http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y92An5AjqM
lyrics: http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=3530822107858655692

The video quality is poor, but this version of the song is much more powerful than some of the others you can find on Youtube. Brandi Carlile sings with greater sensitivity and wisdom than her years would suggest.

Nicely said, as was Hawkgrrrl’s reference.

Also, I have not helped convince you that the leaders are liars. Don’t pretend to put that at my feet. You reached that conclusion before you started posting here.

I’m done. We are not helping each other understand our separate perspectives. I could continue to critique your comments (incluing the quotes that you provided that I don’t think say what you claim they say), but we really would be going round and round eternally.

Joseph Smith was just a babe when he started it all. Perhaps it was beautiful because he was young. Perhaps.

Anyway, I didn’t post on your gerontocracy thread because I had reached a conclusion already and didn’t see the value in the discussion. Sadly same is true here, now.

I really wish I hadn’t reached that conclusion. How do I put the genie back in the bottle, or start believing in Santa Claus again?

To state my own opinion, I do think it’s easier to respect our elders in general, but the older I get the fewer of them there are. How would I feel about joining a church led by a 30-something kid? That would be a leap of faith indeed.

I believe that the the plain and cumulative effect of the many, many talks given by general authorities in recent years is to encourage obedience, even without knowing why, or thinking about it, and definitely without questioning.

Here are some quotes, feel free to parse them to make them mean something else.

“We are instructed to be like children, who are willing to be taught and then to act without first demanding full knowledge. . . . . Obedience is a fundamental law of the gospel. . . . Unquestioning obedience to the Lord indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the point where he or she considers all inspired instruction — whether it be recorded scripture or the words of modern prophets — to be worthy of obedience. . . . Let us believe all things. Let us have unquestioning faith in all of the doctrines and truths of the restored gospel.” Elder Robert Oaks, “Believe All Things,” Ensign, July 2005, page 30

“Now may I say a word concerning loyalty to the Church. . . . .The Church will not dictate to any man, but it will counsel, it will persuade, it will urge, and it will expect loyalty from those who profess membership therein. . . . [T]his, [is] the Lord’s Church. This is His work. He established it. He has revealed its doctrine. He has outlined its practices. He created its government. It is His work and His kingdom, and He has said, “They who are not for me are against me. . . . “On this occasion I am not going to talk about the good or bad of Prohibition but rather of uncompromising loyalty to the Church. . . . How grateful, my brethren, I feel, how profoundly grateful for the tremendous faith of so many Latter-day Saints who, when facing a major decision on which the Church has taken a stand, align themselves with that position. . . . either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.” President Gordon B. Hinckley. “Loyalty,” April Conference, 2003.”

“You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church . . . .But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.’ (DC 21:6)” - Prophet Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, Oct. 1970, p. 152

And, were I to take the time, I could find a hundred or perhaps even a thousand more examples where we are continually taught to FOLLOW and OBEY, again including the promise that the Prophet could never lead us astray, when the prophet has spoken—the discussion ends, and certainly thousands of references to the prophet and apostles as the spokesman, or “mouth piece of God” or knowing the mind of God, or knowing the will of God, and on and on and on.

What is the cumulative effect of all this? What is the point they are trying to make? Is it really possible that this is their way of saying “be critical and cautious of what you hear from the pulpit?” I think not. I think Elder Robert Oaks may be guilty of being too obvious at what the intention is, “unquestioning obedience.”

Statements about never criticizing the leaders (even if they are wrong) by Elder DH Oaks, and comments by Packer, Nelson, DH Oaks, Holland and others discouraging publishing or even reading the Truth about the origins of the church certainly seem to have the intended purpose of keeping people “as a little child.”

And to answer your question directly, the fact that the leaders are sinners doesn’t particularly twist my garments, but what does twist them pretty hard is the inescapable conclusion that you accused me of the first time I posted here. I have now concluded (with your help) that they are knowingly lying to me, and that REALLY bothers me, because I have a lot of emotional baggage involved in these men I have loved and encouraged my children to emulate.

So, now, there it is. I accuse them of lying, you can dismiss me as an out-of-touch sinful apostate, and go back to your happy little world. I on the other hand feel I have been betrayed by men I spent a long time learning to love, and I now feel abused and victimized. Where do I go?

