"Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

[_harmony]

Ray, who first said this: ..."who might be characterised by JFS and Harold B. Lee as those who "live by the lamp of their own conceit".

Who said that JFS and HBL would view someone like me (for want of a better example) as one who lives by the lamp of her own conceit? What is the source of this phrasing?

It originally goes back to Joseph F. Smith (the father of Joseph Fielding), but Harold B Lee is often quoted as re-emphasising it:

There are many who profess to be religious and speak of themselves as Christians, and, according to one such, "as accepting the scriptures only as sources of inspiration and moral truth," and then ask in their smugness: "Do the revelations of God give us a handrail to the kingdom of God, as the Lord's messenger told Lehi, or merely a compass?"

Unfortunately, some are among us who claim to be Church members, but are somewhat like the scoffers in Lehi's vision-- standing aloof and seemingly inclined to hold in derision the faithful who choose to accept Church authorities as God's special witnesses of the gospel and his agents in directing the affairs of the Church.

There are those in the Church who speak of themselves as liberals who, as one of our former presidents has said, "read by the lamp of their own conceit." (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine [Deseret Book Co., 1939], p. 373.) One time I asked one of our Church educational leaders how he would define a liberal in the Church. He answered in one sentence: "A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony." (My emphasis. I remember it from my original reading of JFS's Gospel Doctrine).

Harold B. Lee, The Iron Rod.

What amazes me is that HBL would not have seen himself in his own phrase. And, I suspect, neither would our current Brethren. Yet they, perhaps more than anyone else, live by the lamp of their own conceit when they demand loyalty and uncritical thinking from the members, as Elder Oakes and Pres Hinckley demanded.

Why are we unable to find men who think like Hugh B Brown today? Why can we no longer find any B. H. Roberts today?

[_harmony]

The institutional emphasis on male priesthood leadership and traditional family values is easier to express in [p.24] sermons and sculpture than to apply in a world where Mormon women become psychiatrists and senators, adopt hyphenated names at marriage, and deliver their babies in the presence of their nervous husbands.

It's been 30 years since the ERA, 30 years since the priesthood was revised... 30 years! And the same men are in charge. They still see through a glass darkly. They still live by the lamp of their own conceit. And they still don't see that they are part of the problem. They point their finger at the members, never acknowledging their part, their lack of true leadership and vision.

Meaningful change will not happen in my lifetime, Ray, and I cannot tell you how that hurts my heart.

[_Ray A]

Why are we unable to find men who think like Hugh B Brown today? Why can we no longer find any B. H. Roberts today?

I think Brown's grandson Ed Firmage is probably correct in citing Brodie about the rise of conservatism. Mc Murrin remembered a very different Church too in the sense of it being less doctrinally rigid, and I think Poll's assessments are quite spot on in regard to more conservatism being prompted by greater challenges in a "universal church". The more they were exposed to the world, the more then had to tighten controls.

I think that Joseph Fielding Smith and Mc Conkie played a large role in the way the Church shifted since the pre-1950s, to a much more conservative theological base. "Return to the fundamentals." Mc Conkie's Messiah volumes bored me to death. I got through part of the first one, and never bought the others. Gone was all of the 19th and early 20th century originality, and even books like Truman Madsen's Eternal Man were unable to get a toehold in the doctrinal domination of the fundamentalists.

Anyway, I've said more than I should have for today. The real world once again calls.

[_harmony]

Why are we unable to find men who think like Hugh B Brown today? Why can we no longer find any B. H. Roberts today?

I think Brown's grandson Ed Firmage is probably correct in citing Brodie about the rise of conservatism. Mc Murrin remembered a very different Church too in the sense of it being less doctrinally rigid, and I think Poll's assessments are quite spot on in regard to more conservatism being prompted by greater challenges in a "universal church". The more they were exposed to the world, the more then had to tighten controls.

I think that Joseph Fielding Smith and Mc Conkie played a large role in the way the Church shifted since the pre-1950s, to a much more conservative theological base. "Return to the fundamentals." Mc Conkie's Messiah volumes bored me to death. I got through part of the first one, and never bought the others. Gone was all of the 19th and early 20th century originality, and even books like Truman Madsen's Eternal Man were unable to get a toehold in the doctrinal domination of the fundamentalists.

Anyway, I've said more than I should have for today. The real world once again calls.

I see decisions made that are so far removed from the origins of this church, and I wonder why the vision has been lost? Why the thumb has grown so heavy on the members, especially the women? And then I read about things like how Joseph ordained women to a bit of the priesthood, how he created Relief Society on the same level as the priesthood, how women could annoint and bless other women and the children... and I wonder where that kind of vision has gone, and in its place we have Relief Society women relegated to the status of children, 12 year old boys with more authority than their mothers, and The Proclamation on the Family, a piece of nonsense so heavy handed, it reeks of unrighteous dominion.

