Israel's judgement

[I Have Questions]

Question, of course you are correct about what the leaders say. I was thinking of two things. Cafeteria is an unspoken reality necessary if one engages one's brain. Second it is always better to engage one's brain. I choose to favor David O. Mckay respect for not entirely orthodox Sterling McMurrin because he thinks.

I notice that Blake Ostler has not been kicked out or disciplined. I do no follow him so know no details but on a thread about him it is ex or critical Mormons that complain his thinking strays off the main line.

You are communicating with a person who is a prime/stellar example of "rigidity". It comes across consistently.

David O. McKay. What a man. And in my opinion, a prophet of God.

Regards,
MG

Had you actually read and comprehended the discussion I’m having with huckleberry you would have noticed that the rigidity lies with Church leaders, not me. I wasn’t giving my opinion, I was giving the Church position. In the future, please get yourself up to speed with a discussion before barging in and farting in everyone’s face.

Me and Huckleberry are having a good debate. Don’t derail it by spouting irrelevant nonsense, or I’ll have to report you again.

[MG 2.0]

[huckelberry]

The problem is that “Mormonism” isn’t a fixed standard to begin with. If a current prophet can redefine doctrine, policy, or emphasis through new “revelation,” then the boundaries of belief are inherently fluid.

That makes it impossible to draw a clean line between “faithful adherence” and “apostasy,” because what counts as orthodoxy today may not have been so yesterday, and may change again tomorrow.

At that point, the only consistent requirement left is a person’s willingness to “follow the prophet,” whatever that happens to mean to that person at that time.

It’s really quite simple. Mormonism is whatever the current incumbent says it is. We are currently in a period of Oaksism. After a period of Nelsonism.

Question, I hear you pointing out the tension, conflict between church authorities' claims and stated demands and the practical living of ordinary people. Leaders make statements expecting unthinking complete obedience. They claim direct knowledge from God. They claim outside influence is a danger for corruption.

Yet people must assemble understanding and make choices for themselves. Members are not automatons. They must find ways to live in the world.

I have some sense that in the past (like when I was a member) there was an expectation that people would learn correct principles and govern themselves. People could study things out and ask questions to progress to better understanding. I gather from what I hear people say that over the past 50 years rigid authority had become more the focus.

Of course there is always a tug of war over these two poles. Or inescapable considerations.

[Philo Sofee]

Trump is going to kill 2/3 of Israelis?

No, Netenyahu is.....

[Res Ipsa]

Trump is going to kill 2/3 of Israelis?

No, Netenyahu is.....

It’s so hard to keep track.

[I Have Questions]

It’s really quite simple. Mormonism is whatever the current incumbent says it is. We are currently in a period of Oaksism. After a period of Nelsonism.

Question, I hear you pointing out the tension, conflict between church authorities' claims and stated demands and the practical living of ordinary people. Leaders make statements expecting unthinking complete obedience. They claim direct knowledge from God. They claim outside influence is a danger for corruption.

Yes. Church Leaders don’t want members noticing the man behind the curtain.

Yet people must assemble understanding and make choices for themselves. Members are not automatons. They must find ways to live in the world.

Well that’s not true for a lot of members. They are automatons who will believe 100% what Church Leaders espouse today, even if it is the direct opposite of what they swallowed whole and supported yesterday. Self-gaslighting is alive and well and living within the SLC LDS Church. There are many examples of this type of behaviour. It’s the sunk cost fallacy. Members will reframe and reframe and reframe until they convince themselves to carry on.

I have some sense that in the past (like when I was a member) there was an expectation that people would learn correct principles and govern themselves. People could study things out and ask questions to progress to better understanding. I gather from what I hear people say that over the past 50 years rigid authority had become more the focus.

Yes. That changed with “correlation” in the 1970’s.

Of course there is always a tug of war over these two poles. Or inescapable considerations.

I think the tug of war is between obvious facts, and holding on to a belief for far too long. Take the Priesthood Ban as an example. A Church led by God would have led the way on racial equality. But it didn’t. It wasn’t at the forefront of progress. The Church trailed behind society like a truculent toddler who wanted to stay home. The Church is always too late to change, it never leads the way, and it always does things belatedly, begrudgingly, and then claims to be the World Champion of whatever it was they’ve done towards the bare minimum. Again, there are many many examples of this.

I think a belief in God is entirely understandable. I think a belief in the SLC LDS Church, or any organised religion come to that, as the arbiter of what “God” does or does not want or expect, is very childish behaviour. Of course, some people gain benefits from being part of an organised religion - community, status, access to victims, maintaining family ties, etc. etc. etc. But to put your belief of God into the hands of other men and women, holding them on a pedestal as being closer to God than you are yourself, well that’s you being taken for a ride.

[MG 2.0]

It’s really quite simple. Mormonism is whatever the current incumbent says it is. We are currently in a period of Oaksism. After a period of Nelsonism.

Question, I hear you pointing out the tension, conflict between church authorities' claims and stated demands and the practical living of ordinary people. Leaders make statements expecting unthinking complete obedience. They claim direct knowledge from God. They claim outside influence is a danger for corruption.

Yet people must assemble understanding and make choices for themselves. Members are not automatons. They must find ways to live in the world.

I have some sense that in the past (like when I was a member) there was an expectation that people would learn correct principles and govern themselves. People could study things out and ask questions to progress to better understanding. I gather from what I hear people say that over the past 50 years rigid authority had become more the focus.

Of course there is always a tug of war over these two poles. Or inescapable considerations.

The track record over eons of time seems to show that God's servants have always been ridiculed, abused, and disbelieved as they have witnessed for God.

Our time seems to be no different.

Regards,
MG