I can’t answer your questions. My comment about your dislike of authority was genuine and based on my own experience. If it’s not an issue for you, that’s your call. It has been an issue for me. I don’t follow authority blindly, nor would I advocate it. But I have learned to question why I dislike authority. I tend to be very critical of people above me in my work life, for example, to the point where I have said things that hurt my career at times.

On your spiritual journey, though, I merely suggest ignoring the “leadership” issue as it seems to be an impediment. Whether you stay in or go out of the church, I presume you still want to grow as a person and find truth. This issue seems to be holding you back. There’s more to the gospel than leadership. There’s more to your spiritual journey than just the church. Maybe rather than trying to prove or disprove the church, you should really just seek for truth. I wish you well on that search. It’s the same thing we all look for.

You just accused us (”we”) of saying that we should follow the prophets **”unquestioningly”**. That was the word you used over and over and over in the last comment - and you put it in quotes. I am too lazy today to go back and read every comment right now, but I did a “find” search for that word in this thread and, guess what, IT’S NOT THERE - not once. Furthermore, nobody to whom you addressed your comment has said that (or anything like unto it) on any other thread on this blog.

Unfortunately, there are members who take that tack, but nobody here has said it. “WE” is such a generalization that it can be true - NO MATTER WHAT THE CHARGE IS. “We are racist.” “We are ignorant puppets.” “We are brainwashed fools.” “We are uncritical sheep.” “We are liars.” EVERY ONE OF THOSE STATEMENTS IS TRUE - if you define “we” as “some of us” - or as “at least at one moment in our lives”. With that definition, all of humanity is described - which is the point of “we are sinners”.

We know we are sinners. We know that even propehts are sinners. Why is that a uniquely Mormon thing in your mind - or why do you care about pointing it out to us? Some members might not accept that, but it certainly is part of our official theology, so why does it twist your knickers so hard? (That last question actually is a serious question, and I honestly wonder if you know the answer to it.)

If the answer is what you said in one of your earlier comments (”Maybe I just expect too much.”), then can’t you accept that, put it aside, and quit banging the same drum over and over and over and over HERE - where we agree with the general statement and aren’t guilty of your more generalized charges?

If you can’t see the Emperor’s New Clothes, it must be within you. Every time I have ever examined ANY issue within the Church critically - and by that I mean subjecting it to the same analysis we would use when looking at a politician’s claims, or the claims made by another church, or the claims made by a salesman, I am told that the problem must be within me.

Even taking it out of our church and putting it in Christianity or religion in general, if prayer works to cure illnesses - even very severe illnesses like cancer - why doesn’t prayer ever work to restore an amputated arm or leg? It seems like every fast Sunday we are told that prayer really works, and then given proof in the form of a testimony: “We were going to be late for church, and Billy couldn’t find his shoes, so we sat down in his room and had a prayer, asking God to help us find the shoes. When we finished with the prayer, we found Billy’s shoes, they were under his bed!”

And, despite numerous places in the New Testament where it says clearly and unconditionally, “Ask and you will receive”. If someone prays and doesn’t receive an answer, then the fault is seen within the person asking, and all kinds of explanations are offered that come down to “you didn’t ask with a sincere heart” which is the “Get out of jail free card” of Christianity. A man could study, pray, agonize, fast, and seek answers for years, and if he doesn’t receive them, somehow the problem must be within him.

Prayer would seem to be tautological.

Similarly, most logic and reasoning used by our church (and probably the others as well) is circular.

And, maybe I do have a problem with authority. But I don’t think I did before I started looking at our leadership, and seeing that it is all a house of cards.

In the other thread we seem to have determined that “Oh, yeah, they’re still prophets, but they just don’t actually know the mind of God, and they seem incapable of transcending the prejudices and biases of their own times.” Then what is prophetic about them?

I can’t understand the need to believe two contradictory principles at the same time. For example, in the “Evidences” thread you make the point that the ban on blacks holding the priesthood (which was perpetuated by the leaders of the church was racist, and has been a “material impediment to” some people’s salvation. That doesn’t seem like the role of a prophet, nor does it then follow logically the idea in your Rock the Gerontocracy thread that

“Psychologically, it’s much easier to unquestioningly follow the commands of someone older than you. So the strict seniority-based promotion scale serves a practical purpose.”

