Ten Questions - Interview with the Stake Presidency

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm not sure why this is a big deal.

We could all ask any missionary our questions, or we could ask the local bishop, or we could submit questions to the SP in our area at any time.

Basically the responses will be opinion... like every other response. Sort of meaningless.

Nevertheless... here are five questions I have asked various believers without response.

Hi TD! I'll take a go at it! These are short and incomplete answers...just as the questions themselves may be.

1. Since it is clear that prophets and leaders (with all the keys, and while meeting with Christ himself), regularly mistake opinion or believe as inspiration/revelation, how can the average member be sure the HG is actually providing truth? (Examples: Joseph Smith had a superficial understanding of the Book of Mormon and was clearly wrong about his understanding, BY got the whole Adam/God thing totally wrong, BRM and, well pretty much everything, SWK and the Native Americans, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)

If the prophets are only told what God decides to tell them, then the prophets are on their own when it comes to everything else. These prophets/men then become speculators/prognosticators just like the rest of us. We are left to make our own choices and choose our own beliefs after hearkening to the voice of the prophets. The voice of the prophet has never or rarely had significant conflict with core practices/teachings which point one towards Christ...such as sacrament, obedience, service, sacrifice, making covenants, etc. Throughout the church's history the core practices/teachings which lead toward Christlike living and behavior have remained fairly constant. Application of those practices/teachings has varied. Apparent exceptions, such as some of the anomilies associated with polygamy/polyandry, blacks and the priesthood, location of the landing site of the Lehite colony, views towards God's progenitors, etc., may be chalked up to individual interpretation/practice extracurricular to or in opposition of, even if innocently, to the core principles and/or teachings. Where mistakes have been made they have been the mistakes of men. If opposition is to be experienced in all things then would we not expect there to be choices to be made even when it comes to following the prophet? For choices to be made, there would have to be alternatives to choose from wouldn't there?

2. Assuming agreement that the LDS religion requires faith to believe, why have faith in the LDS church versus all the other thousands of religions? Why not have faith in another that make more sense, feels more holy, or sounds more helpful? Why would God set up a one and only true religion that (for many) doesn't make sense, feel peaceful, bring peace, or instill hope?

first question: Because it provides the way to exaltation and eternal lives/increase.

second question: There is no reason why not. If we have agency, we have choice. What to believe and what to believe in. Would you have it any other way?

third question: to call those that can hear God's voice directing them to that path towards exaltion and eternal life. Again, it becomes a choice. No force. No compulsion.

3. If you discovered that your married thirty-something neighbor convinced your fourteen year old daughter that he had a vision from God that she was to "marry" him, then discovered that indeed he had convinced several other teenage girls at the local high school to have an affair, then discovered that he slept with his children's nanny, then discovered that he successfully convinced several married women to "marry" him, then found out that while you were out of town, he convinced your wife to be his, how would you feel? What do you think should happen to this guy? If your daughter and wife told you that indeed they had a revelation that he really did see God, how would you feel?

first question: hurt, angry, and offended to the extreme.

second question: held up or subjected to an inquistion/council of peers/inquisitors.

third question: I would doubt it. I would think that they had possibly been deceived.

Of course, one must realize that the person in question may also have the influence/power to negate a follow through in response to what I suggested as an answer to the second question.

4. If certain teachings/doctrines/beliefs in the LDS church conflict with one's sense of morality, decency, and integrity, is it best to abandon one's personal intuition and moral convictions and code or follow the teachings of the church?

No. What becomes of agency/choice if one does so? Case in point...you (TD) have made a choice. You have done what you think best. You have relied upon your best thinking/judgement. Has God told you NOT to make the choice that you have?

You literally are free. Now of course when significant others are part of the equation things get mucky

5. If the LDS church (teachings/doctrines/practices) is harmful to one's personal life, marriage, family, and sense of well being, is it best to continue trying to believe or would it be best to release the church and find a belief system that is more healthy?

