Evil Speaking of the Lord's Annointed

[LDSGator]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Worshipping the prophet and apostles over the Lord means that you act as if they are like what the Catholics say the Pope is.  You see them as infallible.

Catholics teach that the pope is only infallible when he teaches on matters of faith and morals from the chair of st peter. It rarely happens. I don’t believe in the teaching-but that’s what it is   
 

Many Catholics don’t really think about it. It’s not of great concern to them. 

Edited October 30 by LDSGator

[zil2]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Worshipping the prophet and apostles over the Lord means ....  You see them as infallible.  This leads to people stumbling when we do this, and I see that there are many who stumble today because they see a problem with something a leader does and are told to either accept it or leave.  In some instances, they choose to leave rather than to resolve the issue.

This very thread has people saying that if someone has problems with a man, they cannot voice those problems.  This comes VERY close to worship, if not a form of worship.

So, when I think that the Lord means it when he asks me to make a covenant with Him to not speak evil of those He has anointed, and I have a testimony that He anointed [pick a latter-day prophet to insert here], you think that by keeping my covenant, I'm worshiping the prophet rather than the Lord?

(NOTE: I think "anointed" refers to all who have been endowed in the temple, BTW.  And "speak evil" means to call good evil and evil good, as well as exercising unrighteous judgment, and murmuring, and gossiping, and any similar thing.)

Only modern day idiots think that anyone is perfect.  But I'm fully capable of being patient, tolerant, generous, and merciful as regards the weaknesses and even sins of our latter-day prophets (both living and dead).  I don't need to publicly rant and rave over their supposed mistakes.  You know why?

• I live in a glass house
• I made a covenant
• I raised my arm to the square to sustain them
• it will do no good - not for me, not for anyone else
• it has the potential to do great harm - to me and to others
• and because the Lord told me to be patient, tolerant, generous, and merciful as regards the weaknesses and even sins of other (see the entire set of canonized scripture, but here are some quotes for you):

Quote

Luke 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

Maybe you, JJ are practically perfect in every way, but my only hope of a half-way decent eternity is if, when the time comes, the Lord is merciful, forgiving, and generous (that's what verse 38 describes - generosity).  And if I hope for Him to be, then He requires me to be that now.  Maybe you've managed to get all the motes and beams out of your eyes, but I know I haven't, so I'm going to work on my own long before I go trying to cast motes and beams out of dead prophets' eyes!

Quote

Ether 12:23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness ....

26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

Did you catch verse 26?  The Lord's grace is sufficient for the meek, not to make their weakness strong (that comes later), but so that those meek folk won't take advantage of others' weakness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  The Lord doesn't want me fault-finding.  He doesn't want me making videos ranting about the supposed (or real) mistakes of others.  He wants me to be meek, humble, submissive, like a little child. I am not worshiping the prophets and apostles.  I follow them, I trust that the Lord will work through them, and I intend to be as generous and merciful toward them as I hope one day the Lord will be to me.  If that looks like worship to you, fine, whatever, but you're mistaking the object of my worship - that's God.

[zil2]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Do you think the Prophet (or which ever church leader you are asking about) is righteous?

Inviting us to exercise unrighteous judgement now?  I would never dream of asking, let alone answering that question about anyone.  There is only one good, and that is God.

But I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that Russell M. Nelson is a prophet of God.  I could say the same about every prophet going back to Joseph Smith, and about all the current apostles.  That's enough for me to follow them.  I have yet to hear any of them give counsel that seemed contradictory to the collection of past scripture and teachings of the Church.  If I do, I'll follow the proper course to resolve my concerns - and that doesn't include making public YouTube videos calling into question the legitimacy of the prophet.

I think you are seriously mis-perceiving the intent of the folk in this thread when they express concerns over the events described in the OP.

[Traveler]

Again, let’s take a step back and think about what is meant by “The L-rd’s Anointed”?

