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.

 

Also canon.

 

7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

 

Well...duh. Maybe not "doctrine". But...duh.

 

8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

 

Also...duh.

 

9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

 

And...also...duh. And canon via scripture.

 

10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.

 

It is his prerogative, of course (also duh). Oh...and canon.

 

11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

 

Canon.

 

12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

 

Duh.

 

13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

 

Obviously.

 

14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

 

We've been warned. Oh...and canon.

 

So...once again...which of these points, just for my entertainment, do you think non-doctrinal?

1.        The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

1.        Agreed

2.        The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

1.        One is not more important than the other, our “Doctrine” is found in those sacred works without them we have no foundation.

3.        The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

1.        Yes I agree, current revelation supersedes past revelation, others (TFP) don’t seem to agree

4.        The prophet will never lead the church astray.

1.        Agreed, EVEN IF SAID PROPHET MAKES A MISTAKE or was wrong the work of the Lord will press forward

5.        The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

1.        This may be true but you will never ever see a current prophet discuss a subject in which he is not well versed or received expert advice on. Brigham Young said that the Sun and the Moon were inhabited……that didn’t turn out for him did it.

6.        The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.

1.        There is a process for canonization in our church which finds its way into our book of cannon  aka D&C….let’s check when was our last update to D&C?

7.        The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

1.        Agreed but so does my mom

8.        The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

1.        Agreed

9.        The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

1.        “A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such” Joseph Smith.   How do we distinguish?

10.     The prophet may advise on civic matters.

1.        Ageed he may, but probably shouldn’t

11.     The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

1.        Agree, humility is the key to eternal progression, interestingly enough the groups of men who lead the church fall into these two categories, either the very learned/very wealthy or a combination of both.

12.     The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

1.        How could he be? Agreed

13.     The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

1.        Yup no doubt about that

14.     The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

1.        Agreed when and only when “the Prophet is speaking as the Prophet”.

[The Folk Prophet]

1)  That's a bit of a straw man, since Kimball wasn't making a clear argument that masturbation is a direct and sole cause of same-sex orientation; and

 

2)  What data have you reviewed to affirmatively state that there is "no correlation" between the practices?  Have you evaluated data comparing sexual orientation with that (apparently, admittedly, relatively small) segment of the population that has never masturbated?  Have you compared frequency rates between those who call themselves gay and those who call themselves straight?  Have you compared masturbation frequency rates with the percentage of the population who, while self-professedly "straight", have nevertheless had a same-gender sexual encounter?

 

Or are we just going into the analysis on the assumption that Kimball said something that is inconvenient/embarassing and, therefore, he must have been wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry...couldn't resist.

[The Folk Prophet]

 ...others (TFP) don’t seem to agree

 

A very strange accusation, particularly for anyone who knows me. And I think you know me better than that. Which makes it fairly clear that your just being a...smart alec (oh how I wish I could use a different word here) to be contrary.

 

So...overall you agreed with....pretty much everything except #2.

 

Hmm.

[Vort]

 

The fourteen fundamentals mentioned:

[...]

To which of these do you object?

 

Most but not all of the points actually,

 

1.        Agreed

3.        Yes I agree, current revelation supersedes past revelation, others (TFP) don’t seem to agree

4.        Agreed, EVEN IF SAID PROPHET MAKES A MISTAKE or was wrong the work of the Lord will press forward

5.        This may be true but you will never ever see a current prophet discuss a subject in which he is not well versed or received expert advice on.

7.        Agreed but so does my mom

8.        Agreed

11.      Agree, humility is the key to eternal progression, interestingly enough the groups of men who lead the church fall into these two categories, either the very learned/very wealthy or a combination of both.

12.     How could he be? Agreed

13.     Yup no doubt about that

14.    Agreed when and only when “the Prophet is speaking as the Prophet”.

Don't sprain your ankle while backpeddling so furiously.

[Just_A_Guy]

Vort to you truly think that our Leaders want us to follow blindly?

 

You truly think that Benson did?

 

Benson does indeed suggest that prophetic counsel supersedes many, many things.  But one thing he does not suggest it trumps, is personal revelation.

 

There is a segment of our church (you know how you are) who will not question anything.....ever......

 

WAIT A SECOND.

 

You think that because some of us choose not to question publicly, in a way that gives ammunition to our enemies, that we don't question at all?

 

I thought you progressives were supposed to be the "empathetic" ones . . . the ones who understood "nuance" . . . the ones who realize that there are no absolutes.

 

But here you are, saying that "a segment of our church" is just mindless drones.  That we've never had a hard time with anything.  That we haven't been pulled, twisted, torn, and ultimately gone to hell and back, trying to come to terms with some problem of theology, history, or current demand posed to us by our membership in the church?

 

You piously pontificate about how hard it is to be a questioner and subjected to the suspicion of The Orthodoxy™; and then in the same post you proclaim your own monopoly on rational thought and thereby betray your utter contempt for fellow Mormons who don't think as you do?

 

That's not OK.

 

. . . and accept hook and bait that our leaders are infallible, that they do not misspeak (Boyd K Packer), that mistakes have never been made in our history, because God would never allow that. Heaven forbid that you be one of those that think otherwise about the history of the church or that mistakes have been made in the past, because your faith will be called into question.

