Unity

[The Folk Prophet]

As I have contemplated this thread I have a question about doctrine - especially for The Folk Prophet. 

 

Which is greater?  To know, understand and teach correct doctrine or to be united in covenant?

 

Is the question fair? It presumes one can exist without the other. Can one be united in covenant while teaching false doctrine? Moreover, is not doctrine, at it's core, covenant? Can we keep covenants without knowing and understanding them?

[omegaseamaster75]

President Ezra Taft Benson taught:

 

“I feel impressed to speak to you about a priesthood program that has been inspired from its inception—a program that touches hearts, that changes lives, and that saves souls; a program that has the stamp of approval of our Father in Heaven; a program so vital that, if faithfully followed, it will help to spiritually renew the Church and exalt its individual members and families.

 

”I am speaking about priesthood home teaching. With all my heart, I pray that you will understand, by the Spirit, exactly my feelings about home teaching.

 

“Brethren, home teaching is not just another program. It is the priesthood way of watching over the Saints and accomplishing the mission of the Church. Home teaching is not just an assignment. It is a sacred calling.

 

”Home teaching is not to be undertaken casually. A home teaching call is to be accepted as if extended to you personally by the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

“The Savior Himself was a teacher. The only perfect man to walk the face of the earth was a humble, dedicated, inspired teacher who brought to His followers salvation and exaltation.

 

”Oh, that all the brethren of the Church would catch that vision of home teaching!

 

“Tonight I am not teaching new doctrine, but I am reaffirming old doctrine. Quoting from section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants, revealed to the Prophet Joseph in April of 1830, the Lord declared to the priesthood:

 

” 'Watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them;

 

“ 'And see that there is no iniquity in the church.

 

” 'And see that the church meet together often, and also see that all the members do their duty' (D&C 20:53-55).

 

“ 'And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties' (D&C 20:51).

 

”Brethren, that is priesthood home teaching“ (”To the Home Teachers of the Church,“ Ensign, May 1987, 48-49).

 

 

I'm not sure how someone can merely claim that our lack of unity comes down to nothing more than interpretation or opinions differing when they are blatantly disregarding the teachings of prophets.

I think that home teaching has merit and is as important as our President Benson says that it is. I just don't see it as a fundamental doctrine of our church, the word "doctrine" is thrown around very causally in LDS circles so much so that the meaning is lost when we call individual programs doctrinal our leaders are guilty of this as well.

 

The doctrine is given in D&C as quoted by President Benson

 

” 'Watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them;

 

“ 'And see that there is no iniquity in the church.

 

” 'And see that the church meet together often, and also see that all the members do their duty' (D&C 20:53-55).

 

“ 'And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties' (D&C 20:51

 

We should do all of this....

 

I checked I didn't see home teaching mentioned in D&C.

 

Again home teaching is the mechanism by which our leaders "enforce" (may be poor wording) this doctrine

[Average Joe]

I would assert there's quite a difference between a single GA using profanity at the pulpit generations ago, and using that single example to justify rude language directed AT someone in public discourse.

 

As Paul counseled:

"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."

 

As to contending for the faith, as you choose to put it, a few verses after the one you've paraphrased, it even says the following, "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation,..."

 

I certainly don't see how being course or insulting in religious discourse can help us within the church arrive at unity. As mentioned recently in this thread, insults tend to spark pride both in the speaker, and in the hearer, which leads both sides to entrench and defend their own egos and prior opinions. I think we can and should do better.

 

And I basically agree with char713 that unity is only important in the essentials. Or, as one Christian put it centuries ago, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and, in all things, charity."

 

Actually, J. Golden was mentioned because his quotes always get a reaction In his day he could reach pioneer farmers and ranchers the way other other GA's couldn't. 

 

Now since everyone  seems to be quoting chapter and verse here I'll toss out a few (to see if I can do anymore damage to what little good reputation I may have left around here)

 

2 Ne. 28:1 states: “And now, behold, my brethren, I have spoken unto you, according as the Spirit hath constrained me…”

 

Speaking of the power or influence of the priesthood, D&C 121:43 states: “Reproving betimes [immediately] with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy.”