I think some get a little confused because they think in terms of singularity rather than plural.  There is another term for “The L-rd’s Anointed” that comes to us in a Hebrew term.  That term is “Messiah”.  The Greek term is “Christ”.  I used to love my mathematical text when it would suggest that certain solutions to questions would be left as an “exercise” for the reader.

Here some exercise for the reader – Given that your marriage has been sealed in the temple of G-d, “Is the L-rd’s anointed ever present in your home eating meat at our table”.  “If the L-rd’s anointed is present – do you ever speak evil of them?” 

The final question: “Do you believe in Christ?”  --- to what extent can you extend this logic?

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'll quote the following.  Though it has been toned down since it first was written, it would have been easiest simply to state this was done by a Prophet, as given by revelation.

Quote

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

It does not say that this was revelation or divinely given.  It does not say it has anything to do with his prophetic calling and in fact says that NO explanations of why these restrictions were given are accepted today as official doctrine of the church.

You claimed that the essay implied that these things were not done by revelation. There is no such implication in your quotation above.

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Then they include this section which Heavily implies it was done for other reasons that prophetic inspiration or revelation

Quote

In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.⁹

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.¹⁰ According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.¹¹ Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.¹² Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

Expand  

You may disagree with the idea of the implication, but you are not society at large and most of society taking in the above three paragraphs are going to see that the priesthood ban was not due to inspiration, but due to other circumstances.

I do not "disagree with...the implication" so much as I disagree that there exists any such implication. That is a fabrication of your own mind.

You have failed to substantiate your point. The essays do not imply any such thing as you claim they imply.

You may suppose anything you wish to suppose—that prophets aren't prophetic, or that Joseph Smith was a fraud, or that Brigham Young was a liar, or whatever else tickles your fancy. But don't make stuff up that suits your own prejudices and then try to claim that what you made up is somehow implied by writings that don't actually contain any such implications. Don't blame the Church for your interpretations. Own your beliefs.

[Carborendum]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

You claimed that the essay implied that these things were not done by revelation. There is no such implication in your quotation above.

I do not "disagree with...the implication" so much as I disagree that there exists any such implication. That is a fabrication of your own mind.

You have failed to substantiate your point. The essays do not imply any such thing as you claim they imply.

You may suppose anything you wish to suppose—that prophets aren't prophetic, or that Joseph Smith was a fraud, or that Brigham Young was a liar, or whatever else tickles your fancy. But don't make stuff up that suits your own prejudices and then try to claim that what you made up is somehow implied by writings that don't actually contain any such implications. Don't blame the Church for your interpretations. Own your beliefs.

It is so easy to see "hidden messages" when one is so dead set on believing something that they can fabricate them in their own minds.  And regardless of reality, they see what they want to see.

No use talking to them at that point.

[Just_A_Guy]

The older I get, the more apropos it seems to compare the marital relationship to the relationship between the Church membership and the Q15.

1. My relationship with spouse is important, even salvational.
2. Truth is important, even salvational.
3. Sometimes my spouse is wrong and I am right.  Sometimes she is right and I am wrong.
4. I don’t usually know when I am wrong while I am in the act of being wrong.
5. Even when I am quite sure my spouse is wrong—there are times when it’s important she knows she’s wrong, and there’s are times it’s not important.
6. *How* I tell my spouse she’s wrong, matters a great deal.  I can do immense harm to our relationship if I go about it in the wrong way.
7. Just because I may need to tell my spouse she’s wrong, doesn’t necessarily mean I need to tell third parties that she’s wrong.
8. How I talk about my spouse to third parties, again, matters enormously.  I can do immense harm to our relationship if I go about it in the wrong way.

With regard to points 4-8:  I need to be really careful to think about what my own motivations are in these cases. What am I trying to accomplish?  Am I trying to use guilt or shame in furtherance of some personal agenda?

As with the relationship between me and my spouse:  so with the relationship between me and the Church leadership.

