How God directs the church & meaning of: astray

[_Tidejwe]

I believe the only possible explanation is that God directs this church in the SAME WAY President Hinckley directs BYU.

BYU is a private school which is governed by the church. However, the LDS church President left a University "President" and other leaders in charge of governing the University the best way they see fit. Not all the rules and decisions made at BYU come directly from the LDS church President; however, the President of the church has been known to, at times, intervene and countermand decisions made by University leaders. Technically the "Prophet" is in charge of BYU since it is a private school owned by the church, and the "Prophet" is the leader of the church. Therefore, technically the prophet is also the leader of BYU. That does not mean that the Prophet decided what day and time people should take midterms or finals, or what the class schedules will be and in which rooms or who they should hire. It doesn't necessarily mean the prophet is the one who demanded no Caffeinated soda drinks be allowed to be sold on BYU Campus. He didn't directly tell students not to walk on the grass to avoid killing it. He didn't choose most of the policies and rules that exist there. He wasn't the one that demanded students attend their own ward at least 3 out of 4 times a month or possibly get kicked out of school. He didn't decide what kind of firewall to put on their network or how it should be run. He didn't decide which buildings would be married housing, or single male/female housing. He didn't decide which activities should be held next weekend or if they should have a chess club. He didn't decide which buildings should be designated for which majors.

There are countless things that the President of the church didn't decide to do personally, and yet he is technically in charge of the school and if he was utterly opposed to anything going on he has the authority to intervene and make changes. He also has the authority to, and occasionally does, make some decisions regarding what leaders of the school should do with a FEW THINGS. In General though, he lets them do their job the best way THEY SEE FIT and lead the school to the best of their knowledge, experience, etc.

So it must be with the Lord. He gives revelation and directs the church, but in general he allows Mormons/their leaders to direct it the best way they see fit having already given us the guidelines and correct principles. Just like what Joseph Smith once said:

"I Teach Them Correct Principles and They Govern Themselves"

God teaches us correct principles and lets the church body decide how best to govern themselves in regard to policies, practices, etc, through the Law of Common Consent as set forth by the Lord in the D&C, with an occasional intervention and of course inspiration to help guide guide us.

I believe this is the only realistic explanation for church history issues. Many of the policies and practices are simply created based on the leaders' judgment. Take the WOW for example. It even admits it's a temporal Law, and the D&C explicitly says God doesn't ever give temporal commandments. But Brigham Young later asked the members of the church to offer it up to God as a covenant that we would follow it of our own free will. Thus it has become an official practice and policy and is regarded equally as a commandment and referred to as such. Several other examples exist, banning women from praying in Sacrament meeting for over 11 years, baptizing for the sick, priesthood ban, and many others.

The whole "We cannot lead you astray" originated with Wilford Woodruff who was taking heat for banning polygamy, "THE" Law that even he said could never be removed. Such a statement cannot possibly be referring to prophetic infallibility, but the effect they can have on our salvation. God will not permit the actions of our leaders of the organization to do or say something that would jeopardize our salvation. This does not mean that all their thoughts, actions, policies, opinions, sayings all come from God, because clearly this is not the case.

Personally, I accept that our leaders have been left in charge of the ORGANIZATION of the church. An organization that the Lord says only exists because we can't seem to learn to live well without it:

D&C 22:3 For it is because of your dead works that I have caused...this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old.

As one of my friends said:

For me it all comes down to Joseph's followers who held on too tightly to the practices of religion rather than the spirit of it. It is much the same as Christians who wont read other books than the Bible because they believe God doesn't reveal anything else. The principles of religion are there as a tool to teach us the true principles: faith in the Christ, repentance, and baptism of water and fire.

It happened then, and it happens still today. LDS seem to have a very particular way of holding on tightly to the precepts of their religion and forget that they are to learn the spirit or symbolism of the things we practice...LDS rightly refer to themselves as modern-day Israelites, but don't recognize that they (as well as Christianity as a whole) are lost like the children of Moses.

I read somewhere that Joseph Smith once said the only reason we received the Temple ordinances/endowment is because the Saints weren't prepared for the higher law/truth, and thus the temple was a preparatory Law (much like the Law of Moses) meant to prepare us for a Higher Law since members were not yet prepared to receive it. If anyone knows of this reference, I'd love to record it for future use.

I think the LDS leaders are here to lead the organization as a whole (an organization that doesn't have to be necessity), but I don't believe it is so magically authoritative on all spiritual matters, etc. I mean, one only needs check the Bible to see that Paul went to Agibus for revelation, or that there were other non-Israelite or non-organizational prophets who lived simultaneously with organizational leaders like Balaam, or Beor, etc, regardless of things they did later in life. Other similarities could be cited.

In short: LDS leaders are left (primarily on their own) to guide the church organization with policies, practices, etc to the best of their understanding and ability. God could potentially intervene if He deems it necessary, but mostly allows them to direct the church similarly to how the President directs BYU. The leaders' policies, and opinions don't actually HURT someone's salvation in the long run, and by this understanding they don't actually lead us "astray" as it does not lead us AWAY from salvation. I know of no other feasible interpretation that adequately addresses church history inconsistencies without requiring virtually complete rejection...

