Ten Questions - Interview with the Stake Presidency

[_Scottie]

It's funny that when an apologist asks these questions to a Stake President, they think he's on the verge of apostasy. Yet, at the same time, these apologists berate average members for being too lazy to have known about these issues before getting baptised/going on a mission/going to the temple/etc.

This just shows how much denial the Internet Mormons are living in.

Which apologist has posed these questions to a Stake President, and which Stake President thinks the apologist is on the verge of apostacy?

Will did.

See his MAD post [url="http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=32894"]here[/url].

[_mentalgymnast]

If the prophets are only told what God decides to tell them, then the prophets are on their own when it comes to everything else. These prophets/men then become speculators/prognosticators just like the rest of us. We are left to make our own choices and choose our own beliefs after hearkening to the voice of the prophets. The voice of the prophet has never or rarely had significant conflict with core practices/teachings which point one towards Christ...such as sacrament, obedience, service, sacrifice, making covenants, etc. Throughout the church's history the core practices/teachings which lead toward Christlike living and behavior have remained fairly constant. Application of those practices/teachings has varied. Apparent exceptions, such as some of the anomilies associated with polygamy/polyandry, blacks and the priesthood, location of the landing site of the Lehite colony, views towards God's progenitors, etc., may be chalked up to individual interpretation/practice extracurricular to or in opposition of, even if innocently, to the core principles and/or teachings. Where mistakes have been made they have been the mistakes of men. If opposition is to be experienced in all things then would we not expect there to be choices to be made even when it comes to following the prophet? For choices to be made, there would have to be alternatives to choose from wouldn't there?

Hi MG

here is the problem. The prophets and apostles do not teach that this is how they get God's word nor do they encourage the members to come to such a convoluted-sorry but that is what is is- conclusion about what they say.

How else could they get God's word other than when HE "decides to tell them"?

And if this is so, the corollary is that whatever else they speak/teach is "on their own". How could it be otherwise?

Why is this a difficult concept?

Regards,
MG

It is not the they only tell us what god tells them. You seem to say that God does not tell them much and they get A LOT of their own views in. But the Prophets teach like most of what they get is from God. You seem at odds with them. This ist he problem with apologists. They think 90% of what the leaders say is opinion. The leaders thing 90% of what they teach and say is from God and the members better follow it, at least if the prophet is living.

We don't know how much God has told any one of them directly or through the inspiration of the HG. That is where our individual inspiration/intuition comes into play. Why do you say that they teach like most of what they get is directly from God? Simply because it is published by Deseret Book? Is this not more or less a cultural doctrine? It is up for grabs as to the percentage of time that a leader believes they are speaking directly in the name of God. How are we to know or even begin to assess this?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

If the prophets are only told what God decides to tell them, then the prophets are on their own when it comes to everything else. These prophets/men then become speculators/prognosticators just like the rest of us. We are left to make our own choices and choose our own beliefs after hearkening to the voice of the prophets. The voice of the prophet has never or rarely had significant conflict with core practices/teachings which point one towards Christ...such as sacrament, obedience, service, sacrifice, making covenants, etc. Throughout the church's history the core practices/teachings which lead toward Christlike living and behavior have remained fairly constant. Application of those practices/teachings has varied. Apparent exceptions, such as some of the anomilies associated with polygamy/polyandry, blacks and the priesthood, location of the landing site of the Lehite colony, views towards God's progenitors, etc., may be chalked up to individual interpretation/practice extracurricular to or in opposition of, even if innocently, to the core principles and/or teachings. Where mistakes have been made they have been the mistakes of men. If opposition is to be experienced in all things then would we not expect there to be choices to be made even when it comes to following the prophet? For choices to be made, there would have to be alternatives to choose from wouldn't there?

"The Morning Breaks! The Shadows Flee! The Brightness Dawning of a new day, Lo Zion's banner is unfurled!!!"

That hymns says what the Church really belives.

President Hinckley:

The stone was small in the beginning, and it was hardly noticeable. But it has grown steadily and is rolling forth to fill the earth.