~dancer~

I think that after what one considers to be an adequate amount of time, study, prayer, sacrifice, obedience, and patience in waiting upon a "higher power" one should expect that they ought to come to some sort of resolution to issues/problems. If not, then more time/patience may be necessary/required. On an individual basis we then decide whether our lives have been touched/influenced in some way...or not...and go from there. Experiences and outcomes may and will vary. It's not a one size fits all kind of thing.

Imperfect answers, I'm sure.

But then again we live in an imperfect world with imperfect people, leaders, and questions. There are very few humans that get everything right the first time around.

And that's what provides opposition...learning...and spice to life!

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

The voice of the prophet has never or rarely had significant conflict with core practices/teachings which point one towards Christ...such as sacrament, obedience, service, sacrifice, making covenants, etc.

If this is all that really matters in terms of the information God conveys to human beings, then why the "great apostasy"? And why were "plain and precious truths" needed to be restored? After all, ALL Christian faiths - including catholicism - teach these basic concepts you list.

[_mentalgymnast]

The voice of the prophet has never or rarely had significant conflict with core practices/teachings which point one towards Christ...such as sacrament, obedience, service, sacrifice, making covenants, etc.

If this is all that really matters in terms of the information God conveys to human beings, then why the "great apostasy"? And why were "plain and precious truths" needed to be restored? After all, ALL Christian faiths - including catholicism - teach these basic concepts you list.

Hi Beastie.

first question: because of the mistakes/errors/corruptions of men.

second question: plain and precious truths had been distorted/corrupted and/or were incomplete.

statement at end: but do they do so adequately and/or absolutely (with precision)...carrying/bearing God's authority?

Wow! If this is the only bone of contention you have with my extended response to TD, I must be doing something right!

Regards,
MG

[_truth dancer]

I'm not sure why this is a big deal.

We could all ask any missionary our questions, or we could ask the local bishop, or we could submit questions to the SP in our area at any time.

Basically the responses will be opinion... like every other response. Sort of meaningless.

Nevertheless... here are five questions I have asked various believers without response.

Hi TD! I'll take a go at it! These are short and incomplete answers...just as the questions themselves may be.

Hey MG... :-)

1. Since it is clear that prophets and leaders (with all the keys, and while meeting with Christ himself), regularly mistake opinion or believe as inspiration/revelation, how can the average member be sure the HG is actually providing truth? (Examples: Joseph Smith had a superficial understanding of the Book of Mormon and was clearly wrong about his understanding, BY got the whole Adam/God thing totally wrong, BRM and, well pretty much everything, SWK and the Native Americans, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)

If the prophets are only told what God decides to tell them, then the prophets are on their own when it comes to everything else. These prophets/men then become speculators/prognosticators just like the rest of us. We are left to make our own choices and choose our own beliefs after hearkening to the voice of the prophets. The voice of the prophet has never or rarely had significant conflict with core practices/teachings which point one towards Christ...such as sacrament, obedience, service, sacrifice, making covenants, etc. Throughout the church's history the core practices/teachings which lead toward Christlike living and behavior have remained fairly constant. Application of those practices/teachings has varied. Apparent exceptions, such as some of the anomilies associated with polygamy/polyandry, blacks and the priesthood, location of the landing site of the Lehite colony, views towards God's progenitors, etc., may be chalked up to individual interpretation/practice extracurricular to or even in opposition, even if innocently, to the core principles and/or teachings. Where mistakes have been made they have been the mistakes of men. If opposition is to be experienced in all things then would we not expect there to be choices to be made even when it comes to following the prophet? For choices to be made, there would have to be alternatives to choose from wouldn't there?

OK.. .but what I'm asking is, if the prophets think they are inspired when they clearly are NOT, why can anyone else trust their inspiration? Does that make sense? I mean certainly BRM thought he was inspired when he spoke and wrote as an apostle of the Lord no? Would you agree that SWK thought he was being led by the HG when he spoke all the stuff about the Lamanites turning white? Joseph Smith thought he was speaking truth yet today folks claim he had a superficial understanding. So how can anyone trust what they believe is inspiration when even the prophets get it so completely wrong?

