The Long and Winding Road (To Ruin) or Eight Days a Week (Of Woe): Mormon Apostle Blames the Beatles for Society's Ills

[malkie]

MG can you think of an example where you openly disagreed with a living President of the Church about something significant that would demonstrate you are a free, unrestricted thinker?

Hasn't he done so on this thread? A prophet of the Lord has declared the Beatles are the cause of most modern ills in society. MG virtually laughed in his face just as I would have.

Now, you may be thinking, this statement from an apostle isn't significant. MG is thinking the same thing you are. What is significant and why? You hint at something when you say "openly disagree". Well sure, if there's something really important in November of 2025 that the Brethren are pounding from the pulpit and MG goes on a crusade against it, he'll get in trouble. But would a public crusade against his church necessarily be a mark of free thinking? Am I not a free thinker if I disagree with something my company promotes yet I don't dare publicly go on a crusade against them and risk getting fired?

The institutional church runs itself just like any other billion-dollar corporation. MG is free to believe whatever he wants because all the company cares about is profits. MG just can't be vocal about certain kinds of beliefs if it is seen as endangering the ledger, and the calculations for what constitutes unacceptable behavior really are the exact same any place of business would make. Quinn explained that heavy-handedness in general doesn't work. When the Church tried to put strict numbers on tithing, tithing shrank. The reason why the prophet doesn't get up and declare exactly how much tithing should be paid is because the members won't do it. They have found a certain level of preaching combined with making it on-your-honor brings in the most tithes. This is a model for all the supporting commandments, and predicts certain mistakes the Church has made in coming up with crusades over the years.

It's hard to pin down exactly what constitutes apostasy. If I begin an online crusade against my company's core product line, that will get me fired. However, I might reap the same outcome if I target something totally unimportant, such as an employee engagement program that is probably objectively lame, and that doesn't contribute to profits.

But in the model of prophets the Church teaches, as opposed to the profit-maximizing corporation they run, nobody is free to believe what they want. Why should they be and why would they even want to? I don't want to believe "whatever I want" in regard to physics, I want to find myself convinced by the best ideas. If I believed in the model of prophets and God's pattern of truth as we taught as missionaries, then I'm paying 10% in order to get the pure undefiled truth straight from the horse's mouth. I want the prophets to tell me things I wouldn't have expected or that sound odd or are uncomfortable. They must be things I wouldn't have come up with on my own, otherwise why have a prophet? This is what the Church teaches. God has true ideas, they are verbalized by himself or his prophets, they are written down, and we either hear these words directly or read them. This is the pure information the rest of the world doesn't have. If a prophet says the Beatles are the cause of most modern ills, then that's pretty huge, and if I believe in God's pattern, then I immediately burn my records with enthusiasm because I've learned something significant. My 10% has got me information that only God himself knew about 1 minute before that statement was made by Elder HATE.

Remember when John Lennon said something to the effect that the Beatles were more popular that Jesus had ever been?

Did kids do this own their own, or were they incited by religious leaders who had been waiting for something - anything - to use against modern music?

[I Have Questions]

MG can you think of an example where you openly disagreed with a living President of the Church about something significant that would demonstrate you are a free, unrestricted thinker?

Hasn't he done so on this thread? A prophet of the Lord has declared the Beatles are the cause of most modern ills in society. MG virtually laughed in his face just as I would have.

Now, you may be thinking, this statement from an apostle isn't significant. MG is thinking the same thing you are. What is significant and why? You hint at something when you say "openly disagree". Well sure, if there's something really important in November of 2025 that the Brethren are pounding from the pulpit and MG goes on a crusade against it, he'll get in trouble. But would a public crusade against his church necessarily be a mark of free thinking? Am I not a free thinker if I disagree with something my company promotes yet I don't dare publicly go on a crusade against them and risk getting fired?

The institutional church runs itself just like any other billion-dollar corporation. MG is free to believe whatever he wants because all the company cares about is profits. MG just can't be vocal about certain kinds of beliefs if it is seen as endangering the ledger, and the calculations for what constitutes unacceptable behavior really are the exact same any place of business would make. Quinn explained that heavy-handedness in general doesn't work. When the Church tried to put strict numbers on tithing, tithing shrank. The reason why the prophet doesn't get up and declare exactly how much tithing should be paid is because the members won't do it. They have found a certain level of preaching combined with making it on-your-honor brings in the most tithes. This is a model for all the supporting commandments, and predicts certain mistakes the Church has made in coming up with crusades over the years.