This church was once on the cutting edge, out in front with the way it treated women. And then Joseph became more concerned with his libido than his prophethood, Brigham institutionalized an abomination, and Joseph F Smith brought his wife-beating rage down on the women of the church.

One day I hope it rights itself, but it won't as long as the leadership has no vision.

[_Pokatator]

Mr. Plate, I hesitate to respond because the thread has somewhat returned to the topic of the OP and I wish not to derail it, I find it interesting. But since everyone else had their fun and chose to let it go except you I will respond to you.

Why would I meet with a member of the 12 and go over complaints of a person on the Internet, with whom I don't agree?

You claim you are not disingenuous, so answer this comment to yourself and see if this is not you talking. You need not derail any longer by replying.

I (Mr. Plate) am not willing to waste my time visiting with the brethren in behalf of someone because I don't agree with them, but I (Mr. Plate) am willing to aid and abet this person I don't agree with into a situation that would, in my (Mr. Plate) opinion would waste the brethren's time.

So why would you do this if your motives were genuine?

It is you still playing playground games. You are hoping to put someone else in an uncomfortable and possibly embarrassing situation just to have a few laughs and giggles in the background.

It's time to hang up the playground games.

Further, who I am online is pretty much who I am in person. I don't hide behind a fake name here, etc.

Is Bob Crocket your attorney?

Personally, I think all you guys, in person, would be probably fun to meet and know. If invited I would honestly try to attend a dinner if my health will allow the travel.

And Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays to everyone.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I see decisions made that are so far removed from the origins of this church, and I wonder why the vision has been lost? Why the thumb has grown so heavy on the members, especially the women? And then I read about things like how Joseph ordained women to a bit of the priesthood, how he created Relief Society on the same level as the priesthood, how women could annoint and bless other women and the children... and I wonder where that kind of vision has gone, and in its place we have Relief Society women relegated to the status of children, 12 year old boys with more authority than their mothers, and The Proclamation on the Family, a piece of nonsense so heavy handed, it reeks of unrighteous dominion.

This church was once on the cutting edge, out in front with the way it treated women. And then Joseph became more concerned with his libido than his prophethood, Brigham institutionalized an abomination, and Joseph F Smith brought his wife-beating rage down on the women of the church.

One day I hope it rights itself, but it won't as long as the leadership has no vision.

harmony's only reservations concern polygamy and closed financial books, or something like that.

[_harmony]

I see decisions made that are so far removed from the origins of this church, and I wonder why the vision has been lost? Why the thumb has grown so heavy on the members, especially the women? And then I read about things like how Joseph ordained women to a bit of the priesthood, how he created Relief Society on the same level as the priesthood, how women could annoint and bless other women and the children... and I wonder where that kind of vision has gone, and in its place we have Relief Society women relegated to the status of children, 12 year old boys with more authority than their mothers, and The Proclamation on the Family, a piece of nonsense so heavy handed, it reeks of unrighteous dominion.

This church was once on the cutting edge, out in front with the way it treated women. And then Joseph became more concerned with his libido than his prophethood, Brigham institutionalized an abomination, and Joseph F Smith brought his wife-beating rage down on the women of the church.

One day I hope it rights itself, but it won't as long as the leadership has no vision.

harmony's only reservations concern polygamy and closed financial books, or something like that.

When talking with members of the priesthood, I generally use "Polygamy" as shorthand for "the way women are treated in the church, including that entire paragraph above". Men generally understand "polygamy". They don't always understand the rest of the whole women's marginalization and patronization thing. You just demonstrated that.

[_harmony]

harmony's only reservations concern polygamy and closed financial books, or something like that.

Is that all you can say? The post reeks of passion, and that's all you can say?

Good grief.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You claim you are not disingenuous, so answer this comment to yourself and see if this is not you talking. You need not derail any longer by replying.

No, I'd rather answer in the thread. Don't bother replying to my reply, though.

I (Mr. Plate) am not willing to waste my time visiting with the brethren in behalf of someone because I don't agree with them, but I (Mr. Plate) am willing to aid and abet this person I don't agree with into a situation that would, in my (Mr. Plate) opinion would waste the brethren's time.

So why would you do this if your motives were genuine?

Harmony's point is that the brethren are too good to meet with anyone of her supposedly low stature. This is not true, and we are offering her an opportunity to demonstrate otherwise.

It is you still playing playground games. You are hoping to put someone else in an uncomfortable and possibly embarrassing situation just to have a few laughs and giggles in the background.

Again you try to assign motives, etc. I don't know what it is about this message board, but we have an awful lot of mind readers around here.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

harmony's only reservations concern polygamy and closed financial books, or something like that.

Is that all you can say? The post reeks of passion, and that's all you can say?

Good grief.

Did I miss your response to the succession question?