 

So leaving J. Golden for now, how did the Holy Ghost constrain Paul? In Galatians 2:11-14 we read:

 

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face [Reproving betimes with sharpness], because he was to be blamed.

 

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

 

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

 

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

 

So Paul dressed down the head of the church in front of witnesses. Was he out of line?

 

Peter may have become used to it since in Matt. 16:22-23 we read:

 

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

 

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

 

How would you like to be called Satan and offensive? So, was this conversation wrong (Reproving betimes with sharpness) or necessary to get everyone on the same page – or in “unity” as the thread is titled? 

 

 

It seems to me that everyone trying to be all PC manic doesn’t get the heavy lifting done in the church. As for this site, they give warnings and ban folks so, remember to try and keep it between the lines and outta the ditches. :)

[The Folk Prophet]

I think that home teaching has merit and is as important as our President Benson says that it is. 

 

Then how do you reconcile: "Home teaching is not just an assignment. It is a sacred calling. Home teaching is not to be undertaken casually. A home teaching call is to be accepted as if extended to you personally by the Lord Jesus Christ." -- with -- "I personally do not think that our eternal salvation hinges on whether or not we did our home teaching."

 

Or in other words, your opinion seems to be that one could reject a calling given them personally by Christ and it would have no bearing on their potential salvation?

 

I gotta say, I'm a bit baffled by your sense of logic on some of these matters.

 

As to the rest of your post, I'm really not interested in hashing over the debate "what is doctrine" again. You can take it up with char713 if she is so willing.

[Vort]

 

Are there not other ways to be our brothers keeper without home teaching?  The principles of loving our neighbors and looking out for one another stand without the home teaching program.

 

I think that home teaching has merit and is as important as our President Benson says that it is. I just don't see it as a fundamental doctrine of our church, the word "doctrine" is thrown around very causally in LDS circles so much so that the meaning is lost when we call individual programs doctrinal our leaders are guilty of this as well.

[...]

Again home teaching is the mechanism by which our leaders "enforce" (may be poor wording) this doctrine

 

Not sure how to word what I wrote more carefully. To repeat what I originally wrote:

 

For the record: Home teaching most definitely IS doctrine, if not the specific program then very clearly the purpose it fulfills.

[Traveler]

Is the question fair? It presumes one can exist without the other. Can one be united in covenant while teaching false doctrine? Moreover, is not doctrine, at it's core, covenant? Can we keep covenants without knowing and understanding them?

 

I would say not only is it a fair question it is a question that we all must face and answer without knowledge and understanding of commandments.  (see Moses 5:6).   The commandment to be one or united - I submit is not about always agreeing on every point in understanding doctrine - It is about how and what we do when we disagree and know or think we are right.  Why did Jesus say to agree with our adversary (3Nephy 12:25  and Matt 5:25)?  (and I do not mean the cast into prison part)

 

In all honesty I submit that parents are more effective in teaching their children if they are united and support one another - much more so than if one is right and knowing they are right never budges or gives in.

[The Folk Prophet]

I would say not only is it a fair question it is a question that we all must face and answer without knowledge and understanding of commandments.  (see Moses 5:6).   The commandment to be one or united - I submit is not about always agreeing on every point in understanding doctrine - It is about how and what we do when we disagree and know or think we are right.  Why did Jesus say to agree with our adversary (3Nephy 12:25  and Matt 5:25)?  (and I do not mean the cast into prison part)

 

How can we know how and what we do when we disagree if we don't know the doctrines of Christ that direct us on how and what to do?

[char713]

Maybe that was my bad, I probably need to do some more studying on the subject. It was my opinionated view that HT is a policy or practice, but not doctrine. Important yes, but not something without which the church would cease to be true. That's kind of the ruler by which I have judged, in my own opinion, which things matter the most and which are most important to take myself or someone else to task for.

 

My husband and I have not had home teachers - have not been home-taught in 6 years. We have been married for 8 years, and have been visited once by anyone besides the Bishopric (on Shepherding Night only.) I took this up on a thread when I first joined this forum. But I have since just learned to just deal with it and also support my husband in his HT efforts no matter what else goes on. If it were a doctrinal issue however, as serious of an issue as tithing monies being misused or someone teaching from disapproved materials at church, then I wouldn't let it rest.