Are you really willing to “unquestioningly follow the commands” of racists who impede spiritual progress?

Perhaps I can understand, something more like, “I’ll critically examine what they say, . . . ” but “unquestioningly follow the commands”?

This seems to be an example of “double think”. We are expected to make these kinds of claims to obedience, etc. when we are talking with our own, in fast and testimony meetings, in high council meetings, etc. But, if someone from outside asks if we mean that really, we must immediately back pedal and say, “No, of course we always stop individually and critically examine . . . ” But, next Sunday, when we are speaking in Sacrament Meeting, we’re back saying, “Follow the Prophet, even if you don’t understand why, or even if you personally think he is wrong, and you’ll be blessed for doing it.”

But, on Monday, at work someone makes a comment that they couldn’t be Mormon, because they couldn’t follow anyone blindly, we immediately change tunes again and say, “Oh, our church doesn’t teach us to follow blindly . . . ”

But then Wednesday night at the when we’re teaching the youth, we say, “Obedience brings blessings, obedience is greater than sacrifice. Obedience to the prophet and leaders will bring you happiness. If you follow the prophet you’ll never go astray.”

But then, on Friday night we blog that, yeah, the prophets were racists, and impeded the spiritual development of others.

Saturday, we blog that the leaders are totally cool, and one of the cool things is that you can trust them enough to follow them unquestioningly, because they are old and old means wise . . . ”

And the cycle continues.

At one time I was very disturbed by authority in the church and what I considered to be either 1) abuse of power, or 2) weaknesses in those above me. I had to work through my own feelings about authority (in my case, it wasn’t limited to the church) to get past that. In or out of the church, that tendency was within me personally and blocked (still blocks to some extent) my spiritual progress as a person. It’s just something to consider as you seek for truth.

“kinda sorta a little of both depending on the day of the week and the phase of the moon.”

What the heck kind of “Special Witness” is that?

“The logical conclusion to this then, is that Joseph Smith, Moses, the Brother of Jared, etc. did not have faith, that if they were rational people they in fact had “no choice” but to believe, and therefore faith was no longer involved. Can that possibly be true?”

I think there was plenty of room outside of specific supernatural experiences each of these individuals had to exercise faith; additionally, my hasty generalization was aimed at a population as a whole rather than individuals specifically. My point being: If we all get handed plain simple proof of the Gospel, those who choose to believe aren’t quite practicing the same level of faith as before.

“It seems patently disputed by Laman and Lemuel receiving angelic visitors and still denying God.”

These guys, I don’t get - How many times do you have to get hit over the head with something? - but I did say “most” and “rational” hopefully leaving my argument some wiggle room.

“Similarly if “God plays a game of plausible deniability” then he seems more the trickster or even the liar than the giver of truth.”

I would interpret this more in the “Kung Fu master inscrutability” way rather than the “CIA selling drugs to fund illegal arms” way - it’s not a case of God lying to us so much as not volunteering the information. A lesson given to you on a silver platter isn’t worth a fraction of a lesson learned by hard experience - the point of this life, I think.

“It would appear that God teaches not in parables, but in paradoxes.”

One of my favorite sayings (I like to think I invented it but I know that’s not true): “Truth lies in the paradox.” Aside from the delicious double entendre (Truth ‘lying’) it points to one of those greater truths I’ve found in my own experience - that when faced with contradictory information, one is often on the threshold of some greater understanding. Eastern religion seems to revolve considerably around teaching this point (see Kung Fu reference above; Zen koans like “what is the sound of one hand clapping?”). Modern physics has stumbled into the territory of paradox; i.e. light is a wave and a particle at the same time, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says we can know the position or velocity of subatomic particles but not both. All these fragments of information about recurring paradoxes resonate within me - here there must be some fundamental truth about the universe.

My favorite paradox: “You are supposed to obey the rules.” But: “Experience is the best teacher.” I think we’re sent here knowing full well we’re going to break rules because the experience of struggling with the rules and the consequences of breaking them is so much more valuable than our actual obedience to them. In the process we gain a better appreciation for the utility of rules, at the same time understanding why there are exceptions.