My brethren and sisters, do you realize what we have? Do you recognize our place in the great drama of human history?

This is the focal point of all that has gone before. This is the season of restitution. These are the days of restoration. This is the time when men from over the earth come to the mountain of the Lord's house to seek and learn of his ways and to walk in his paths. This is the summation of all the centuries of time since the birth of Christ until this present and wonderful day.

The morning breaks, the shadows flee;
Lo, Zion's standard is unfurled!
The dawning of a brighter day,
Majestic rises on the world.

The centuries have passed. The latter-day work of the Almighty -- that of which the ancients spoke; that of which the prophets and apostles prophesied -- is come.

It is here.

For some reason unknown to us, but in the wisdom of God, we have been privileged to come to earth in this glorious age. There has been a great flowering of science. There has been a veritable explosion of learning. This is the greatest of all ages of human endeavor and human accomplishment.

And more importantly, it is the season when God has spoken; when his beloved son has appeared; when the divine priesthood has been restored; when we hold in our hand another testament of the Son of God.

What a glorious and wonderful day this is. God be thanked for his generous bestowal upon us. We thank him for this wondrous gospel, whose power and authority reach even beyond the veil of death.

Given what we have and what we know, we ought to be a better people than we are. We ought to be more Christ-like, more forgiving, more helpful and considerate to all around us.

We stand on the summit of the ages, awed by a great and solemn sense of history. This is the last and final dispensation toward which all in the past has pointed.

I bear testimony and witness of the reality and truth of these things. I pray that everyone of us may sense the awesome wonder of it all.

Where's the problem? I don't see anything here that conflicts with my original statement.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

If the prophets are only told what God decides to tell them, then the prophets are on their own when it comes to everything else. These prophets/men then become speculators/prognosticators just like the rest of us. We are left to make our own choices and choose our own beliefs after hearkening to the voice of the prophets. The voice of the prophet has never or rarely had significant conflict with core practices/teachings which point one towards Christ...such as sacrament, obedience, service, sacrifice, making covenants, etc. Throughout the church's history the core practices/teachings which lead toward Christlike living and behavior have remained fairly constant. Application of those practices/teachings has varied. Apparent exceptions, such as some of the anomilies associated with polygamy/polyandry, blacks and the priesthood, location of the landing site of the Lehite colony, views towards God's progenitors, etc., may be chalked up to individual interpretation/practice extracurricular to or in opposition of, even if innocently, to the core principles and/or teachings. Where mistakes have been made they have been the mistakes of men. If opposition is to be experienced in all things then would we not expect there to be choices to be made even when it comes to following the prophet? For choices to be made, there would have to be alternatives to choose from wouldn't there?

Follow the brethren and you will not go wrong. The prophet will never lead the Church astray. Talks about earings and following the prophet in everything.

Yet you say " then the prophets are on their own when it comes to everything else. These prophets/men then become speculators/prognosticators just like the rest of us. We are left to make our own choices and choose our own beliefs after hearkening to the voice of the prophets"

How many faithful members really view it like this?

I would expect that it's a majority. What do you think? Apparently you don't view it this way?

What you appear to be saying, is that most members believe that prophets aren't on their own when they're expressing their own opinion on something that hasn't been directly revealed to them by God. Is that right?

The question is...how could they NOT be on their own if God hasn't said anything? This isn't rocket science.

Regards,
MG

[_moksha]

By the way, I also got the impression that they are pretty sure I'm teetering on the brink of apostasy. I mentioned my association with FAIR and I think they equate FAIR with either Sunstone or devil worship, or maybe a combination of both.

Seems like a reasonable assumption on their part. This could result in an interesting Court of Love, could it not? Perhaps they will line Dr. Peterson up to testify in Will's behalf. They could even fly the Pahoran/Kemara duo in from New Zealand to berate anybody who needs berating. That would be a bargain anyway, since only one plane ticket would be needed.