With regard to the intra-Church Brigham-hate, I think most of it comes from three distinct camps:

A.  Libertines who, on behalf of themselves or out of some warped notion of “love for others”, want to bring the Sexual Revolution into the church; but realize they can only do so by undermining the historical underpinnings of the current leadership’s moral authority.  These people deserve contempt.

B.  Trauma-dumpers.  Generally victims of abuse or infidelity (or very close to such victims), who as a coping/survival mechanism have adopted broad caricatures about the sort of people who perpetrate these misdeeds.  These folks tend to get (and I don’t mean this pejoratively) triggered by superficial similarities between alleged conduct of JS/BY.  Detailed arguments justifying JS/BY and explaining how their conduct and motives differed from actual predators, demands a re-opening and re-processing of old wounds and a certain embrace of empathy and nuance that many of these folks just aren’t willing (or, perhaps, therapeutically able) to undertake.  They deserve pity (but to the extent that they perpetuate historical falsehoods, those must still be refuted).

C.  Populist-conservatives who have for various reasons (especially COVID) developed a new streak of anti-institutionalism and are still trying to reconcile that with the fastidious obedience (and often, brittle black-and-white thinking) that they’ve traditionally offered to the Church (eg, “Why would a prophet who can never be wrong demand that my family to take this 100% Satanic vaccine?”). I think a certain amount of historic-church-hate like this tends to soothe a lot of their concerns (“prophets CAN be wrong and things will still come out ok in the long run”); but I don’t think such people have really thought through the full ramifications of the historical allegations they’ve accepted as true, and I think that over time that mentality to some degree becomes a spiritual bandage that conceals tissue that is festering rather than healing.  And I really don’t know how to deal with people in that mindset.

Edited October 30 by Just_A_Guy

[SilentOne]

So if I believe the prophet to be righteous because I believe that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ would choose a righteous man to be our leader and have seen no sign of said man's nature having changed in the years since his call, that means I worship the prophet?

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, SilentOne said:

So if I believe the prophet to be righteous because I believe that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ would choose a righteous man to be our leader and have seen no sign of said man's nature having changed in the years since his call, that means I worship the prophet?

It was a litmus test I thought up of.  It could be a flawed litmus test as I thought it up in the moment.  It is based on my belief that Jesus Christ and the gospel are bigger than any individual, no matter how important.  It should not matter whether a Church leader is righteous or not (especially the prophet) in order for us to listen to them and recognize their authority in the church. 

Edit:  I should add, I cannot answer your question.  No One But You can answer your question.  It's something that only  you would know.  I have things you can do to reflect and figure out your own answer if you do not know already, but in truth, it is only a question each individual can answer for themselves. 

No, it doesn't mean you worship him, but it could call for further introspection. 

What does worship mean to you?  What do you do when you participate in worship?

One particularly popular form of worship today is celebrity worship.  Celebrity worship could be seen as a form of idolatry.  What does that include?
 

Some items this may include...

You post pictures of the celebrity everyplace.  This is far more than if one put a picture of their bank president or leader of an organization on a wall to recognize who it is.  This is where you post pictures of them everywhere.  You have posters of them hanging in your bedroom, you have pictures of them on your phone...etc.

You praise them repeatedly.  If we put this in context of worship of the Lord, you praise them and talk about them more than you talk and praise the Lord.

You have a collection about them.  You have some sort of thing which collects things on them (articles, a book of pictures you've collected, autographs, etc).

You feel they can do nothing bad.  If they were caught doing something bad, or accused of it, it would shock you.  You could not believe it, even if it were true.  (and, ironically, when this happens with some celebrities, when those who worshiped them finally admit it, they go to the extreme opposite of celebrity worship of that celebrity, which is one reason celebrity worship of church leaders may not be a good thing if the church leader ever has something bad attributed to them, as those who do celebrity worship tend to go the exact opposite extreme if they ever finally accept that).

Your life centers around that celebrity. 