[The Folk Prophet]

Maybe that was my bad, I probably need to do some more studying on the subject. It was my opinionated view that HT is a policy or practice, but not doctrine. Important yes, but not something without which the church would cease to be true. That's kind of the ruler by which I have judged, in my own opinion, which things matter the most and which are most important to take myself or someone else to task for.

 

My husband and I have not had home teachers - have not been home-taught in 6 years. We have been married for 8 years, and have been visited once by anyone besides the Bishopric (on Shepherding Night only.) I took this up on a thread when I first joined this forum. But I have since just learned to just deal with it and also support my husband in his HT efforts no matter what else goes on. If it were a doctrinal issue however, as serious of an issue as tithing monies being misused or someone teaching from disapproved materials at church, then I wouldn't let it rest.

 

I'm not sure how comparing levels of good holds much bearing on whether we should or should not act a certain way. Certainly failing to do one's home teaching doesn't equal not paying one's tithing. Certainly not paying one's tithing doesn't equal adultery. Certainly adultery doesn't equal going on a murder spree.

 

It seems to me that each thing we are asked to do (or to not do) stands on it's own, to be fulfilled, or to not be fulfilled.

 

I don't advocate causing grief in one's marriage because the spouse isn't doing his or her duty. But I would also think that at any level that falls short of what we should be doing that we would strive to support, sustain, encourage, exhort, and otherwise kindly pressure our loved ones to step up to the plate.

 

Whether home teaching is doctrine or not isn't really important. That we have been asked to do it as a distinct and clear part of our priesthood duty is plain. And I think, in the end, ignoring one's priesthood duty may well be a bit more serious than some of us would like to contemplate or admit.

[hagoth]

What's wrong with these phrases in the context of this discussion?

As I said earlier, it comes back to the likelihood of pride rising in the speaker and/or the hearer with the use of such words. Perhaps you've seen something in this thread that I haven't that would align with such phrases, or perhaps this has already been answered. (I haven't read every post in this thread, so I don't know what you mean when you refer to "the context of this discussion.") What was said in such a context that resembles either "flapping at the mouth" or "pernicious falsehood"?

[The Folk Prophet]

As I said earlier, it comes back to the likelihood of pride rising in the speaker and/or the hearer with the use of such words. Perhaps you've seen something in this thread that I haven't that would align with such phrases, or perhaps this has already been answered. (I haven't read every post in this thread, so I don't know what you mean when you refer to "the context of this discussion.") What was said in such a context that resembles either "flapping at the mouth" or "pernicious falsehood"?

 

If you're not going to actually read the thread and just throw accusations at me for random descriptive words I use to playfully describe generic theoretical for-examples, then I'm not sure there's much value in going back and forth with you on the matter or to take your reprimand too seriously.

[Traveler]

How can we know how and what we do when we disagree if we don't know the doctrines of Christ that direct us on how and what to do?

 

There are many things to consider - the way of a disciple of Christ (as I understand) is not about a list of do's and dont's as much as having faith in the spirit.  In Ecclesiastes we are instructed that there is a time and a season for all things.  For example a time to tear down and a time to build.

 

Another example is in how we drive on public highways.  There are laws that govern how to deal with each other at intersections.  And as a driver instructor pointed out to me many years ago - you can be dead right in everything you do while driving - the operative word being "dead".

 

Another way to consider is that covenants and commandments are made for the "benefit" of man.  It is not that man was made to benefit the covenants and commandments.  In essence the first lesson of intelligence is to learn.  In mathematics the answer is not important - it is the process by which the answer is learned or discovered.

 

Another idea to ponder - Was it not the desire of Lucifer to make sure that every one did everything exactly right according to doctrine?

 

Another idea - eternal life is not about getting everything right so you can be in the Celestial Kingdom and get all the blessings as it is the sacrifice of what one can achieve for themself to help and benefit others that struggle and otherwise would not achieve what they could without our sacrifice.  It is the idea of team - and the synergy that results not from being the best you can for your self sake but the selfless giving up what one can achieve as an individual to what can be achieved together.