 

The fact that we refuse to label "mistakes" the particular policies or actions that your twenty-first century western social dogma insists we should so label, does not mean that we believe the Church never makes any mistakes.  It just means that we don't think the Church as a whole makes major mistakes of the type that would--for example--deny, in contravention of the Lord's will, saving ordinances to a segment of the population who seeks them; or spiritually/physically harm individuals without serving a higher overall purpose; or deliberately induce people into behavior that the Lord holds sinful.

 

Brigham Young did not lead the church astray when he denied Blacks the priesthood, think about a time frame that goes beyond 100-150 years.

 

No good.  By that logic, Mountain Meadows is quite excusable.  I mean, what's a few dozen lives, two centuries later?

Edited December 17, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Do we honestly think that the history of the church as we learned it as a youth (for those that are BIC) or as it is being taught today is correct and accurate? IT'S NOT, in many cases not even close, and we wonder why when essays about polygamy come out people have a "Crisis of faith".

 

Which particular idea was taught to you that is inaccurate?

[omegaseamaster75]

Which particular idea was taught to you that is inaccurate?

How did Joseph Smith translate the book of Mormon? 

[The Folk Prophet]

How did Joseph Smith translate the book of Mormon? 

 

By the power of God.

 

Are you going to answer my question?

[Just_A_Guy]

How did Joseph Smith translate the book of Mormon? 

 

Old:  He used two magic rocks that had been buried in a stone box on a hill.

 

New:  He used one magic rock that had been buried in the ground on the farm of a man named Chase.

[omegaseamaster75]

Go to the library at your local chapel, ask for a picture of the translation of the book of Mormon.

 

Let me know if that jives with either account.

[omegaseamaster75]

By the power of God.

 

Are you going to answer my question?

I agree, by the power of god, how are we taught that it was translated? Exactly how was it done? Don't play coy or pretend that I'm dodging, when you were taught the lesson in Sunday school just like I was how was it presented?

Edited December 18, 2014 by omegaseamaster75

[The Folk Prophet]

You mean this, of course:

 

 

Okay. I'll agree that inadvertently the church taught inaccurate history in this case via picture.

 

Anything else?

[The Folk Prophet]

I agree, by the power of god, how are we taught that it was translated? Exactly how was it done? Don't play coy or pretend that I'm dodging, when you were taught the lesson in Sunday school just like I was how was it presented?

 

I'm not playing coy. I have been taught, just as anyone raised in the church, that Joseph translated through the power of God and that he used interpreters to do so. Everyone raised in the church knows that, in spite of the said picture, because it is what is taught.

 

But you are dodging. Inadvertently putting something across via picture is very different that outright teaching falsehoods.

 

What were you taught that was inaccurate? Were you not taught that Joseph used interpreters? Were you actually taught that he translated as it is shown in the picture? Were you taught that others saw the plates while he was translating (as it shows in the picture) or were you taught, as was I, that no one saw the plates except and until the experiences of the three and eight witnesses?

[Just_A_Guy]

Go to the library at your local chapel, ask for a picture of the translation of the book of Mormon.

 

Let me know if that jives with either account.

 

Can't vouch for the collection of the local ward meetinghouse; but the Doctrine and Covenants Stories manual that my parents had laying around the house when I was a kid--which was my introduction to Church history--had this:

 

 

Infelicitously, later editions of the book seem to have substituted a different image.  More's the pity.

[The Folk Prophet]

Can't vouch for the collection of the local ward meetinghouse; but the Doctrine and Covenants Stories manual that my parents had laying around the house when I was a kid--which was my introduction to Church history--had this:

 

 

Infelicitously, later editions of the book seem to have substituted a different image.  More's the pity.

 

Did he actually wear the breastplate to translate?

 

If not, I'm leaving the church for lying to me!

[Just_A_Guy]

Here's a late recollection by William Smith:

 

The Urim and Thummim were set in a double silver bow which was twisted into the shape of a figure 8, and the two stones were placed literally between the two rims of the bow.  At one end was attached a rod which was connected with the outer edge of the right shoulder of the breast-plate.  By pressing the head a little forward, the rod held the Urim and Thummim before the eyes much like a pair of spectacles.  A pocket was prepared in the breast-plate on the left side immediately over the heart.  When not in use the Urim and Thummim was placed in the pocket, the rod being of just the right length to allow it to be deposited.  This instrument could, however, be detached from the breast-plate when away from home, but Joseph always used it in connection with the breast-plate when translating, as it permitted him to have both hands free to touch the plates.  The instrument was too large for Joseph's eyes: they must have been used by larger men. (Quoted in Saints Herald, March 9, 1932, p. 258)

 

I think Lucy Smith also said it was made for a very large man--too big for Joseph.  The Urim and Thummim were something like four inches apart, per Martin Harris' recollection.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[jerome1232]

If anyone believes all artistic depictions need to be 100% historically accurate....

What's next, are we going to complain about Jesus' skin color in our depictions? Are we sure the clothing is historically accurate? The sandals are correct? What about the nephite / lamanite depictions!? I've seen Nephi wearing a leopard skin in one picture, does that constitute official endorsement of a location for BoM events?

For the love of poo throwing monkeys come on! Don't be ridiculous.

[The Folk Prophet]

Don't be ridiculous.

 

Well now, that would shut this thread down entirely.

[jerome1232]

Well now, that would shut this thread down entirely.

You are correct, and going by the past of this thread we shall now argue about various definitions of ridiculous