You would abandon everything if the celebrity told you to do so.  You would do whatever it would take to be around that celebrity or to brag that you did something with that celebrity.

The celebrity is more important than close friends or family relationships.

And finally the crux of it....IMO

If you found out that the Leader or celebrity you follow (for example, lets say the almost all the Quorum) were actually evil and were literally trying to lie to you and they were convicted of such, or openly admitted that they were frauds...would that destroy your testimony of the gospel?  No individual should have the power that if they were shown to be false or fallen, to lead you away from the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

 

I too would hope that the Lord would never choose someone who is unrighteous to be in Church leadership, but I have seen those who have fallen away from the church because of actions that some Church leaders have done (note, nothing with Russell M. Nelson), I have seen some who have had some problems with others who are currently church leaders.  Some of these things actually could be seen as rather bad and actually pretty terrible things.  Obviously, I'm not going to post them here, but I am aware of them.  This is one reason I feel you Cannot base your testimony or faith on men.  It should not matter whether they are righteous or not in regards to us following and adhering to the gospel.  It should make no difference.  The Lord has chosen men who were not perfect before to be leaders (prime example would be Sampson.  Even Moses was a murderer and a poor speaker and he was chosen to be a prophet).  Does this mean we should point this out about them and make a big deal about their imperfections.  My Opinion is that we should not.  If we try to point out their imperfections and faults, that would be akin to evil speaking. 

But sometimes we take it too far.  People have difficulties and questions in the church.  If tell people they cannot even talk about problems they have with decisions made in the church, or worse, excommunicate them simply because they have difficulties with certain aspects, that will lead to them finding other avenues to vent (and some of those avenues are going to be where the advice they get will be from enemies of the church rather than those who can actually help them overcome these problems) and that could be problematic.  I don't see the advice of no evil speaking to mean to not have the ability to express difficulties or problems people may have, but that we should not slander (mock, tear down, or ascribe evil) our leaders. 

Edited October 30 by JohnsonJones

[laronius]

16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 But sometimes we take it too far.  People have difficulties and questions in the church.  If tell people they cannot even talk about problems they have with decisions made in the church, or worse, excommunicate them simply because they have difficulties with certain aspects, that will lead to them finding other avenues to vent (and some of those avenues are going to be where the advice they get will be from enemies of the church rather than those who can actually help them overcome these problems) and that could be problematic.  I don't see the advice of no evil speaking to mean to not have the ability to express difficulties or problems people may have, but that we should not slander (mock, tear down, or ascribe evil) our leaders. 

Much of it comes down to intent. No one gets exed just because they struggle with some aspect of our leadership. Even talking about it to try to understand won't cause it. But if someone goes public with seeming intent to discredit, that's where they cross the line. Then it's no longer a purely personal struggle but an attempt to persuade others to also think negatively about someone. That's outright opposition to the Lord who stands at the head of the Church. 

Here is a quote from Joseph Smith:

It is an eternal principle that has existed with God from all Eternity that that man who rises up to condemn others. finding fault with the Church. saying that they are out of the way while he himself is righteous. then know assuredly that that man is in the high road to apostacy and if he does not repent will apostatize as God lives

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-2-july-1839-as-reported-by-willard-richards/5

[NeuroTypical]

I like the chess club analogy.

“Black advances his knight to put the queen in check. But what’s this? White is yelling at the judge because that’s not how nights are supposed to move! He’s mad that the rules of the game did not take into account the more historically accurate way Persians used to move their knights!  He keeps telling people to read the Chatrang-namak, and is calling everyone to repentance!"

[Later, the guy playing white holds a press conference to protest his expulsion.  Some of his buddies help him picket tournaments, and hand out flyers.  He starts a website detailing the sins of the International Chess Federation.] 

Edited October 31 by NeuroTypical

[Traveler]

20 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The older I get, the more apropos it seems to compare the marital relationship to the relationship between the Church membership and the Q15.

