A Contradiction?

[_grayskull]

Nehor,

I didn't say the church leaders are interested in just living lavish lifestyles. Though, since you brought it up, think of the super-success oriented people you know inside or outside the church. Why is it that most of them are workaholics despite the fact they were set for life a long time ago? Because it's playing the game that matters, and the money is secondary.

At any rate, yes, it all comes down to money for the church's survival and growth just like any other institution on this planet.

[_Coggins7]

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.

I understand your point, but disagree that the Word of Wisdom is not eternal. I would rather say that the word of Wisdom is an eternal principle (otherwise the Lord would have nothing to do with it) with limited temporal application. The Law of Moses, or something similar to it, is eternal, but is only relevant to peoples of certain kinds in certain times and places. I don't believe the Lord reveals or identifies laws or principles to us that are not eternal in the sense of being based on eternal principles and valid in all situations to which those principles apply.

The law of tithing is a good example of an eternal principle of limited temporal application that will ultimately be superseded by another, the United Order.

[_ajax18]

Guy what kind of feedback system are you suggesting? I know what you mean by the Brethren not caring. I've dealt with that before as well. They do stand up in conference and quote the occasional letter they got. It seems like they're responding a lot to crticism by contemporary christianity. On the other hand most have responded very poorly to scientists on issues such as evolution. Part of that I accredit to the fact that most of them are probably pretty ignorant on the topic and maybe even willfully so.

My point being, we can write letters or feedback to them all we want right now. What's going to make them care or even address the questions?

[_Coggins7]

I added and then snipped a defense of my "insults" and so forget it. I'm trying to get away from all that.

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?

Which leaders?

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."

That is what has been taught, that they never will, and that if they try to, the Lord will remove them.

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?

You can have any opinion you like on the SP's goals. Stating them publically, however, is out of bounds. You haven't been called to that position, you have no mantle, and no authority. Of course, if the SP wants to bring The Vagina Monologues to the Stake for the next roadshow, you might be well within you rights to publically protest. My Branch President has said and done a number of things that I don't agree with, and this mixed with a number of things which I do. He, however, has been called by the Lord to be in that position of leadership, not I, and he is not perfect, as I am not, and he is learning and growing in his position, as I am in mine. Satan uses petty, egoistic differences to create dissension and discord within the Church, and that's why backbiting and 'murmuring" against our leaders is to be avoided, sans whatever goes on in the secular world. He's trying. If he ever went really over the line with me in something, I would not publically protest anything, but follow the Lord's laws and approach him privately to work it through. If that failed, and it was serious enough, we would take it to his leaders.

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.

Something is missing here, is it not? One knows one must conform well before one enters the waters of baptism. One only enters the church if one wants to, of his or her own free will. One only enters if there is some real, tangible desire to be a part of that organization and its principles and vision. The perennial problem here is, of course, that all of us come into the church carrying with us our little golden calves, and because of this, their is always the desire, here and their, to make Christ's church just a little more, here and there, like (insert name here) church.

Keep in mind, Runtu, something else as you think further about this. Conformity to nonconformity is still conformity. Conformity and nonconfomity are relative concepts. The hippies of the Sixties were among the most vigorous conformists, in grooming, dress, language, and philosophy, our culture has ever seen, yet in comparison to the mainstream culture around them, they were radically dissident. The society against which they were rebelling was conformist too, but based in an altogether different set of principles and assumptions. This means that the mainstream middle class culture of the times was nonconformist with regard to the hippie movement and other radical movements of the times. It works quite well both ways.

Nonconformity is not a positive value in and of itself, only as it serves a the higher purpose of promoting and supporting truth and working against evil and falsehood. Why would one even want to come into what is claimed to be the true Church of Jesus Christ, not as a disciple, but as an interior decorator?

Facetious as it may seem, what Groucho said is, in modified form, quite to the point here: I wouldn't want to be a part of any church that I had any part in creating. Why? Because I'll make a hash of it, and I will cut all kinds of corners to make sure that much of it is "pleasing to the carnal mind" No, I'd rather be a part of Christ's church and conform to that, as over against conformity to my own prejudices, assumptions, ego needs, and frog-in-the-well myopia.

[_Coggins7]

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?

Come on Runtu. BY was no more, and, given the era, less of a racist that many around him and was a product of his times, culture, and socialization as we are of ours. This is moral posturing against someone who lived almost two centuries ago against a very different set of cultural assumptions. We moderns have some pretty ugly and, what BY might have considered, vile, prejudices, assumptions, and conformities of our own.

I don't think McConkie was really anti-Catholic, in the sense of say, Dave Hunt, but he had opinions somewhat beyond what core doctrine would allow. But McConkie did not set and settle doctrine for the Church.

[_Coggins7]

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.

At some point when you have the slightest glimmer of understanding of what the Church is and why it exists, come to the table.

Seventy percent desertion rate from the Church. Sources please.

[_Runtu]

I added and then snipped a defense of my "insults" and so forget it. I'm trying to get away from all that.

You can have any opinion you like on the SP's goals.

I never said otherwise.

Stating them publically, however, is out of bounds. You haven't been called to that position, you have no mantle, and no authority. Of course, if the SP wants to bring The Vagina Monologues to the Stake for the next roadshow, you would be well within you rights to publically protest.

