The Irrelevance of LDS Leaders, Part 2

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I just don't understand the point of an alien bothering to do that, and I believe Mr. Tobin doesn't, either. Seems awfully random...

- Doc

[_Bazooka]

I just don't understand the point of an alien bothering to do that, and I believe Mr. Tobin doesn't, either. Seems awfully random...

- Doc

Think about it....if you were an advanced, all-knowing space being who has the best interests of humanity at heart, would you want Tobin mating?

[_Tobin]

I just don't understand the point of an alien bothering to do that, and I believe Mr. Tobin doesn't, either. Seems awfully random...

- Doc

Yes, I would chalk it up to happenstance provided it wasn't a delusion. If advanced life is here, as I believe it is, I don't think I'm significant in any way.

[_Molok]

Think about it....if you were an advanced, all-knowing space being who has the best interests of humanity at heart, would you want Tobin mating?

Touché

[_SteelHead]

[_Finn the human]

Now what a conscientious person with some kind of coherent sense of morality and theology would do would be to ask themselves why it's bad to have a cup of coffee, but acceptable to watch rated R movies, when both prohibitions come from the same source. (D&C 89, on its own terms, is not a commandment.) Readers of this thread will note that no such efforts are being made here or anywhere else.

It seemed to me that the best way to get out of this dilemma was to try to split hairs by saying that there is a difference between a commandment and prophetic counsel. But our friend Ezra T. had to drop this bombshell (which you quoted)

Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.)

I now realize that when I was trying to channel the spirit of TBMness it was a mistake to try to draw the line in the sand, morally, at the temple recommend questions. Upon closer reading of Prez. Benson's fourteen fundamentals, we can find this quote from Brother Brigham:

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” (Journal of Discourses, 13:95.)

Members can safely conclude that anytime the prophet is preaching a sermon and advises, counsels, or commands anything, they should do it. However, the truly faithful can dicover a secret truth that I think Prez. Benson was hinting at. Namely, that anything the prophet says is scripture, sermonizing or otherwise. For example, the prophet could make an off-hand comment about the weather, and this would be considered scripture.

The truly faithful should draw their moral line in the sand on anything that the prophet speaks, prepared or extemporaneous, relevant or extraneous, mundane etc. To answer your question on why some members might try to rationalize watching rated R movies against prophetic counsel: those members are not the truly faithful.

[_grindael]

The truly faithful should draw their moral line in the sand on anything that the prophet speaks, prepared or extemporaneous, relevant or extraneous, mundane etc. To answer your question on why some members might try to rationalize watching rated R movies against prophetic counsel: those members are not the truly faithful.

Of course this goes hand in hand with claimed prophetic infallibility and that the Mormon "Oracles of God" do the thinking for all members and they should follow them no matter what they say. For example, Marion G. Romney taught that,

“What we get out of general conference is a build-up of our spirits as we listen to those particular principles and practices of the gospel which the Lord inspires the present leadership of the Church to bring to our attention at the time. He knows why he inspired Brother Joseph F. Merrill to give the talk he just gave. He knows why he inspired the other brethren who have talked in this conference to say what they have said. It is our high privilege to hear, through these men, what the Lord would say if he were here. If we do not agree with what they say, it is because we are out of harmony with the Spirit of the Lord.” (Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1950, p.126, added emphasis)

This is the Mormon doctrine of infallibility in a nutshell. Though there are many citations by apologists that Mormon “prophets” always encourage members to think for themselves, yet, if they do not agree with their “file leaders”, they are the ones with the problem, not the leaders. Of course there is more leeway with the lower Priesthood leadership, but there is none with the upper hierarchy and thus they are infallible when it comes to doctrine as Joseph Smith claimed when he said “I never told you I was perfect but there is no error in the revelations I have taught,” regardless if he was “righteous” or not.