 

The final idea - unity is not about one being right - it is about working together.  And the only way working together is the sacrifice of self.  Thus Jesus taught that to achieve the most possible it is not about self but rather to put self aside (sacrifice).

 

And so it is that it is better to love G-d than it is to know the correct doctrine about G-d.  One might ask, - Can we love G-d and not understand the correct doctrine about G-d?  I believe the answer is yes - in fact that is what a small child does

[pkstpaul]

How can we know how and what we do when we disagree if we don't know the doctrines of Christ that direct us on how and what to do?

It isn't that we don't know or believe the doctrine. The disagreements in the forum are more about to what level of exactness are we expected to carry them out (i.e. perfection). You, and a obvious handful of others, bully people on points where you expect perfection in an answer. You accept nothing but complete surrender that we are all failures because we are not perfect. If only we were more obedient, if only we were more in line.  As I stated earlier, you leave no room for the human experience - the fact that we were born into imperfection and will all likely die in imperfection.

 

I know I worded this harshly; especially to use the word 'bully'. And I know the respose is "show me where I...", but I don't live on this forum, nor do I wish to live for this forum, so no, I will not go searching your history to prove the point. I think others (those of us shouted down) will understand what I am saying.

[omegaseamaster75]

Or in other words, your opinion seems to be that one could reject a calling given them personally by Christ and it would have no bearing on their potential salvation?

 

I gotta say, I'm a bit baffled by your sense of logic on some of these matters.

 

 

Do you honestly think that when we are before the judgement seat our home teaching record will be put under a microscope?

 

 

Forget I asked don't answer  

Edited June 10, 2015 by omegaseamaster75

[Traveler]

It isn't that we don't know or believe the doctrine. The disagreements in the forum are more about to what level of exactness are we expected to carry them out (i.e. perfection). You, and a obvious handful of others, bully people on points where you expect perfection in an answer. You accept nothing but complete surrender that we are all failures because we are not perfect. If only we were more obedient, if only we were more in line.  As I stated earlier, you leave no room for the human experience - the fact that we were born into imperfection and will all likely die in imperfection.

 

I know I worded this harshly; especially to use the word 'bully'. And I know the respose is "show me where I...", but I don't live on this forum, nor do I wish to live for this forum, so no, I will not go searching your history to prove the point. I think others (those of us shouted down) will understand what I am saying.

 

I agree with your own assessment that the word bully was used very incorrectly.  Encouraging or expecting someone to do better than what they are doing does not constitute being a bully.  If it does then by your own expression and expectation in encouraging someone else to do better - you are a bully.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Traveler

[Traveler]

Do you honestly think that when we are before the judgement seat our home teaching record will be put under a microscope?

 

As I understand - we will be judged by our deeds.  In essence everything will be put under a microscope - both the good and the bad.  But I also think that in the discussion both you and prophet are arguing lesser points and ignoring more important points.

[omegaseamaster75]

Vort, on 09 Jun 2015 - 1:39 PM, said:

For the record: Home teaching most definitely IS doctrine, if not the specific program then very clearly the purpose it fulfills.

 

So we agree ....I agree the purpose that home teaching fulfills is the doctrine. I cannot call home teaching doctrinal, because if the program did not exist we should still be fulfilling our duty as outline in D&C 

[Vort]

Do you honestly think that when we are before the judgement seat our home teaching record will be put under a microscope?

 

Do you honestly think that's the point?

[omegaseamaster75]

As I understand - we will be judged by our deeds.  In essence everything will be put under a microscope - both the good and the bad.  But I also think that in the discussion both you and prophet are arguing lesser points and ignoring more important points.

I specifically said I didn't want to discuss home teaching.....my overlying point is that we can't even agree on the small stuff. 

[omegaseamaster75]

Do you honestly think that's the point?