Thoughts? Comments? Insights? Questions? Disagreements?

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm pretty much with you on this. I am interested in seeing what others, especially the died-in-the-wool skeptics, have to say.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Regards,
MG

[_Mercury]

I think the LDS leaders are here to lead the organization as a whole (an organization that doesn't have to be necessity), but I don't believe it is so magically authoritative on all spiritual matters, etc. I mean, one only needs check the Bible to see that Paul went to Agibus for revelation, or that there were other non-Israelite or non-organizational prophets who lived simultaneously with organizational leaders like Balaam, or Beor, etc, regardless of things they did later in life.

Orders of structure do not a strong organization make. The system you describe is on the surface weak and still does not explain properly the overall utility or ethical implications of living off of a fraud.

Mormonism is a brand. A very bad brand, like joe camel or Marlborough.

Other similarities could be cited.

I just did.

[_harmony]

Thoughts? Comments? Insights? Questions? Disagreements?

Could I let this go by without commenting? Of course not.

I am perfectly willing to allow the prophet to run the church. I wish for greater transparency for the financials, mainly because it makes the leaders look bad, not because I think they're skimming the tithing funds.

What I object to is those who say the prophet is supposed to run my life, to tell me where to send my children to school, to tell me that I cannot work outside my home, to tell me what techniques I can use when I'm making love with my husband, to tell me what I can say when I'm in bed, to tell me what pills I can take and what pills aren't okay, to tell me what I can drink and what I can't, to tell me how many earring holes I can have in my ears, to tell me any of a huge number of things I can and cannot do.

I wish the prophet would stick to running the church, and leave off with trying to run my life.

And yes, I am grumpy tonight. There's a party going on at the ward, and I'm not well enough to go. BLEAH!

[_Gadianton]

You know, it's sounds like there's a debate on the role of a prophet, but really, there isn't. It is true that the church has taught that low level priesthood holders make the decisions for their stewardship while the prophet can override as needed, and that only the prophet can make decisions for the whole church, or rather "get revelation" for the whole church. The critics -- and I'm one of them -- argue that Mormonism teaches absolute obedience to the prophet and the TBMs, even the apologists, say, "No, we have to get confirmation first!" Well, technically that might be correct, but the idea is that confirmation will always be given unless the TBM is living in sin so it's a redundant step really. The argument though, is moot. And that's because the truth of the matter is that the prophet is never going to get a revelation at this point that matters, that would try anyones faith. So we'll never really know if "Charity" or anyone else desperately needs confirmation by the spirit for a prophetic utterance because he's never going to say anything that matters.

It's really kind of silly reading your post, imagining GBH, the second-rate PR semi-smooth talker at any point in time knowing exactly what BYU or the priests quorum of the 134 Utah Valley ward needs to do. This is the buffoon who many years ago predicted great times ahead on national TV and then a day or two later a couple hundred thousand people were wiped out by a Tsunami. Trust me, the guy has no idea what needs to be done at any level including his own. He's successful in the way most presidents are successful: the forces are already in play and so he's lucky. I'm disposed to the democratic party but trust me, I'm not fooled for a minute that the economic prosperity was anything but an accident under Clinton. Among other things, I'm a monetarist.

But most important, is that the Hinckster is just an old coot of a figurehead and nothing more. If his prophetic ability could make a difference once in a while, he'd use it. And certainly he wouldn't let national TV make a fool out of him like he tends to "let it".

There was a thread not too long ago wondering if there was going to be another group of apostates excommunicated soon Of course there isn't going to be. What, they have AT LEAST a snowball's chance in hell of getting a Mormon president in office. It doesn't matter if they can mind-control him or not, they know they have no revelatory power and they are just a bunch of wannabe losers, but a Mormon in office sure would be great press for the church. You think they are going to risk taking a stand at apostates, and getting the media reason to believe they punish anyone who disagrees with them, and that if Romney doesn't act according to their agenda, that he might be on the choping block too? Of course not! These jokers have been pretty much pushed back into the role of figurehead and don't dare, for at least the two reasons I've cited, try to pull off being "prophets" beyond the mere mention of the term during the sustaining vote at conference times.

[_The Nehor]

Hey Gad, I've had the Spirit tell me not to obey several things the Brethren have said. Does that count?

[_Tidejwe]

You know, it's sounds like there's a debate on the role of a prophet, but really, there isn't. It is true that the church has taught that low level priesthood holders make the decisions for their stewardship while the prophet can override as needed, and that only the prophet can make decisions for the whole church, or rather "get revelation" for the whole church.

I think you misunderstand. The argument goes that revelations for the organization as a whole would be revealed through the President of the church. In other words, the Nursery leader isn't going to get some intervening revelation that such and such a policy should be repealed for the whole church. Any ORGANIZATIONAL matter would be handled through the leader of the organization. This doesn't necessarily mean that all others are exempt from revelation, including new truths. Such things would not be considered "OFFICIAL DOCTRINE" or teachings of the organization, but this does not mean they are necessarily false. Nor does it mean that new information and revelations ONLY come to the President of the church.