I have gained a *substantial* appreciation for the rules in my lifetime.
You’re frustrated? Examine that feeling. Experience it. What can it teach you? For a moment, regard the search for understanding on this point (the results of which may not actually matter) merely as a tool for generating the experience of the search for understanding and the things you discover about yourself on the way.

Should you obey the prophets? At the end of the day, only you truly know that answer. I simultaneously appreciate both the reason for not calling them out in public on their shortcomings and the reasons for lobbying for changes. There is probably a way to accomplish the latter without running afoul of church discipline - if you have the patience. Some issues they may be wrong enough about or you may be passionate enough about that the sacrifice is warranted.

Boy, that free agency thing, it’s a real b*tch sometimes.

(I myself don’t have any differences of opinion that I’m passionate enough about/have a well-thought out alternative on that I see the point in arguing with the GAs about - but I’m just lazy like that. Maybe I believe that historically the church’s stance on blacks in the priesthood and gay folks has been in need of improvement, but it seems to me it’s heading, albeit slowly, in the right direction - so I don’t need to rock that boat.)

“Why would God’s chosen leaders punish disobedience if AGENCY and REVELATION are keys to the Gospel.”

Because justice is a necessary component too. While we may disagree about the specific details of given rules/principles/et cetera, at the end of the day we know there is right and wrong and if we do wrong we expect there to be some consequences for that. Like it or not, the social contract in the church is that we don’t throw our leadership under the bus in public. This is not to say that you aren’t permitted to have your own personal understanding of their teachings or to believe what you think is right based on your personal witness of the Spirit - you just get to keep it to yourself (or at least limit the dissemination of your ideas to the relative anonymity of the web).

Maybe your search for truth is frustrated by expecting an either/or answer, when the real answer is “kinda sorta a little of both depending on the day of the week and the phase of the moon.”

“Again, I’m left with no way to determine when I should be obedient or why.”

There is a way. Be disobedient. Be obedient. Compare the experiences. Determine how you want to proceed from there.

The ‘why’ will come from that process.

I am a little confused about what you say about leaders punishing disobedience when you seem to be talking about disbelief (not disobedience). Do you have a specific concern in mind?

http://faithpromotingrumor.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/experience-or-doctrine/#more-593

SALT LAKE CITY | 6 Jun 2008 | The religious experience of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is based on a spiritual witness from God that inspires both heart and mind, creating an interpersonal relationship directly with the divine. It does not require one to pass a rigorous theological test. Nor does it demand the extreme self-denial and seclusion of asceticism. Rather, this unique individual experience unfolds in the natural course of everyday living. Thus, the beliefs of Latter-day Saints are not rooted in concepts and principles, detached from the realities of life. They are grounded in a much deeper level of experience that motivates individuals to action.

I hear this a lot. The logical conclusion to this then, is that Joseph Smith, Moses, the Brother of Jared, etc. did not have faith, that if they were rational people they in fact had “no choice” but to believe, and therefore faith was no longer involved. Can that possibly be true? It seems patently disputed by Laman and Lemuel receiving angelic visitors and still denying God.

Similarly if “God plays a game of plausible deniability” then he seems more the trickster or even the liar than the giver of truth.

Why would God take faith away from Joseph Smith but come up with a scheme whereby I can’t even have evidence that strongly indicates truth, nor can I have a system of thought that leads to truth.

It would appear that God teaches not in parables, but in paradoxes. In order to believe and receive His rewards, I have to simultaneously believe two opposite concepts at the same time, e.g. - God provides light and truth to help us develop our faith, but at the same time God hides and obscures the truth from us, so we can’t know it, so we can develop faith.

Maybe I’m a simpleton. This is very frustrating for me.

Should I disobey the prophets? Logic would tell me that I should disobey when they are wrong (e.g. blacks can’t hold the priesthood). How do I know they are not now wrong about women holding the priesthood? But, they punish disobedience.

Why would God’s chosen leaders punish disobedience if AGENCY and REVELATION are keys to the Gospel.

Obviously an organization has to have rules, and I understand that. But, how do we determine that this organization is somehow different from all the others? I have been taught that we are different because of modern Prophets and personal Revelation.