2. Assuming agreement that the LDS religion requires faith to believe, why have faith in the LDS church versus all the other thousands of religions? Why not have faith in another that make more sense, feels more holy, or sounds more helpful? Why would God set up a one and only true religion that (for many) doesn't make sense, feel peaceful, bring peace, or instill hope?

first question: Because it provides the way to exaltation and eternal lives/increase.

You claim this but one would have to believe or trust you to accept this no? Why trust you and Joseph Smith over the rest of the world? :-)

second question: There is no reason why not. If we have agency, we have choice. What to believe and what to believe in. Would you have it any other way?

Of the hundreds of possibilities available to a truth seeker, and knowing that to believe one must have faith, why would anyone pick the LDS church over any other? Of course it is a choice but what I'm asking is why the LDS church over any other? Why should I not have faith in Scientology? Or the JWs, or the FLDS? Islam, or Mainstream Christianity? If there is nothing to distinguish the one and only true church from any other, so one can at the very least get an idea that it may be a good one in which to put one's faith, God sure created a stupid plan. (smile) (I realize there are difference in truth claims but I'm thinking more along the lines of some reason that one should put their faith in a particular church rather than another).

third question: to call those that can hear God's voice directing them to that path towards exaltion and eternal life. Again, it becomes a choice. No force. No compulsion.

So, are you saying the chosen and elect will know that they should have faith in the LDS church? These special people will be directed somehow to the one and only true church? If this is the case, why bother with the whole plan... sounds very cruel and nonsensical to me! ;-)

3. If you discovered that your married thirty-something neighbor convinced your fourteen year old daughter that he had a vision from God that she was to "marry" him, then discovered that indeed he had convinced several other teenage girls at the local high school to have an affair, then discovered that he slept with his children's nanny, then discovered that he successfully convinced several married women to "marry" him, then found out that while you were out of town, he convinced your wife to be his, how would you feel? What do you think should happen to this guy? If your daughter and wife told you that indeed they had a revelation that he really did see God, how would you feel?

first question: hurt, angry, and offended to the extreme.

second question: held up or subjected to an inquistion/council of peers/inquisitors.

third question: I would doubt it. I would think that they had possibly been deceived.

Of course, one must realize that the person in question may also have the influence/power to negate a follow through in response to what I suggested as an answer to the second question.

You are a good man who cares about his wife and daughter. :-)

4. If certain teachings/doctrines/beliefs in the LDS church conflict with one's sense of morality, decency, and integrity, is it best to abandon one's personal intuition and moral convictions and code or follow the teachings of the church?

No. What becomes of agency/choice if one does so? Case in point...you (TD) have made a choice. You have done what you think best. You have relied upon your best thinking/judgement. Has God told you NOT to make the choice that you have?

You literally are free. Now of course when significant others are part of the equation things get mucky

Well of course I agree with you on this. I doubt a leader would agree with us however. ;-)

5. If the LDS church (teachings/doctrines/practices) is harmful to one's personal life, marriage, family, and sense of well being, is it best to continue trying to believe or would it be best to release the church and find a belief system that is more healthy?

~dancer~

I think that after what one considers to be an adequate amount of time, study, prayer, sacrifice, obedience, and patience in waiting upon a "higher power" one should expect that they ought to come to some sort of resolution to issues/problems. If not, then more time/patience may be necessary/required. On an individual basis we then decide whether our lives have been touched/influenced in some way...or not...and go from there. Experiences and outcomes may and will vary. It's not a one size fits all kind of thing.

Are you saying that one continues on and on and on? Or do you think it is reasonable to let it go?

Imperfect answers, I'm sure.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this!

But then again we live in an imperfect world with imperfect people, leaders, and questions. There are very few humans that get everything right the first time around.

And that's what provides opposition...learning...and spice to life!