[_mentalgymnast]

It's funny that when an apologist asks these questions to a Stake President, they think he's on the verge of apostasy. Yet, at the same time, these apologists berate average members for being too lazy to have known about these issues before getting baptised/going on a mission/going to the temple/etc.

This just shows how much denial the Internet Mormons are living in.

Funny. I find myself asking whether died in the wool skeptics are living in the State of Denial also. I guess it goes both ways. How many here may have had unrealistic expectations...even after having found out that the church has been whitewashing its history...and were not able to make significant, yet reasonable, paradigm shifts. Denying that it was/possible and even reasonable to do so.

A judgement or series of judgements were made and then...story over.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

It's funny that when an apologist asks these questions to a Stake President, they think he's on the verge of apostasy. Yet, at the same time, these apologists berate average members for being too lazy to have known about these issues before getting baptised/going on a mission/going to the temple/etc.

This just shows how much denial the Internet Mormons are living in.

Funny. I find myself asking whether died in the wool skeptics are living in the State of Denial also. I guess it goes both ways. How many here may have had unrealistic expectations...even after having found out that the church has been whitewashing its history...and were not able to make significant, yet reasonable, paradigm shifts? Denying that it was/possible and even reasonable to do so?

A judgement or series of judgements were made and then...story over.

Regards,
MG

edit:
Man, I got to get this thing down. I go back to stick in a couple of question marks and I end up with a whole new post.

Mr. Computer Savvy. That's me. Sorry about the double post again.

[_Jason Bourne]

MG
read FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHET
BY
ELDER Ezra Taft Benson

http://www.lds-mormon.com/fourteen.shtml


This is how most members view the words of the prophet. No where anything like you describe.

[_Dr. Shades]

Funny. I find myself asking whether died in the wool skeptics are living in the State of Denial also. I guess it goes both ways. How many here may have had unrealistic expectations...even after having found out that the church has been whitewashing its history...and were not able to make significant, yet reasonable, paradigm shifts? Denying that it was/possible and even reasonable to do so?

A judgement or series of judgements were made and then...story over.

Which is precisely what you did when confronted with the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Scientologists, the Unification Church, etc.

We critics simply extended the same skepticism to Mormonism that you extend to every other religious group but Mormonism.

edit:
Man, I got to get this thing down. I go back to stick in a couple of question marks and I end up with a whole new post.

Simple. Next time, make sure you hit the "Edit" button and not the "Quote" button.

[_truth dancer]

unny. I find myself asking whether died in the wool skeptics are living in the State of Denial also. I guess it goes both ways. How many here may have had unrealistic expectations...even after having found out that the church has been whitewashing its history...and were not able to make significant, yet reasonable, paradigm shifts? Denying that it was/possible and even reasonable to do so?

A judgement or series of judgements were made and then...story over.

Hey MG...

I think the question comes down to, what is a "reasonable" paradigm shift. ;-)

How much can one shift? How much can one expand the box before one finally says, "wait a minute, this is nonsense"?

How much expansion can one make before it becomes unreasonable?

The other question is, why? Why keep expanding the box to remain inside? Why keep contorting/twisting truth/doctrine/teachings to remain a believer? (Not just in Mormonism but in any religion)?

For example, should a Scientologists who starts questioning her religion, keep trying to figure out ways to make it seem/appear true? Why? Should a FLDS continue to shift paradigms even when he comes to realize that there are some serious questions/problems/untruths in his doctrine? Why?

At what point does the expansion of the box, or the shift in the paradigm become so far from the actual doctrine/truth, that it is no longer recognizable as the actual doctrine/truth?

My personal experience is that I spent years shifting paradigms, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, trying expand my definitions/ideas to keep them within the LDS framework, but there came a time when it became ridiculous to keep trying, not to mention mentally and emotionally unhealthy and exhausting for me. ;-)

Just to be clear, I understand why it is valuable for some folks who have family dynamics that make it impossible to release their religious beliefs (the LDS church among many others), to remain in their culture and belief system. I'm thinking more about one's personal journey.

~dancer~