A Contradiction?

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Actually, there is plenty of open dissent in political parties. I'm not sure how you conclude they do not permit dissent

Well there is and there isn't. That, like Church doctrine, depends on how close the dissent is to the core. Two examples. Govenor Bob Casey, a liberal Democrat was virtually excommunicated from the party for his opposition to its orthodox abortion stance, and was turned away from the 1992 Democratic National Convention. In a similar vein, The mainstream Republican Party doesn't want anything to do with people like Alan Keys or Steve Forbes. Far to radical and upsetting to the status quo.

One reason there probably isn't much"open dissent" of any substance in the Church proper is because only those people who believe in it and are faithful to it are active in it. Those few who openly dissent publically to a great enough degree are excommunicated, and the vast majority of those who would openly dissent, but have no desire to grandstand in public, simply fall away from the church and isolate themselves from its culture and people, and go on with there lives without public prancing. The faithful, active members are, by definition, a self selected group. If you really don't or can't accept the teachings and principles of the Church, you just leave.

A few insecure egocentrics, like the September Six, feel the need for their fifteen seconds, but most who cannot handle the requirements of the Gospel simply fade from activity without wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[_The Nehor]

I perceive two problem here. One is that the word of Wisdom came by revelation and came with a number of quite serious and weighty promises associated with obedience to it, implying that disobedience will naturally forfeit those blessings or promises.

What we as Latter Day Saints want to know is what is true, whether it can be considered "official" doctrine or not. Artificial arguments over the nuances differentiating "counsel" from "doctrine" divert attention from the real issue, which is that we are to live by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God", regardless of whether God gives it as advice, counsel, or "official" doctrine.

Second, the earring analogy is, I think, apples and oranges. The present counsel is for our present society. Paul's was for his, and we can flout those (customs of dress two thousand years ago in Palestine) at will just as we flout the entirety of the Law of Moses save for the Ten Commandments. I'm not at all sure either that the intent of the present counsel on dress and grooming has the same intent, or the same purpose, as did Paul's. Nor am I sure that Paul's was even intended to be understood as inspired. The present counsel clearly is, and is of long standing.

I didn't mean to demean the Word of Wisdom. It is in force now with blessings and penalties. I am only saying that nowhere do I get the idea that it is eternal. The leadership of the Church can revoke it if instructed. If there was to be another dispensation it would not necessarily be bound by it. The distinction is important in that counsel can change.

[_guy sajer]

I didn't mean to demean the Word of Wisdom. It is in force now with blessings and penalties. I am only saying that nowhere do I get the idea that it is eternal. The leadership of the Church can revoke it if instructed. If there was to be another dispensation it would not necessarily be bound by it. The distinction is important in that counsel can change.

Indeed, I've received many blessings for my moderate consumption of meat and my use of tobacco for my cows.

[_The Nehor]

Indeed, I've received many blessings for my moderate consumption of meat and my use of tobacco for my cows.

I don't have any cows so I consider that counsel moot. I do limit my meat intake though.

[_guy sajer]

I don't have any cows so I consider that counsel moot. I do limit my meat intake though.

Given that this is wonderful wisdom passed down from God to his children, I wonder just how many Mormon farmers and ranchers are using tobacco to treat their cattle?

I've not noticed, however, that Mormons, as a whole, moderate their meat consumption. I guess only part of Sec 89 was wisdom, the other part was Joseph Smith speaking as a man.

[_The Nehor]

Given that this is wonderful wisdom passed down from God to his children, I wonder just how many Mormon farmers and ranchers are using tobacco to treat their cattle?

I've not noticed, however, that Mormons, as a whole, moderate their meat consumption. I guess only part of Sec 89 was wisdom, the other part was Joseph Smith speaking as a man.

I'm more inclined to think that gluttony is still a sin. If you can't run and not be weary and walk from the couch to the refrigerator without getting faint you're probably doing it wrong.

God didn't say we had to use tobacco for cows, it can be used for it. I actually do know two LDS who keep tobacco in their first-aid kits for medicinal use.

[_Runtu]

This is what happens when one has only the most superficial knowledge of something and then, for whatever reasons, psychological or emotional, sets out upon a mad dash of extrapolation without any deep knowledge or experience.

This is utter nonsense. There is no such thing whatsoever as "unquestioning obedience" to church authority. We are taught, from the time we're intellectually mature enough to understand, that we are not to take the word of the leaders of the Church on anything just because they say so. No missionaries I've ever taught with have made any such claims as you are making. They've always told investigators to find out for themselves by studying the scriptures and asking God about the matter personally, not to take their word for it or Joseph Smith's.