Some people do

[The Folk Prophet]

It isn't that we don't know or believe the doctrine. The disagreements in the forum are more about to what level of exactness are we expected to carry them out (i.e. perfection). You, and a obvious handful of others, bully people on points where you expect perfection in an answer. You accept nothing but complete surrender that we are all failures because we are not perfect. If only we were more obedient, if only we were more in line.  As I stated earlier, you leave no room for the human experience - the fact that we were born into imperfection and will all likely die in imperfection.

 

I know I worded this harshly; especially to use the word 'bully'. And I know the respose is "show me where I...", but I don't live on this forum, nor do I wish to live for this forum, so no, I will not go searching your history to prove the point. I think others (those of us shouted down) will understand what I am saying.

 

For someone who has never said a kind word to me in the entire history of our communication, you've got some gall calling me out.

 

FYI, it's not my expectation that we be obedient. It is Christ's.

[Vort]

 

Vort, on 09 Jun 2015 - 1:39 PM, said:

So we agree ....I agree the purpose that home teaching fulfills is the doctrine. I cannot call home teaching doctrinal, because if the program did not exist we should still be fulfilling our duty as outline in D&C 

 

 

I guess I'm not perceiving the need for the line you appear to be drawing. Here is how I perceive this issue:

 

We are given a responsibility by divine commission; call it X. We then say that X is a doctrinal requirement. How do we fulfill X? Our leaders, after great deliberation and inspiration, present a program that, correctly implemented and followed, will fulfill X; call that program x.

 

Now there are some who don't like x, for whatever reason. They say, "No, no, x is just nonsense." In acting this way, they are of course negating the covenants they made to sustain their leaders; in addition, their refusal to perform program x and the overall discouragement they provide in their example to others lead to X, the doctrinal requirement, not being fulfilled.

 

So others say, "Hey! Get on board! Quit grousing and carping about x, and just do your duty!" And the response given is, "I don't have to do that. Program x is not my duty, because it's not even a doctrinal requirement."

 

You see the problem here?

 

Whether or not program x may be a doctrinal requirement is utterlycompletelytotally beside the point. X is a doctrinal requirement, and x is the way our anointed leaders have chosen to fulfill that requirement.

[pkstpaul]

I agree with your own assessment that the word bully was used very incorrectly.  Encouraging or expecting someone to do better than what they are doing does not constitute being a bully.  If it does then by your own expression and expectation in encouraging someone else to do better - you are a bully.

It isn't the points of the arugument that are bullying. It is the unrelentless talking down to people to frustrate them to the point of abondoning the argument. I almost never even read the comments of a half dozen posters to this forum. TFP opened himself up because he 'sought' some understanding as to why we are not united. I am obliging with my 'opinion'. 

 

You, Traveler, are one of the top offenders, so I don't expect you to understand.

 

It is interesting to compare this forum to others. There is far more activity on other forums. There are hundreds of posts per day and thousands of responses. This forum can go a day or two without a new topic posted. I curious as to why. There is a lot of heated discussion on the other forums but perhaps for some reason people don't feel villified there. Just an observation.

[omegaseamaster75]

X is the doctrinal requirement ( as outlined in D&C) and x (home teaching) is the program given to us by our leaders to fulfill X.

 

x is not the doctrine X is.

 

If everyone did X we wouldn't need x, but we are human and our leaders are helping us fulfill our responsibilities which is why they put together the program x.

 

So X is not equal to x

 

When a program put together by man is called doctrine I take issue. Is it a good program? yes it is, does it help us fulfill our duties (the doctrinal part)? yes. We throw the word doctrine around very loosely when we refer to a church instituted program as doctrine (albeit an inspired program).

[pkstpaul]

For someone who has never said a kind word to me in the entire history of our communication, you've got some gall calling me out.

 

FYI, it's not my expectation that we be obedient. It is Christ's.

I almost did a 'like' on one of you comments the other day.  Then I thought...'why start now'.

 

You are a highly intellegent person. You have a great insight into the gospel and the Church. You have a fantatic talent in recalling scripture and history. As I have said in the past, I don't disagree with you on your doctrinal view. I appreciate that you such a strong member of the Church. If I were a leader, I would probably call someone like you as a counselor just to balance me out.

 

I have a complete dislike for the attitude in which you choose to teach us. If I knew you, I'd give Mrs. TFP a metal.