Does Christ lead the Church?

[_truth dancer]

One phenomenon at which I have been continually amazed, since being a part of the LDS online community, is how, those who support and praise the church are actually those who are not obedience, who do not believe the prophet speaks for God, and who do not feel a need to follow, obey, or harken to the words of the prophet.

While critics, non-believers, and former members seem to have truly believed Christ was at the head of the church, speaking through inspired leaders, and telling us what Christ wants us to know and do.

The non-believers almost always seem to be the ones who followed the prophets, obeyed their counsel, and had faith that they were acting in accord to the will of God. This group seems to be the one who sacrificed to follow the prophet, who released their will to follow, what they believed was the will of God given through the prophets.

Over and over I notice believers clearing demonstrating and stating that they chose NOT to follow the prophets to follow their own inspiration.

Now... I applaud these believers. I think they are absolutely doing the right thing. I completely admire them.

But it makes me wonder if, to believe, one has to just let go of the whole idea that the prophets are in tune with God.

Believers seem to criticize non-believers for their faith, for trusting God, for following leaders, for obeying commandments, for actually believing that leaders commune with Christ. I understand this. I look back and similarly criticize myself.

But it is ironic that both believers (the online variety), and non-believers seem to have come to the conclusion that it is not in the best interest to follow the prophets. Both groups seem to agree that the leaders are no more than elderly gentleman sharing their ideas and opinions. Both groups seem to realize that people should do what they think is right regardless of what the prophet or leaders say is right.

I find it so interesting!

~dancer~

[_Yoda]

But it is ironic that both believers (the online variety), and non-believers seem to have come to the conclusion that it is not in the best interest to follow the prophets.

With me, I don't know that it's a case of never choosing to follow the prophet. I think that Will Schriver hit the nail on the head in another thread when he was talking about how it's important to discern things for yourself, and make decisions that are going to be the best for you and your family.

This is what I have always tried to do. I have used the gospel as a guide.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Liz...

With me, I don't know that it's a case of never choosing to follow the prophet. I think that Will Schriver hit the nail on the head in another thread when he was talking about how it's important to discern things for yourself, and make decisions that are going to be the best for you and your family.

This is what I have always tried to do. I have used the gospel as a guide.

This is exactly what I mean...

You and others seem to do what you think is right, regardless of what the prophets state.

If what the prophet says is in agreement with you than you are good to go... if you do not like what they say, you do what you want/think is good. (I don't mean this to sound harsh or condemning... I agree with it).

Unlike those of us who believed the prophets were speaking to Christ, and giving us information that Christ wanted us to hear. Unlike those of us who had faith that Christ knows best and is guiding the prophet to give us counsel that is in our best interest. Unlike those of us who had faith and trusted in God (through his prophets), to know what is "His" will.

You and Will, for examples, do not seem to hold a prophet as anything more than a regular guy who may or may not be speaking with inspiration or divine authority.

Non-believers agree.

Seems like apologists, well informed memebers, and non-believers have arrived at the same conclusion.

:-)

~dancer~

[_guy sajer]

If Christ were leading the Mormon Church, I think it reasonable to expect evidence as to this regard. Something systematic that distinguishes Mormon leaders, doctrine, practices, policies, morals, etc., from that of the rest of society, or other religions, of others from comparable backgrounds, etc.

I see nothing of the kind. In fact, I see evidence that the Mormon Church is led by men, men no more inspired, wise, moral, honorable than other men drawn from the same background.

I see systematic evidence of tribal pettiness; of racism, sexism, homophobia. I see institutional lying. I see an instrumental ethos that justifies dishonesty for the sake of promoting the institution. I see an unwillingness to take stands on great moral issus of the day; and when stands are taking, they often lag behind the rest of society. I see ethnocentrism at all levels, from the botton to the top. I see unecessary policies that cause pain and sorrow (e.g, banning non-worthy family members from weddings). I see systematic use of tools of indoctination. I see the elevation of obedience to authority as a primary moral virtue. I see women systematically denied opportunities to minister and serve. I see institutional embrace of killing as just punishment for sin or non-belief (read the Book of Mormon). I see denegration of the intellect. I see denegration of the individual's capacity for moral reasoning. I see systematic lack of respect for the sanctity of the confessional. I see an opressive culture of conformity. I see irrational and scientifically unsound doctrines. I see an obsession with sex and negative morality, as opposed to a focus on postivie morality and how we can be better people. I see tribal loyalty exalted above moral principle.