As I recall, referring to the President of the church as "THE Prophet" didn't start being used commonly (ie regularly) in the church until about 6 Presidents ago.

I believe the President of the church is the one who would receive any possible guidance or revelation/intervention when necessary for leading the church organization. I don't believe he is the end-all authority on all matters spiritual. Truth be told, I believe in SOME ways the position is more temporal in nature as the position is for directing an organizational body. Nothing in the church is as magical as it's portrayed. Ordinances? Symbolic and figurative in nature. People are so blind in this regard to think God is bound by these magical seeming practices and has no choice in the matter. Ridiculous!

I think it's a mistake to believe the President of the church is the only one privy to Eternal truths. I mean, even our scriptures have known ERRORS in them. Just look at the Book of Moses which has gone through 2-3 updates (depending on when you start counting). Now that we finally have access to Old Testament Manuscript 1 and OTM2 we KNOW for sure that there are still some errors in the Book of Moses and that it requires an eventual 3rd/4th update and even then it won't be flawless in the sense of how Joseph meant it to be because we aren't sure of whether OTM2 should override the later changes in OTM1 even when it had additions made AFTER the OTM2 was written, etc. We'll always have errors in the Book of Moses. It's not flawless scripture, and yet it's Official LDS Doctrine in the sense that it is used as an official teaching and belief even though it's known to be flawed and have verified errors in it in it's current form.

The critics -- and I'm one of them -- argue that Mormonism teaches absolute obedience to the prophet

Believe it or not, just because members, or even leaders in the organization TEACH it, doesn't necessarily make them right. Although, perhaps for the sheeple that can't think for themselves (a majority of members) this is probably a good teaching.

For example, Most of you have heard of the prison statistics showing how there are less Atheists in prison for committing felonies than religious people, but let's contrast it to Mormons in particular.

In 1997 a research analyst of the Federal Bureau of Prisons showed Atheists made up 0.209% of the prison population. Mormons made up 0.399% of the prison population. 10% of the USA populace was made up of Atheists (27.264 Million of them). If there were 272.646 million people in the USA that year then Mormons (4.923 million) made up only 1.8% of the US populace. Therefore to bring the Mormons score onto equal footing relative to population with the Atheists for comparison we times their score by 5.538, which gives us a relative percentile of 2.2096%

This means that if there an equal amount of Mormons as Atheists in the USA, the Atheists would take up 0.209% of the prison population and Mormons would take up 2.21% of the prison population. In other words, the typical Mormon is MORE THAN 10 TIMES more likely to commit a serious felony than an Atheist.

While we could debate the statistical reasoning for this (Atheists tend to be more educated and humanist in nature for example), it's still arguable that for the majority of STUPID members in this church, it might not be such a bad thing for those morons to think they HAVE TO let someone do their thinking for them. Heaven knows how much higher the LDS prison stats would be if those uneducated morons were doing their own thinking.

For those of us who can think for themselves, then it's blatently obvious that such facism can be a negative thing, but for those who can't think on their own, prudish old men telling them to follow their advice could be a positive thing in the lives of many of those just dying to be part of a cultish type of culture by being told everything they should do and think.

[_Gadianton]

Hey Gad, I've had the Spirit tell me not to obey several things the Brethren have said. Does that count?

Nehor, I like you and all, but c'mon, you're one of these guys that sort of fantisizes about how important you are -- ok you're no jskains, but who is -- and is the kind of guy who thinks he gets revelations all the time, because he's so important, God just has to say something. When I was at BYU, I had a group of LDS friends who kind of considered themselves rebel LDS kids who majored in art and crap like that, with the exception of a couple physics guys, odly enough, and they were just like you. Sort of laid back, with all the truth of God at their fingertips as they saw fit. They smiled knowingly at others, LDS or non, who didn't seem to be getting all the personal communication they got. But all they had was nothing more than they high school kids who get so wrapped up in D&D that they begin to really think they are sorcerors and s*** like that.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please do not use the "S" word in the Terrestrial Forum.]

[_Gadianton]

I think you misunderstand. The argument goes that revelations for the organization as a whole would be revealed through the President of the church.

Jesus Christ, I'm so drunk out of my mind, you supposidly have the constant companionship of the holy ghost, yet you can't read and I can. I said clearly that the prophet is the only one who can get revelation for the whole church. That clearly excludes bishops and primary teachers.

by the way, Nehor, i was writing my response as the new year rolled in. happy new year, that makes you even more special.

[_ludwigm]

Thoughts? Comments? Insights? Questions? Disagreements?

...
What I object to is those who say the prophet is supposed to run my life, to tell me where to send my children to school, to tell me that I cannot work outside my home, to tell me what techniques I can use when I'm making love with my husband, to tell me what I can say when I'm in bed, to tell me what pills I can take and what pills aren't okay, to tell me what I can drink and what I can't, to tell me how many earring holes I can have in my ears, to tell me any of a huge number of things I can and cannot do.

I wish the prophet would stick to running the church, and leave off with trying to run my life.
...

And that is it why did I become an inactive (sorry, less active) investigator after six years investigation.