Well, which is it? You just said that members have no right to publicly state their opposition to church leaders' decisions. And then two sentences later, you tell me that I would be "well within my rights to publicly protest." Am I missing something here?

My Branch President has said and done a number of things that I don't agree with, and this mixed with a number of things which I do. He, however, has been called by the Lord to be in that position of leadership, not I, and he is not perfect, as I am not, and he is learning and growing in his position, as I am in mine. Satan uses petty, egoistic differences to create dissension and discord within the Church, and that's why backbiting and 'murmuring" against our leaders is to be avoided, sans whatever goes on in the secular world. He's trying. If he ever went really over the line with me in something, I would not publically protest anything, but follow the Lord's laws and approach him privately to work it through. If that failed, and it was serious enough, we would take it to his leaders.

For the record, I never had any trouble sustaining church leaders. As I said over on MADB, I can only recall one time when I specifically refused to obey instructions from a priesthood leader. And I don't recall ever murmuring or backbiting. But I'm puzzled as to the apparent contradiction in your statements.

Something is missing here, is it not? One knows one must conform well before one enters the waters of baptism.

Not in my mission they didn't. I met people who were getting baptized who couldn't even answer the question, "Who was Joseph Smith?"

One only enters the church if one wants to, of his or her own free will. One only enters if there is some real, tangible desire to be a part of that organization and its principles and vision.

I would imagine people enter the waters of baptism for many different reasons, and that tangible desire is often not the reason.

One only enters if there is some real, tangible desire to be a part of that organization and its principles and vision. The perennial problem here is, of course, that all of us come into the church carrying with us our little golden calves, and because of this, their is always the desire, here and their, to make Christ's church just a little more, here and there, like (insert name here) church.

I never wanted the church to be anything but true, oddly enough.

Keep in mind, Runtu, something else as you think further about this. Conformity to nonconformity is still conformity. Conformity and nonconfomity are relative concepts. The hippies of the Sixties were among the most vigorous conformists, in grooming, dress, language, and philosophy, our culture has ever seen, yet in comparison to the mainstream culture around them, they were radically dissident. The society against which they were rebelling was conformist too, but based in an altogether different set of principles and assumptions. This means that the mainstream middle class culture of the times was nonconformist with regard to the hippie movement and other radical movements of the times. It works quite well both ways.

Of course it does. That's a major trait of socialization in a culture: conformity.

Nonconformity is not a positive value in and of itself, only as it serves a the higher purpose of promoting and supporting truth and working against evil and falsehood.

I never said it was. Promoting and supporting truth and working against evil ought to be a common goal of all of us.

Why would one even want to come into what is claimed to be the true Church of Jesus Christ, not as a disciple, but as an interior decorator?

You seem to believe that I have some interest in "changing" the church. Believe me, I don't. I answered The Nehor's question sincerely, and for that you said I had a superficial understanding based on lack of experience. I honestly don't care what the church does. I simply made an observation that what he saw as a contradiction I didn't see as such.

Facetious as it may seem, what Groucho said is, in modified form, quite to the point here: I wouldn't want to be a part of any church that I had any part in creating. Why? Because I'll make a hash of it, and I will cut all kinds of corners to make sure that much of it is "pleasing to the carnal mind" No, I'd rather be a part of Christ's church and conform to that, as over against conformity to my own prejudices, assumptions, ego needs, and frog-in-the-well myopia.

You just can't help it, can you? You and I are both following truth to the best of our abilities, I believe. Why is it that you feel the need to see my search for truth in the most negative and insulting ways?

[_harmony]

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."

That is what has been taught, that they never will, and that if they try to, the Lord will remove them.

This has already happened. And yes, he did. And since that time, things have gone sideways, sometimes more so, sometimes less so. But sideways still the same. The constant corrections, the constant missteps have all been because of what happened in the beginning, when Joseph lost his mantle in the barn with Fanny.

[_Coggins7]

I'm suggesting that there ought to be some kind of formal formal feedback loop system by which the Bretheren at least stay are in tune with what's going on in the trenches so that they can feed this into their decision making.

The Church is not a democracy. If you don't like it, you may leave. If you don't like it, you may decline baptism. It is Christ's church, not ours. There are no feedback loops and no asking of the members how they world like the church run, governed, and structured, and what doctrines they would like taught, because its not the ir church. They have no right to make those decisions. Indeed, the Brethren have no right to make those decisions .

I don't want to be a member of my church. I want to be a member of Jesus Christ's church.

Why is there a failure to communicate here? Ahhhhh....the assumptions...

[_Runtu]

Come on Runtu. BY was no more, and, given the era, less of a racist that many around him and was a product of his times, culture, and socialization as we are of ours. This is moral posturing against someone who lived almost two centuries ago against a very different set of cultural assumptions. We moderns have some pretty ugly and, what BY might have considered, vile, prejudices, assumptions, and conformities of our own.

I happen to agree that BY was no more or less racist than many people of his era. I used him merely as an example of how easy it is to dismiss the teachings of dead prophets. I'm not making any moral statement here.

I don't think McConkie was really anti-Catholic, in the sense of say, Dave Hunt, but he had opinions somewhat beyond what core doctrine would allow. But McConkie did not set and settle doctrine for the Church.

Again, it was merely an example. Most Mormons I know reject McConkie's ideas that the Catholic Church is the church of the devil.