Modern prophets disciplining individuals for acting on their personal revelation doesn’t seem much different from Middle Ages popes disciplining Galileo. So, how are we different?

My search for truth is not going very well.

Again, I’m left with no way to determine when I should be obedient or why.

It it my opinion that God plays a game of plausible deniability in order for free agency to operate properly.

When faced with irrefutable evidence of something, most rational people will have no choice but to believe in that thing - thus, there is no longer faith involved.

By a similar token, our leaders are subject to errors so that the world may have something to attack them for, thus making our choice to follow or ignore them our own, preserving the exercise of faith.

I’ll simply observe that our leaders are right more often than they are wrong.

My most valuable testimony, from early in my conversion to the church when I prayed asking if Joseph Smith was a prophet, was that I recieved these words in my mind clear as day: “He was a man.” Along with that message came an understanding that took somewhat longer to sort out - that as a man, he was subject to all the failings and temptations that I am; that he made mistakes as I do; that he struggled to do the things God asked him - but nonetheless, he did the best he could. As a result, he brought about something on this earth that would be astonishing for a mere ‘man’ to do on his own. Clearly there was something more at work there…

Stephen Marsh captures this point nicely in post #42 (which I’ve only read after writing the above).

Probably.

I look at it this way:

Confirmation doesn’t have to be about whether something is absolute Truth. It only needs to be about whether something should be accepted and followed - that it will not “lead us astray” in some real and dangerous way.

Something to consider about possible approaches in life:

When we see a beggar on the street:

1) Lord, I will share with any beggar you tell me to help;
2) Lord, I will share with every beggar I see - except those with whom you tell me not to share.

When we see someone hitch-hiking:

1) Lord, I will stop and help every person you tell me to help;
2) Lord, I will stop and help every person I see - except those you tell me not to help.

If we are preparing to tract as missionaries:

1) Lord, I will knock on every door you tell me to approach;
2) Lord, I will knock on every door - except those you tell me not to approach.

If we receive counsel from a prophet or local leader:

1) Lord, I will accept from what they say everything you tell me to follow;
2) Lord, I will accept what they say - except that which you tell me not to accept and follow.

It seems very much to me that we are trying to have it both ways. We want the prophet to be infallible, so we can say “be obedient” and at the same time we can say “pray to receive confirmation.” (Notice even there, the instruction is to receive confirmation, not revelation.)

It would seem to me the only way we can “receive confirmation” is if the prophet is correct when he (or his assistants) creates or modifies a rule for the rest of us to follow. If he’s not correct, and God answers our prayer, we will discover that he’s not correct, and we can then disobey. The disobedience, however, brings consequences.

So, I think the practice is more like the simplistic teachings “the prophet will never lead you astray” is NOT actually folklore, but IS doctrine. That then gives the justification for the leadership to say, well, Arthur, if you didn’t receive the confirmation, then obviously the problem is within you.

Seems paradoxical. Only if the prophet is infallible, can we both be obedient and act on revelation from the Holy Ghost. If the prophet is fallible, then obedience is dangerous (because we would be Choosing the Wrong), and acting on revelation received by us, but not by the fallible prophet, leads to us being disciplined (or at least told that we are wrong).

This seems similar to the omnipotence/omniscience paradox, where if God is omniscient he knows what he will do next. If he knows what he will do next, he is powerless to change the course of his own actions. If he doesn’t know all of the actions he will ever take, he isn’t omniscient.

I know some apparent paradoxes have ways out that make sense, but they are hard for me. The Obedience/Revelation paradox is a particularly difficult one for me.

And, I still don’t know if I should be obedient to the prophet or not if I receive a revelation through the Holy Ghost that directs me to not be obedient.

Like your parents, I certainly don’t claim to understand every. Sometimes it seems more like I don’t understand anything.

Would it be asking too much for God to have a plan that I could understand?

For example, my dad used to say that if he left the Church every time someone said something stupid or offensive, he would never have time to set foot in the church - since just about everyone says something stupid or offensive every single day. He said that prophets were very different - since they said something stupid or offensive only occasionally. He said that the Lord had never said the Church was perfect - just that it was “true” and “living” - and he never defined “true” as related to Truth (”correct in all things”) but merely as “conforming to or consistent with a standard, pattern, or the like: a true copy” or “of the right kind; such as it should be; proper: to arrange things in their true order”.