1. My relationship with spouse is important, even salvational.
2. Truth is important, even salvational.
3. Sometimes my spouse is wrong and I am right.  Sometimes she is right and I am wrong.
4. I don’t usually know when I am wrong while I am in the act of being wrong.
5. Even when I am quite sure my spouse is wrong—there are times when it’s important she knows she’s wrong, and there’s are times it’s not important.
6. *How* I tell my spouse she’s wrong, matters a great deal.  I can do immense harm to our relationship if I go about it in the wrong way.
7. Just because I may need to tell my spouse she’s wrong, doesn’t necessarily mean I need to tell third parties that she’s wrong.
8. How I talk about my spouse to third parties, again, matters enormously.  I can do immense harm to our relationship if I go about it in the wrong way.

.......

Something a good lawyer ought to consider.

There is a story of a husband and wife arguing over a point.  The husband puts together a perfect explanation of logic to put forth his point and win the argument.  As he begins to unfold his perfect logic his wife stops him and asks.  Would you rather be right or happy?

This proves the scripture - “Man is that he might have joy.”

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

As he begins to unfold his perfect logic his wife stops him and asks.  Would you rather be right or happy?

I readily concede there is some real wisdom in this. But this idea seems often to be taken to the point of saying, in essence, "Don't worry about who's right and who's wrong. Just do whatever it takes to keep the peace." This is a recipe for long-term, unavoidable disaster. At some level, right and wrong have to be considered, and outcomes must be based on that judgment.

[Carborendum]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

I readily concede there is some real wisdom in this. But this idea seems often to be taken to the point of saying, in essence, "Don't worry about who's right and who's wrong. Just do whatever it takes to keep the peace." This is a recipe for long-term, unavoidable disaster. At some level, right and wrong have to be considered, and outcomes must be based on that judgment.

Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who...  

[NeuroTypical]

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Would you rather be right or happy?

"Just do whatever it takes to keep the peace."

Both are sayings that claim a measure of wisdom. Sometimes following the dictates of each saying is warranted, sometimes it isn't.   It depends.   I think this is a truly wise saying:   "Is this the hill you want to fight and die on?"   See, it's better, because asking the question forces an examination of the variables. 

Edited October 31 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

22 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

45 minutes ago, Vort said:

53 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Would you rather be right or happy?

"Just do whatever it takes to keep the peace."

Both are sayings that claim a measure of wisdom. Sometimes following the dictates of each saying is warranted, sometimes it isn't.   It depends.

To be clear, I was taking exception to both sayings. While I agree with Traveler that the scripture doesn't teach that "Man is that he might be right", but rather "that he might have joy", I also recognize that "the truth will set you free". And the truth ultimately is not a matter of opinion. We must have a knowledge of how things really are, were, and will be. Only then can we be set free. "Just doing whatever it takes to keep the peace", while it may be a prudent course of action on some occasions, is not a viable long-term strategy for understanding truth and reality.

[mordorbund]

For your consideration in dealing with the Lord’s anointed: David was appointed to replace King Saul; Saul’s jealousy of David’s popularity drove him to actively hunt David with the intent to kill him. Some run-ins are recorded in 1 Samuel 24 & 26. From the latter:

Quote

So David and Abishai came to the people by night: and, behold, Saul lay sleeping within the trench, and his spear stuck in the ground at his bolster: but Abner and the people lay round about him.

8 Then said Abishai to David, God hath delivered thine enemy into thine hand this day: now therefore let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear even to the earth at once, and I will not smite him the second time.

9 And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not: for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?

10 David said furthermore, As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle, and perish.

11 The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord’s anointed: but, I pray thee, take thou now the spear that is at his bolster, and the cruse of water, and let us go.

President Eyring shares a modern adaptation of this scriptural story:

Quote

I remember one young man who asked for counsel about his educational choices. He was a freshman at a very good university. A week after I had given the advice, he scheduled an appointment with me.