In short, I see nothing to suggest to me that the Mormon Church stands out as a uniquely inspired, moral, honorable institution of the sort I would expect to find were Jesus Christ actually running things.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Q: Does Christ lead the Church?

A: In my opinion, no. A bunch of old guys in Salt Lake do.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Yep. If the critics and apologists would just stop and listen to one another both sides would quickly see that they actually agree on many points.

Both sides agree that prophets are ordinary men who speak their opinion over the pulpit, and members would be best served to follow their own conscience, or holy ghost, or whatever you want to call it.

Both sides agree that the Book of Abraham is NOT an accurate translation of the Egyptian Papyri that the church now has in its possession.

Both sides agree that the Book of Mormon does NOT match up to any known native american history in the time period required.

Both sides agree that the existence of Elephants, Steel, wheeled chariots, and Christianity in the Book of Mormon is anachronistic to the known history of pre-Columbian America.

Both sides agree that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy long before the actual revelation was written, and both sides agree he married other men's wives, teenage girls, and hid it from Emma for several years.

I could go on, but it really is incredible how much critics and apologists agree. The difference is apologists don't see why the above issues are a problem, and critics don't understand how they can't be problematic.

Of course not all apologists agree on the above points, but in general I think most do.

[_Sethbag]

SatanWasSetup: this is what I have come to call the "give away the store as long as we're right" approach to apologetics. They will admit to being wrong on so many things, yet claim that, in the end, the church is still true.

It's pretty much what I used to do in my mind. I knew the church was wrong about death entering the world, Noah's Ark, and some other such things, but I thought well these things don't really matter, but in the areas where things do matter, the church is still true.

I agree with Guy Sajer's post, practically in its entirety. This is a man-made church, being lead by men. God didn't create it, and God doesn't lead it today. A group of old men in Salt Lake City who grew up in the church culture and tradition lead it, and the church is basically in "maintenance mode", not really changing in radical new ways, but continuing to exist, and to grow slowly over time. This isn't an exciting church anymore (if it ever was) - it's dull and boring, and stagnating.

I think there is a perfectly good reason why the Black Priesthood Ban took so many years to change. It had become such a fundemental aspect of LDS tradition and culture, and had acquired its scriptural explanation from the usual suspects, the churches recognized scriptorians over time, and people believed things were the way God wanted them to be. Barring God actually appearing to the leadership and telling them to change, they either had to want to change it badly enough, or it would stay that way forever. In this case, the eventually wanted it badly enough, and so they got together and prayed and talked with each other until they were able to convince themselves that God was OK with it, and it finally changed. I hope I'm getting across the way I mean to. What I mean is that people in the church, when they believe something is the way God wants it, will just go along with it for a very long time, expecting that if God wants it changed, he will initiate the change himself. And since God doesn't exist, this means it will likely remain unchanged forever unless the Brethren get worked up enough about it to actually decide to change it themselves.

This is why you'll never see, or not for a very long time, women in the priesthood in the LDS church. It's simply a part of the LDS culture and tradition, has acquired its scriptural and doctrinal explanatory basis, and unless the Brethren find themselves really, badly wanting women in the priesthood (which I doubt), it would take God himself appearing to them and saying he wanted it changed. God doesn't exist, so that will never happen.

This is why the church is in "maintenance mode". All the innovation died out with the prophets and apostles who were willing to claim that they'd seen God, and that God wanted some things done, or believed, or whatever. And you know what? "Maintenance Mode" to an outsider's view is merely "we aren't living up to all the Truth we have now, why would God give us more?" to a believer. So even maintenance mode itself has acquired its scriptural or doctrinal justification, and so this status of the church itself is factored into its own tradition and culture.