Although this Ward Teacher’s Message from 1945 was later criticized because of its extreme phrasing, it stands as a forerunner to the same sentiment echoed above by Marion G. Romney in General Conference in 1950:

Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, revelators' of the church, is cultivating the spirit of apostacy. One cannot speak evil of the lord's annointed... and retain the holy spirit in his heart. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it to believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking."

Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the Lord's anointed and retain the Holy Spirit in his heart.

It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to "do their own thinking." He specializes in suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays of apostasy in the eyes of those whom he thus beguiles. What cunning! And to think that some of our members are deceived by this trickery.

The following words of the Prophet Joseph Smith should be memorized by every Latter-day Saint and repeated often enough to insure their never being forgotten:

I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: 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 apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 156-157.)

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God. (Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945. See also, Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 345).

Yet, what Joseph Smith claimed above, is exactly what he did himself (condemn others and claim that he was a prophet). Do all those that criticize Mormon leaders claim to be “righteous”? Not even Smith claimed that, he said that he was “not very righteous.” But he did claim there were no errors in his “revelations”. When the Ward Teachers Message from 1945 began to be circulated, it embarrassed the leadership of the church and George Albert Smith tried to retract it six months later:

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow. ( Letter from President George Albert Smith to Dr. J. Raymond Cope, Dec. 7, 1945).

If this was not the “true position” of the Church, then why did Marion G. Romney proclaim in General Conference five years later the very same thing? If you do not agree with what they (the leadership) say, it is you who are “out of harmony”. The "thinking" had already been done. Jesus told them so.

Actually, Joseph Smith supposedly claimed, and it is included in the new Essays on polygamy published by the church, that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith himself and threatened him with death (this is coercion is it not?) unless Smith began practicing polygamy. This is hardly the ideal that George Albert Smith speaks of.

How is this allowing someone to be “free to choose or reject that teaching?” Smith also called John Snider on a mission and told him that if he did not go, he would be cut off from the church and damned. This is definitely coercion, which Joseph also used on many of the women he tried to gain as spiritual “wives” by claiming that he could save them if they “married” him.

The bottom line here is that Church “authorities” are always right and if the members do not do what they say, they are wrong. Though they supposedly teach people to think for themselves, in practice this is not the case, for if you do not agree with the church hierarchy it is because you (not them) are “out of harmony with the Spirit of the Lord.”

You can think for yourself, as long as you agree. If you do not, and voice your disagreement, that is “speaking evil of the Lord’s Anointed,” and you are “out of harmony” once again. What is interesting is that when Spencer Kimball overturned the racist Priesthood Ban on blacks, Bruce R. McConkie wrote,

There are individuals who are out of harmony on this and on plural marriage and on other doctrines, but for all general purposes there has been universal acceptance; and everyone who has been in tune with the Spirit has known that the Lord spoke, and that his mind and his purposes are being manifest to the course the Church is pursuing. (Bruce R. McConkie, speech delivered to CES Religious Educators Symposium, 18 August 1978, added emphasis).

“Out of harmony with the Spirit” simply means not agreeing with church “authorities” who Marion G. Romney claims all speak by that power and say “what the Lord would say if he were here.” Though cached in stronger language (the thinking has been done) the Ward Teachers Message from 1945 was exactly what Marion G. Romney was teaching five years later in 1950.

All of the people that were “in harmony” with Brigham Young who claimed that the blacks would never be able to be ordained to the Priesthood until all the sons of Abel were ordained were now “out of harmony” if they continued to believe that he spoke by the “Holy Ghost” and was a bona fide prophet.

This makes no logical sense of course, unless one goes on an apologetic tangent and redefines what constitutes a prophet (in contradiction of what they themselves teach) or claims that they are only men and get “revelations” wrong sometimes. (They taught folklore that we don’t know origin of, is a typical response). Of course, you won’t find the “authorities” admitting to any of this, it is all done anonymously and put up on their website with disclaimers that it is not “official”.