It's hard to pin down exactly what constitutes apostasy. If I begin an online crusade against my company's core product line, that will get me fired. However, I might reap the same outcome if I target something totally unimportant, such as an employee engagement program that is probably objectively lame, and that doesn't contribute to profits.

But in the model of prophets the Church teaches, as opposed to the profit-maximizing corporation they run, nobody is free to believe what they want. Why should they be and why would they even want to? I don't want to believe "whatever I want" in regard to physics, I want to find myself convinced by the best ideas. If I believed in the model of prophets and God's pattern of truth as we taught as missionaries, then I'm paying 10% in order to get the pure undefiled truth straight from the horse's mouth. I want the prophets to tell me things I wouldn't have expected or that sound odd or are uncomfortable. They must be things I wouldn't have come up with on my own, otherwise why have a prophet? This is what the Church teaches. God has true ideas, they are verbalized by himself or his prophets, they are written down, and we either hear these words directly or read them. This is the pure information the rest of the world doesn't have. If a prophet says the Beatles are the cause of most modern ills, then that's pretty huge, and if I believe in God's pattern, then I immediately burn my records with enthusiasm because I've learned something significant. My 10% has got me information that only God himself knew about 1 minute before that statement was made by Elder HATE.

I’m not buying it. I’d like an example of MG 2.0 on this discussion board disagreeing with a living Prophet in real time, about something significant. Something MG says he did a long time ago doesn’t cut it. He’s known to have a flawed memory, and prone to, what he calls “wishful thinking” in his responses.

In terms of Apostasy. It seems to be fungible. Asking awkward questions in a public forum could be apostasy if enough people pay attention. Promoting the idea that Joseph Smith was a polygamist who married underaged girls and already-married women would once have been considered apostasy, but it is now called Church History. So it’s confusing and opaque.

[Marcus]

Hasn't he done so on this thread? A prophet of the Lord has declared the Beatles are the cause of most modern ills in society. MG virtually laughed in his face just as I would have...

I’m not buying it. I’d like an example of MG 2.0 on this discussion board disagreeing with a living Prophet in real time, about something significant. Something MG says he did a long time ago doesn’t cut it. He’s known to have a flawed memory, and prone to, what he calls “wishful thinking” in his responses...

I think it's a bit of both. He used his sin as a cautionary tale...

[ Deep Purple: My Woman from Tokyo. Smoke on the Water. Good stuff. Southern California bum. I am glad that I was able to come out the other end having lost some of my stupidity having gained some wisdom from my errors...

I had a couple of friends that weren't so lucky. They bailed out (died from overdose/suicide) while still in High School. Never got a chance to play it straight. Unfortunately, I think there are not a few people who made it through those times that never did get their act together.

Stupid is, stupid does...without learning anything...

A cautionary tale where he was special enough to meet the challenge of sin and choose well. Naturally, he can't resist throwing in his passive aggressive attacks on others who also survived the sin of rock and roll but because they chose differently than him (I'm assuming he means not a "Mormon believer," as usual) they are stupid and don't have a good act. Like he has here.

[Shulem]

Deep Purple: My Woman from Tokyo. Smoke on the Water. Good stuff.

I agree, those hits from Deep Purple (especially Smoke on the Water released in 1972) are good stuff, back then as well as today. But you should know that Ezra Taft Benson of the Quorum of the Twelve would not agree and warned us not to listen to that kind of stuff during his attack on rock music in General Conference back in 1971. I'm afraid he likened it to devil music and Satan inspired. We were supposed to be listening to Lawrence Welk or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. However, I know you don't entirely agree with him as he was only expressing his opinion and biased views using his dominion over the general body of the church. Indeed, he was speaking as a man with a chip on his shoulder -- one who detested rock music in all its forms. Benson lumped rock music with all forms of depravity:

Haunted by its black shadow, he trades the useful, happy life for the bleak forgetfulness of drugs, alcohol, sex, and rock.

<snip>

In the long panorama of man’s history, these youthful rock music festivals are among Satan’s greatest successes.

[MG 2.0]

Deep Purple: My Woman from Tokyo. Smoke on the Water. Good stuff.