When Will this myth making ever cease? What does it take to settle these kinds of issues?

I don't know why I bother responding to such insults, but here goes.

I've thought about this long and hard. Yes, we were told growing up not to "take the word of the leaders of the Church on anything just because they say so." If we didn't accept or didn't understand, we were to take our concerns to the Lord in prayer. Fair enough. But what happens when the Lord tells you not to do what the leadership tells you to do? In my experience, there's very little allowance for this kind of thing. As President Benson put it, if a leader tells you to do something wrong, do it anyway, and you'll be blessed; of course, he said that's never going to happen. The implication then is that your leaders will "never lead the church astray."

When exactly are you allowed to disagree with the leadership? Can you publicly state that the stake president's goals for the stake are misguided? How kindly is it looked upon if you refuse to accept a calling that your bishop assures you came from the Lord?

As a practical matter, President Packer is right that, for the church to function smoothly, everyone must be facing the same direction in the church. And that isn't going to happen unless people follow the prophet who knows the way. It's fine to say that you're allowed to make up your own mind, but once you're in the church, you are expected to conform. As President Hinckley said, "People think in a very critical way before they come into this Church. When they come into this Church they’re expected to conform. And they find happiness in that conformity."

So, maybe it's not totally "unquestioning," as church members are free to question as long as they conform.

[_dartagnan]

When exactly are you allowed to disagree with the leadership?

You're not. Ever.

Can you publicly state that the stake president's goals for the stake are misguided?

No. Let me rephrase that.

Hell no.

That would be the biggest mistake you could make. The turning point for me in my relationship with FAIR, all began when I posted on the e-list many years ago, a simple fact. I said that if we are going to argue that prophets are sometimes wrong and do not always speak "official doctrine" then we have to admit instances when they were in fact wrong. As an example, I gave Spencer Kimball's conference speech about how Indians were literally becoming white as they affiliated themselves with the Church.

Allen Wyatt then jumped al over me for "attacking" Kimball and even accused me of taking his comment out of context. I challenged him to prove it was out fo context. He tried desperately but others agreed with me that what he said was wrong. Allen's attitude exemplified precisely the stupdiity and hypocrisy I was trying to talk about. I was then deemed a danger to the establishment because I would disrespect the Lord's "annointed" by accusing them of speaking falsely on matters. Shortly afterwards I was banned from the forum after telling an unrelated story about gossip.

[_Runtu]

That would be the biggest mistake you could make. The turning point for me in my relationship with FAIR, all began when I posted on the e-list many years ago, a simple fact. I said that if we are going to argue that prophets are sometimes wrong and do not always speak "official doctrine" then we have to admit instances when they were in fact wrong. As an example, I gave Spencer Kimball's conference speech about how Indians were literally becoming white as they affiliated themselves with the Church.

Allen Wyatt then jumped al over me for "attacking" Kimball and even accused me of taking his comment out of context. I challenged him to prove it was out fo context. He tried desperately but others agreed with me that what he said was wrong. Allen's attitude exemplified precisely the stupdiity and hypocrisy I was trying to talk about. I was then deemed a danger to the establishment because I would disrespect the Lord's "annointed" by accusing them of speaking falsely on matters. Shortly afterwards I was banned from the forum after telling an unrelated story about gossip.

As far as I can see, the fallibility of the church leadership is purely theoretical. The only times we admit that someone made a mistake is after they're dead. Thus, we can dismiss BY's racism and McConkie's anti-Catholicism as mere opinion. But who would dare say that President Hinckley was wrong about something?

[_guy sajer]

As a practical matter, President Packer is right that, for the church to function smoothly, everyone must be facing the same direction in the church. And that isn't going to happen unless people follow the prophet who knows the way.

I respectfully disagree. I would argue instead that an organization functions more effectively when there is room for differing opinions, some loyal dissent, and, critically important, feedback loops from those lower in the org hierarchy.

I am fairly confident, for example, that were the Bretheren to seek feedback from below, listen to it, and incporporate some of it, they could make the experience more enjoyable and meaningful for more people thereby reducing the incredibly high "customer desertion" rate the Church currently experiences.

It is the Bretheren's complete isolation from the concerns, criticisms, experiences, etc. of the masses (and the infernal correlation program) that is doing, and will do the most, to derail its growth ambitions. This is, I believe, a much more potent deterrent to Church growth than anti-Mormon activity.

Put simply, the product sucks (if you disagree, a 70 some odd percent customer desertion rate says otherwise), and the Bretheren have no interest in knowing or understanding why.