Notice that everyone who agreed with the leadership had “the Spirit”, while those who did not were “out of harmony”. McConkie was still using the same playbook that they used for the Ward Teacher’s Message from 1945 and that Marion Romney used five years later.

Finn's words attest to this when he claims that if you don't follow the counsel of the "brethren", you are not really "faithful". You are "out of harmony". So where does it end? In Mormonism, there is no line in the sand. You are either with them, or against them. You are "safe" if you keep your mouth shut and agree. If not, you are "out of harmony" and subject to disciplinary action. Will that take place over an "R" rated movie? Probably not. You could go see them and be "safe" but don't preach that the brethren are wrong to counsel not to attend them. That would probably make someone sit up and take notice.

[_Darth J]

The truly faithful should draw their moral line in the sand on anything that the prophet speaks, prepared or extemporaneous, relevant or extraneous, mundane etc.

The problem is this isn't a moral line. It is merely fundamentalist divine command theory, where you do something because you were told to do it, by someone you think is God's emissary, without regard to whether you independently determine that what you have been told to do or not do is moral (or even relevant to morality, like drinking coffee). Morality does not factor into it at all, since morality is simply equated with obedience. As with the Euthyphro dilemma, if you are doing something just because a self-proclaimed spokesman for God tells you, then morality becomes completely arbitrarily.

And yet the above is exactly what the LDS church explicitly tells its members they should do.

[_mentalgymnast]

You are "safe" if you keep your mouth shut and agree. If not, you are "out of harmony" and subject to disciplinary action. Will that take place over an "R" rated movie? Probably not. You could go see them and be "safe" but don't preach that the brethren are wrong to counsel not to attend them.

There you go! After all, it is between you and God...and your own sense of right and wrong. And as I said earlier in this thread quoting Joseph Smith:

By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.

Building on this...

Eugene England:

We do indeed live in a universe where it is only by proving, or testing, contraries or paradoxes, that truth is made manifest. Fifty years earlier, William Blake, certainly another prophetic tragic quester, had said, "Without contraries is no progression," and warned, "Whoever tries to reconcile [the contraries] seeks to destroy existence.

And taking it a step further...

Kathleen Taylor:

There’s a place for information,” Dr. Taylor says. “We need to know stuff. But we need to move beyond that and challenge our perception of the world. If you always hang around with those you agree with and read things that agree with what you already know, you’re not going to wrestle with your established brain connections.

So you have different strokes from different folks.

I personally think that Joseph Smith would have supported wise discretionary techniques in "proving contraries". Often, in some R rated films, paradox and contraries play a major role as the film moves towards some kind of resolution.

Personally, I think it is good to know one's set of boundaries and the lines one is unwilling to cross. I started watching "The Interview" the other day and shut it down not long after it started. Way too many "F" words being used indiscriminately along with a bunch of other profanity. I'm not OK with that. I trust my instincts. OTOH, the other day I was watching an episode of MI-5 (BBC production) and the "F" word was used once during the episode and I was OK with that.

I think the church teaches what THEY consider to be the ideal and then when all is said and done it comes back to Joseph's "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves"...in practice. Unless you make a big deal out of "bucking the system". But why do that anyway?

Regards,
MG

[_Finn the human]

The problem is this isn't a moral line. It is merely fundamentalist divine command theory, where you do something because you were told to do it, by someone you think is God's emissary, without regard to whether you independently determine that what you have been told to do or not do is moral (or even relevant to morality, like drinking coffee). Morality does not factor into it at all, since morality is simply equated with obedience. As with the Euthyphro dilemma, if you are doing something just because a self-proclaimed spokesman for God tells you, then morality becomes completely arbitrarily.

And yet the above is exactly what the LDS church explicitly tells its members they should do.

I get the feeling that you think that goring yourself on the horn of diving command is a bad thing. Sure it's distasteful to us mere mortals, but I'm sure it becomes much more satisifying once you progress to the status of a God and start issuing the diving commands.