The interesting things is that my dad NEVER would have said what I just wrote. Those aren’t his words; he is not an academician or “intellectual” by any stretch of the imagination. He hated school and would have been a long-haul trucker if he hadn’t had a family and a wife who desperately needed him home. Instead, he became a mechanic, then a printer, then a school janitor. What I just described is how **I** interpreted what he said - how it was translated inside me. It gave me a foundation that just doesn’t care much about the details - even though I really like to study and consider and discuss them. I love the learning; I just don’t put much eternal stock in it compared to what I do and the attitudes I develop - what I become.

Finally, “a prophet is not accepted in his own country” for a reason. The people with whom he was raised have seen his humanity - his natural man, if you will. They know he isn’t unique enough to be a prophet, since they either gave him a wedgie as a kid and he swore at them or received a wedgie from him and swore at him. We hold our own prophets (and spouses and children and parents and friends) to a much higher standard than we use to measure others whose warts we don’t see as clearly, and that often keeps us from understanding the amazing characteristics that we take for granted as what they really are. That’s natural, but it also is too bad, since we miss out on SO much when we let the *stuff* distract us from the big picture.

And, at the risk of being labeled a heretic, I don’t find comments similar to “The church is either all true, or it’s a complete fraud” or or “Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision” etc.

I find these awfully confining, and restrictive. These would seem to say, for example, that if the “validity of this glorious First Vision” (after just quoting the ‘official’ 1838 version) isn’t accurate as presented, then “our entire case as members” falls apart.

I think it is a dangerous philosophy to engage in such extreme statements. On the surface, they seem to promise truth, and a truth that can only be exactly one way, but my experience tells me that these types of statements almost always fail in actual practice (anything outside of a “logic proof” in an Intro Philosophy class, etc.).

I think some of what Nick says makes very good sense about finding truth where it comes. I wonder if that also means that many of the “rules” about “stand up, sit down, go into this room, wear this, don’t eat that, drink this, don’t read that, pay this much, answer these questions in the prescribed way” are really “True” (capital t) teachings from God, or if they have a big chunk of the teachings of men intermixed with them and can or should therefore be ignored or not complied with.

It seems counter intuitive to me that if we are saying that Truth doesn’t come top down, from the prophet, and that almost nothing is “doctrine”(*See note below) that all of these rules would be so important. There are consequences (**See Note below) for non-compliance with an orthodox view of “Truth” as manifested in the “rules.”

So, it now seems that now my original question about finding Truth has become about whether the orthodox view of Truth (as defined by all the rules, etc.) somehow encompasses or leads to Truth or not? If it doesn’t, then why follow the orthodoxy. But if the orthodoxy does encompass or lead us to truth then it would seem to mean that Truth does in fact come from the top down (from the prophet) and that we must be obedient in order to find Truth. Again, the question becomes how do we know which things to be obedient to, and which we can ignore (if we can ignore any of them)?

And, if the rules don’t lead us to truth, what do they do? e.g. It was apparently a rule, (or folklore but not doctrine) that said blacks could not receive the priesthood (often justified as God’s will because of a lack of valiant behavior on the part of the black person’s spirit in the pre-existence. In 1951 had I been a bishop and had I acted on my personal revelation, as confirmed to me by the Holy Ghost ordained some black 16-year old a Priest and let him bless the sacrament, I would have been subject to church discipline for following a rule that had the effect of leading us in the wrong direction and that I had had confirmed to me by the Holy Ghost was a bad rule. (Unless it was somehow correct for us to not ordain blacks.)

It does seem like the Truth is hard to get to. And, it further seems that there is no consistent way to get to it. It doesn’t seem like obedience to prophets/scripture, etc. will get you there (because we have determined that you have to receive your own revelation). It doesn’t seem like listening to the Holy Ghost will get you there (because the church will punish you for listening to and acting on promptings of the Holy Ghost that are in some way disobedient).

And Ray, I don’t mean to sound like a trouble maker, but I really do find this confusing.