I agree, those hits from Deep Purple (especially Smoke on the Water released in 1972) are good stuff, back then as well as today. But you should know that Ezra Taft Benson of the Quorum of the Twelve would not agree and warned us not to listen to that kind of stuff during his attack on rock music in General Conference back in 1971. I'm afraid he likened it to devil music and Satan inspired. We were supposed to be listening to Lawrence Welk or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. However, I know you don't entirely agree with him as he was only expressing his opinion and biased views using his dominion over the general body of the church. Indeed, he was speaking as a man with a chip on his shoulder -- one who detested rock music in all its forms. Benson lumped rock music with all forms of depravity:

Haunted by its black shadow, he trades the useful, happy life for the bleak forgetfulness of drugs, alcohol, sex, and rock.

<snip>

In the long panorama of man’s history, these youthful rock music festivals are among Satan’s greatest successes.

As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, back in those days I wasn't familiar and/or listening to some of the things that were taught by the general leadership. I was in High School at this time. As a result, I 'did my own thing' as many others were doing. If you want to call that 'sinning', fine...but I was sinning ignorantly without the light and knowledge that would have made me directly accountable. Even if what I was doing in some respects was stupid and basically a waste of time.

As I've also mentioned, I think in this thread, there are those...especially critics...who hold members accountable for every 'sin' they've committed in their lives even when sinning in ignorance.

My point has been that as one gains further light and knowledge they are THEN accountable for their actions. And when I said "stupid is, stupid does" I am saying, indirectly I suppose, that when we do stupid things...even if unknowingly...and then learn/know better and we continue to do those stupid things, we are in some sense "stupid" for not repenting and moving on to something better.

I think there were/are many from my generation that are still "stupid is, stupid does". A hangover, of sorts, that they never recovered/repented from.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

Remember when John Lennon said something to the effect that the Beatles were more popular that Jesus had ever been?

Did kids do this own their own, or were they incited by religious leaders who had been waiting for something - anything - to use against modern music?

My thought is minor enough to need an excuse. I understood Lennons comment to be present tense, current popularity. That preserves Lennon from meglamznic delusion. Present tense he made a correct observation about many places, England but perhaps not some groups in southeast US.

I have at times puzzled about influence of some music. I find it hard to make judgment. A song may create image experience emotions but different people do different things themselves with a song. I do not like encouraging heroin. Should I suppress Velvet Underground song,Heroin? It is vivid and a listener may hear seduction or may hear dire warning. I would not silence it but it is hardly on my frequent play list.

Some decades ago I junked Let it Bleed suspecting dark influence, you know knives hurt etc. I have also regretted that junking as the album is stones best or near best. Jersey Girl linked some stones concerts, they do terrific live versions of the song.

[huckelberry]

At the moment I am listening to U2 Joshua tree, a fiercely moral rock business.

[MG 2.0]

I have at times puzzled about influence of some music. I find it hard to make judgment.

Same here. I think there is a bit of latitude for free agency and choosing music that one believes 'leads to a better place' or helps one understand the 'contraries' so as to be able to choose the good. My concern is when there seem to be some on this board that throw out the whole concept/idea of personal choice by redlining ALL Beatles music and/or other music popularized in the culture.

Sure, there will be religious leaders that make comment and condemn those things that they see as counter cultural and are seemingly leading people/youth into forbidden paths. I think that may have been warranted at that particular time during the counterculture movement. Their words my have saved a lot of youth from going into strange paths.

Why are we criticizing them for wanting to help youth choose something better than mediocrity or possible paths into sin (umm...sex, drugs, and rock and roll did not always lead to happy endings).

If I had been listening more carefully I may have saved myself some grief. As already noted, I 'saw the light', repented, and changed course from the counterculture popular at the time I was growing up. But even now, I can see that some, Ok, a lot, of the music from the sixties and seventies/eighties did have some redeeming value.