When he came into the office, he surprised me by asking, “Bishop, could we pray before we talk? And could we kneel? And may I pray?”

His requests surprised me. But his prayer surprised me even more. It went something like this: “Heavenly Father, You know that Bishop Eyring gave me advice last week, and it didn’t work. Please inspire him to know what I am to do now.”

…

It worked. As soon as we stood up and then sat down, the revelation came to me. I told him what I felt the Lord would have him do. He was only 18 years old then, but he was mature in spiritual years.

…

Yet another lesson from that experience has served me well. As far as I know, he never told anyone in the ward that I had not given good counsel at first. Had he done that, it might have reduced the faith of others in the ward to trust the bishop’s inspiration.

 

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I readily concede there is some real wisdom in this. But this idea seems often to be taken to the point of saying, in essence, "Don't worry about who's right and who's wrong. Just do whatever it takes to keep the peace." This is a recipe for long-term, unavoidable disaster. At some level, right and wrong have to be considered, and outcomes must be based on that judgment.

I think you have missed my most important point.  Joy and happiness is not necessarily about keeping the peace.  Contrary to some thoughts – there are individuals that find joy in disrupting the peace.  I have observed in my self that regardless of whatever an action brings – I will eventually stop doing it if there is no joy or happiness doing it. 

The trick in life is not doing what is good and right (true or whatever) and not doing what is wrong or bad (false or whatever).  The science is that we learn our preferences – they are not innate in us.  Preferences are controlled in regions of our cortex.  Thus, the trick in life is learning to find and happiness and joy in doing the right thing.  If we do not learn to do this, we will become the slave of whoever it is that controls what tempts us.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I think you have missed my most important point.  Joy and happiness is not necessarily about keeping the peace.  Contrary to some thoughts – there are individuals that find joy in disrupting the peace.  I have observed in my self that regardless of whatever an action brings – I will eventually stop doing it if there is no joy or happiness doing it. 

The trick in life is not doing what is good and right (true or whatever) and not doing what is wrong or bad (false or whatever).  The science is that we learn our preferences – they are not innate in us.  Preferences are controlled in regions of our cortex.  Thus, the trick in life is learning to find and happiness and joy in doing the right thing.  If we do not learn to do this, we will become the slave of whoever it is that controls what tempts us.

 

The Traveler

I understand what you are saying, I think.

In my own life I’ve seen things like this. The happiest people I know generally are in stable relationships, free of addictions, and don’t live criminal lifestyles. I’m sure some people can be happy being married five times, addicted to cocaine and robbing liquor stores for money (after all, @mirkwood seems happy)-but 99% of people wouldn’t have long term happiness doing those things.

 

Edited October 31 by LDSGator

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

I understand what you are saying, I think.

In my own life I’ve seen things like this. The happiest people I know generally are in stable relationships, free of addictions, and don’t live criminal lifestyles. I’m sure some people can be happy being married five times, addicted to cocaine and robbing liquor stores for money (after all, @mirkwood seems happy)-but 99% of people wouldn’t have long term happiness doing those things.

 

I became happy when I stopped listening to KISS.

[Jedi_Nephite]

On 10/30/2024 at 4:02 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

The older I get, the more apropos it seems to compare the marital relationship to the relationship between the Church membership and the Q15.

1. My relationship with spouse is important, even salvational.
2. Truth is important, even salvational.
3. Sometimes my spouse is wrong and I am right.  Sometimes she is right and I am wrong.
4. I don’t usually know when I am wrong while I am in the act of being wrong.
5. Even when I am quite sure my spouse is wrong—there are times when it’s important she knows she’s wrong, and there’s are times it’s not important.
6. *How* I tell my spouse she’s wrong, matters a great deal.  I can do immense harm to our relationship if I go about it in the wrong way.
7. Just because I may need to tell my spouse she’s wrong, doesn’t necessarily mean I need to tell third parties that she’s wrong.
8. How I talk about my spouse to third parties, again, matters enormously.  I can do immense harm to our relationship if I go about it in the wrong way.