I TOTALLY agree that there is not a one size fits all belief system. Which of course is why I do not think there is a one and only true church. ;-)

Regards,
MG

~dancer~

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi TD,

MG:
If the prophets are only told what God decides to tell them, then the prophets are on their own when it comes to everything else. These prophets/men then become speculators/prognosticators just like the rest of us. We are left to make our own choices and choose our own beliefs after hearkening to the voice of the prophets. The voice of the prophet has never or rarely had significant conflict with core practices/teachings which point one towards Christ...such as sacrament, obedience, service, sacrifice, making covenants, etc. Throughout the church's history the core practices/teachings which lead toward Christlike living and behavior have remained fairly constant. Application of those practices/teachings has varied. Apparent exceptions, such as some of the anomilies associated with polygamy/polyandry, blacks and the priesthood, location of the landing site of the Lehite colony, views towards God's progenitors, etc., may be chalked up to individual interpretation/practice extracurricular to or even in opposition, even if innocently, to the core principles and/or teachings. Where mistakes have been made they have been the mistakes of men. If opposition is to be experienced in all things then would we not expect there to be choices to be made even when it comes to following the prophet? For choices to be made, there would have to be alternatives to choose from wouldn't there?

TD:
OK.. .but what I'm asking is, if the prophets think they are inspired when they clearly are NOT, why can anyone else trust their inspiration? Does that make sense? I mean certainly BRM thought he was inspired when he spoke and wrote as an apostle of the Lord no? Would you agree that SWK thought he was being led by the HG when he spoke all the stuff about the Lamanites turning white? Joseph Smith thought he was speaking truth yet today folks claim he had a superficial understanding. So how can anyone trust what they believe is inspiration when even the prophets get it so completely wrong?

Do me a favor. Go back and reread my response one more time. I think I've adequately responded to your questions in the statement I've made. Answer my questions and further clarification may be the result as you consider your answers.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

2. Assuming agreement that the LDS religion requires faith to believe, why have faith in the LDS church versus all the other thousands of religions? Why not have faith in another that make more sense, feels more holy, or sounds more helpful? Why would God set up a one and only true religion that (for many) doesn't make sense, feel peaceful, bring peace, or instill hope?

MG: Because it provides the way to exaltation and eternal lives/increase.

TD: You claim this but one would have to believe or trust you to accept this no? Why trust you and Joseph Smith over the rest of the world? :-)

MG: The stakes are higher and the promises are greater. As a result, my thinking is that the challenges to belief/adherence will be greater. His teachings (Joseph Smith's) lead one towards the greatest of the "many mansions" that Jesus referred to in the New Testament. The LDS church is worth a closer and more introspective look than any other religious system I can think of. Why even mess with other systems of belief that don't offer the same outcomes/rewards?

Unless, of course, the LDS church is a fraud...then you're back to square one.

Regards,
MG

[_asbestosman]

Can I be a prophetess (smile) and give a few responses? :-)

1. We just don't know much about it.

2. It doesn't really matter.

3. God's ways are not man's ways.

4. When we need that information, God will give it to us.

5. Things were different back then.

6. Critics are not spiritually in tune enough to understand the truth.

7. God gives us new light and knowledge as we need it.

8. It is not important to one's salvation.

9. God has more important things to worry about.

10. God must work with imperfect men, they are not perfect, they make mistakes, they are fallible, they share their opinions.


;-)

~dancer~

Those kinds of responses are why I want to ask:
5. If the answer to 4 (or any other question here) simply hasn't been revealed, then what was so important about the name God's home star that we actually happen to know it? I would think 4 is much more pertinent to the eternities than knowing that Kolob is the name of the place which is nigh unto God.

[_mentalgymnast]

So, are you saying the chosen and elect will know that they should have faith in the LDS church? These special people will be directed somehow to the one and only true church? If this is the case, why bother with the whole plan... sounds very cruel and nonsensical to me! ;-)

Answer to the last question (which relates to the answers to the first two): Because the "whole plan" includes those that don't accept the gospel. The "plan" is obviously bigger and more comprehensive than simply focusing on the LDS church.

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:

Quote:
The voice of the prophet has never or rarely had significant conflict with core practices/teachings which point one towards Christ...such as sacrament, obedience, service, sacrifice, making covenants, etc.