There is always a danger in throwing everything into one pot. Unless, of course, you're a critic.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I agree, those hits from Deep Purple (especially Smoke on the Water released in 1972) are good stuff, back then as well as today. But you should know that Ezra Taft Benson of the Quorum of the Twelve would not agree and warned us not to listen to that kind of stuff during his attack on rock music in General Conference back in 1971. I'm afraid he likened it to devil music and Satan inspired. We were supposed to be listening to Lawrence Welk or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. However, I know you don't entirely agree with him as he was only expressing his opinion and biased views using his dominion over the general body of the church. Indeed, he was speaking as a man with a chip on his shoulder -- one who detested rock music in all its forms. Benson lumped rock music with all forms of depravity:

As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, back in those days I wasn't familiar and/or listening to some of the things that were taught by the general leadership. I was in High School at this time. As a result, I 'did my own thing' as many others were doing. If you want to call that 'sinning', fine...but I was sinning ignorantly without the light and knowledge that would have made me directly accountable. Even if what I was doing in some respects was stupid and basically a waste of time.

As I've also mentioned, I think in this thread, there are those...especially critics...who hold members accountable for every 'sin' they've committed in their lives even when sinning in ignorance.

My point has been that as one gains further light and knowledge they are THEN accountable for their actions. And when I said "stupid is, stupid does" I am saying, indirectly I suppose, that when we do stupid things...even if unknowingly...and then learn/know better and we continue to do those stupid things, we are in some sense "stupid" for not repenting and moving on to something better.

I think there were/are many from my generation that are still "stupid is, stupid does". A hangover, of sorts, that they never recovered/repented from.

Regards,
MG

I'm a bit puzzled here. You say you did your own thing as many others were doing. Apparently you don't want to call that "sinning". OK with me - I'm not here to accuse or condemn you, or say that what you did was sinning. I'm certainly not holding you accountable for every 'sin' you've committed in your life, especially when "sinning" in ignorance. In any case I am pretty sure that your so-called sins were relatively few and quite innocuous.

But as a baptized member, entitled to the companionship of the holy ghost, you say that you were sinning ignorantly without the light and knowledge that would have made you directly accountable? What then of the idea that the appropriate age for baptism is 8 - the age of accountability? In HS you were well past 8.

I'm just a bit surprised that you seem to be minimising the power of the gift you received shortly after baptism. I've heard this gift, not available to anyone not baptised in the church, talked up as life altering, precious. So are you saying that it really doesn't work, it doesn't give you any great advantage over the "many others", it doesn't help you to avoid sin, it let you down?

[Shulem]

I agree, those hits from Deep Purple (especially Smoke on the Water released in 1972) are good stuff, back then as well as today.

As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, back in those days I wasn't familiar and/or listening to some of the things that were taught by the general leadership. I was in High School at this time. As a result, I 'did my own thing' as many others were doing.

So, you read Benson's talk which includes this snippet:

Observe that the man of God is a happy man. The hedonist, who proclaims “Do your thing,” who lives for sinful, so-called pleasure, is never happy.

Thus, you (MG) were doing your "own thing," which according to Benson means you were "sinful" and were "never happy". Were you not happy? But, I think you were happy doing your own thing. I think you had fun and were just living life to suit your needs. Right?

If you want to call that 'sinning', fine...

No, I didn't call it sin, Benson did -- an unsufferable man who offended many people.

but I was sinning ignorantly without the light and knowledge that would have made me directly accountable. Even if what I was doing in some respects was stupid and basically a waste of time.

You didn't waste your time being who you were, your authentic self, having a good time and exploring life. That is not being stupid, per se, you were in discovery mode. If you were sinning then it's because Benson said it, not me.

As I've also mentioned, I think in this thread, there are those...especially critics...who hold members accountable for every 'sin' they've committed in their lives even when sinning in ignorance.

It's not just the "sin", it's the fact the apostle said you were enticed by Satan and being led by him to partake of those evil things. Hence, what's most disturbing is how Benson claims you were under the power and influence of Satan for listening to rock music. You did not choose to listen to rock music out of ignorance. You chose it because it's what you desired and it was fun. You were being U! Nothing wrong with that.

My point has been that as one gains further light and knowledge they are THEN accountable for their actions. And when I said "stupid is, stupid does" I am saying, indirectly I suppose, that when we do stupid things...even if unknowingly...and then learn/know better and we continue to do those stupid things, we are in some sense "stupid" for not repenting and moving on to something better.

I think there were/are many from my generation that are still "stupid is, stupid does". A hangover, of sorts, that they never recovered/repented from.

I think you lost the point I was trying to make. Those two songs from Deep Purple are: "Good stuff." That is not strictly in past tense; it's good stuff even today! And that, according to Benson is sinful. That's my point! You don't have to repent for listening to Deep Purple, not then and not now.