With regard to points 4-8:  I need to be really careful to think about what my own motivations are in these cases. What am I trying to accomplish?  Am I trying to use guilt or shame in furtherance of some personal agenda?

As with the relationship between me and my spouse:  so with the relationship between me and the Church leadership.

With regard to the intra-Church Brigham-hate, I think most of it comes from three distinct camps:

A.  Libertines who, on behalf of themselves or out of some warped notion of “love for others”, want to bring the Sexual Revolution into the church; but realize they can only do so by undermining the historical underpinnings of the current leadership’s moral authority.  These people deserve contempt.

B.  Trauma-dumpers.  Generally victims of abuse or infidelity (or very close to such victims), who as a coping/survival mechanism have adopted broad caricatures about the sort of people who perpetrate these misdeeds.  These folks tend to get (and I don’t mean this pejoratively) triggered by superficial similarities between alleged conduct of JS/BY.  Detailed arguments justifying JS/BY and explaining how their conduct and motives differed from actual predators, demands a re-opening and re-processing of old wounds and a certain embrace of empathy and nuance that many of these folks just aren’t willing (or, perhaps, therapeutically able) to undertake.  They deserve pity (but to the extent that they perpetuate historical falsehoods, those must still be refuted).

C.  Populist-conservatives who have for various reasons (especially COVID) developed a new streak of anti-institutionalism and are still trying to reconcile that with the fastidious obedience (and often, brittle black-and-white thinking) that they’ve traditionally offered to the Church (eg, “Why would a prophet who can never be wrong demand that my family to take this 100% Satanic vaccine?”). I think a certain amount of historic-church-hate like this tends to soothe a lot of their concerns (“prophets CAN be wrong and things will still come out ok in the long run”); but I don’t think such people have really thought through the full ramifications of the historical allegations they’ve accepted as true, and I think that over time that mentality to some degree becomes a spiritual bandage that conceals tissue that is festering rather than healing.  And I really don’t know how to deal with people in that mindset.

Regarding part C, the First Presidency never told members to get vaccinated.  What they did say was that they should make the decision prayerfully and by following the consul of competent medical professionals.

[Highlander]

On 11/4/2024 at 4:16 AM, Jedi_Nephite said:

Regarding part C, the First Presidency never told members to get vaccinated.  What they did say was that they should make the decision prayerfully and by following the consul of competent medical professionals.

This... the entire time during the lock downs people were saying that the prophet told them to be vaccinated that it was revalation and I had to keep pointing out that's not what happened. Not because I disagreed with the vaccine (I do, for most age groups, ect) but because I was worried that if there were problems with the vaccine that it would damage their faith due to assumption.

[laronius]

12 hours ago, Highlander said:

This... the entire time during the lock downs people were saying that the prophet told them to be vaccinated that it was revalation and I had to keep pointing out that's not what happened. Not because I disagreed with the vaccine (I do, for most age groups, ect) but because I was worried that if there were problems with the vaccine that it would damage their faith due to assumption.

Exactly. I would liken it to the Word of Wisdom. While the WoW came by revelation and has some specific prohibitions, it's mostly a general rule intended to be customized according to people's individual needs. Wheat is to be the staff of life for man but for a diabetic or gluten intolerant individuals it could be very problematic. Vaccines are also a blessing and in general can be very beneficial to the population. But that doesn't mean we ought to forfeit all decision making in the matter. 

[Carborendum]

Update. 

Apparently, he has read this thread.  And he responded.

I've also seen a few more of his videos.  He has moved that inch that I never thought I'd see.  This is sad for me.  He's still not quite crossed the line (in my book).  But he shows no signs of moving back.  He's dead set on continuing down the path ever so slowly.

I wonder if he realizes the path he's taken.  I'm afraid it is not a good one.  I pray he comes back some day.

[zil2]

Well, now we want a link to go see for ourselves.