If this is all that really matters in terms of the information God conveys to human beings, then why the "great apostasy"? And why were "plain and precious truths" needed to be restored? After all, ALL Christian faiths - including catholicism - teach these basic concepts you list.



Hi Beastie.

first question: because of the mistakes/errors/corruptions of men.

second question: plain and precious truths had been distorted/corrupted and/or were incomplete.

statement at end: but do they do so adequately and/or absolutely (with precision)...carrying/bearing God's authority?

Wow! If this is the only bone of contention you have with my extended response to TD, I must be doing something right!

I was just trying to distill your response down to what appeared to me to be the "essence".

You appear to want your cake and eat it too. All that matters are the "core", and the discrepancies, contradictions, etc, are irrelevant because they're not "core" (leaving aside the small problem that some of the teachings that have changed are in regards to the very nature of God). But there still WAS a 'great apostasy' despite the fact that the "core" was still being taught!?!?!??! That seems to imply that teachings OUTSIDE the core DO matter, and in fact, constitute the "plain and precious" things.

[_William Schryver]

beastie:

Are you trying to sound creepy or is it beyond your control?

Mmmmm . . . am I to conclude that, in your world, taking someone out to lunch is considered creepy? Apparently John doesn’t think so. He sent me a PM and we are going to make a date for sometime in the near future. I guess he doesn’t consider me quite as “creepy” as you do. I guess that just goes to show there is no accounting for taste . . .

Gosh, darn, if only they'd had Will's Super Duper Countenance Detector!!!

We all have our gifts. The SDCD ain’t quite as good as those possessed by some of the good folks here in Shadyville, but hey, you have to make do with the hand you’ve been dealt.

Pokatator:

Maybe the ScareCrow is a closet doubter.

I doubt it.

John Larsen:

I think it is a preemptive strike to avoid a calling.

Close. It’s actually just a ploy to get out of a calling. Getting up at 4:30am every Sunday morning to attend stake presidency meetings does get to be quite a drag after a while.

Pokatator:

It can't be a secret that I don't trust him.

Right. Who knows what he might be capable of?! The very thought is enough to send shivers up the spine of the most hardened denizen of Shadyville.

moksha:

Are you saying this is a ruse and he will not actually do any asking? He has already told us he will not be relaying any answers. It would be interesting if he shares what questions he deemed worthy.

What I actually said was:

My intent is not necessarily to provide you with their answers, but to at least provide you with their reaction to your questions.

I don’t anticipate that they will even give me any answers. Why? Frankly, I don’t think they will have ever even heard of the kinds of things the questions will entail. Therefore I only anticipate being able to relate to anyone what their reaction will be to the questions.

I will be glad to share with you the questions I decide to present to them. And, those who have suggested I already have a good idea of the kinds of things I want to ask are absolutely correct. I simply thought that soliciting questions from you (and those on the MAD board) would benefit me in settling on specific questions. I thank you for your input so far.

Blixa:

I think that WS wants input from those he thinks are critics, but he's got a pretty limited notion of who they might be, or what "criticism" amounts to.

Quite to the contrary, I think I have a very good idea of what “criticism” of all things LDS amounts to. I’ve been studying it for upwards of 30 years now.

Is there anyone here---in any camp---who would benefit from this "questioning?"

Highly doubtful. But, of course, my intention has nothing to do with attempting to accrue a “benefit” to anyone here. That you thought otherwise is simply a byproduct of your misunderstanding.

Scottie:

1. Why did Joseph Smith have women sealed to himself when their husbands had other women sealed to them. These husbands obviously had the authority to have women sealed to them...why not their own wife?

I will definitely craft a question more or less along these lines.

beastie:

Well, of course Will has ulterior motives. He is Will.

Of course. And as soon as I figure out what they are, I promise to break the story here in Shadyville.

My, my, my . . . the river of your paranoia runs wide and deep. Do you have other fears you’d like to share with us? Maybe we can help. Otherwise, you’ll have to stick with your nightly dose of Lunesta.

OK, folks, it’s been great fun. Have a nice weekend. I’ll let you know on Monday how things went . . .