*Note: previous parts of this thread referred to blacks & priesthood statements of ‘doctrine’ written and signed by First Presidency that apparently weren’t doctrine

**Note: Here I mean institutional and organizational consequences to the non-adherent such as denial/revocation of temple recommend, etc.

Yes, and if we forget that, we fail of our potential.

We should go about finding truth in every way possible–from every writing we encounter, in the words and actions of every person we meet, in every aspect of the universe around us! Joseph Smith, in the last years of his life, spoke of ideas that “tasted good” to him, or in other words, that brought him joy. Despite all his faults (and also because of all his faults), Joseph pushed forward, breaking his own paths, and seeking truth as an “independent revelation,” rather than relying on the words of others–including even canonized scripture. It’s one of the great things about Joseph Smith that I admire, and why I’m quite willing to classify him, at least under my definition above, as a prophet.

You are sounding like Brigham Young here, about finding truth everywhere and bringing it back into our lives.

Yes, recognizing that I may understand the phrase “prophet of god” differently than you do. For me, that phrase does not describe an office. Rather, it describes a relationship which a person has entered into with deity, through which that person has been genuinely enlightened and naturally seeks to enlighten others. I really like that you said “help us to find the truth,” instead of “tell us the truth.” I see prophets as individuals (both men and women) who point the way, but that it is ultimately up to each of us to find the truth for ourselves.

Can the scriptures help us find the truth?

Yes, and again, it’s likely I interpret “scriptures” more broadly than some people do. I love the Mormon view that anything written or spoken by the spirit of deity is “scripture.” I would temper that view just a bit (at least in how it has been practically applied by many), by suggesting that everything a person holding ecclesiastical office says or writes is not necessarily “by the spirit of deity,” and that many people who do not hold ecclesiastical sanction do, at times, speak and write “by the spirit of deity.” Once again, I like that you say “help us find the truth,” instead of “tell us the truth.”

How should we go about trying to find truth?

We should go about finding truth in every way possible–from every writing we encounter, in the words and actions of every person we meet, in every aspect of the universe around us! Joseph Smith, in the last years of his life, spoke of ideas that “tasted good” to him, or in other words, that brought him joy. Despite all his faults (and also because of all his faults), Joseph pushed forward, breaking his own paths, and seeking truth as an “independent revelation,” rather than relying on the words of others–including even canonized scripture. It’s one of the great things about Joseph Smith that I admire, and why I’m quite willing to classify him, at least under my definition above, as a prophet.

From James #1: President Joseph F. Smith said, “We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never.” (Journal of Discources (JD) 16:248) and “George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;” (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319″

From Valoel #7: “The Catholics teach that their Pope is infallible and none of them believe it. The Mormons teach that their Prophets are fallible and none of them believe it.”

In Lesson 10 today in RS we were talking about the nature of personal revelation. As I prepared for the lesson, one of the things that really struck me was that the First Vision, which has over time become imbued with so much meaning to all of us who are LDS, was PERSONAL revelation to him. He didn’t come out of the grove with business cards stating “prophet, seer, revelator.” He followed the example from scriptures and asked for his own personal answer, and he got it.

We can all debate back and forth about words and how to interpret what various prophets have said or what the meaning of scriptures is, or we can follow the example and ask for ourselves. It’s easy to be told what to do, hard to ask for ourselves. As for being led astray individually, if we have received the HG, we should have some experience in knowing the difference. If people do this and get different answers than I do, so be it, but pitting cold logic against spiritual experience is like comparing apples and something very very different from apples.

Ironically, I usually am the one telling everyone to respect each other and not fight. Everyone else will tell you so. This is one case where the form of the comment fooled me, and I already apologized - with an explanation.

Also, Nick and I are good friends for people who have never met in person. I respect him, and he respects me. There was NO “personal condemnation” in #39 - none whatsoever, and Nick knows that. Everything I wrote there is factual and has been stated openly by Nick.

This is said with a BIG grin, but your own advice would be as good for you as it is for me.

From https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/stories/tributaries-of-my-faith.html

This is only my opinion but I would try to keep to the issues and not bring in personal condemnataion. Its out of bounds in my opinion!!

Mormon Matters is a friendly place where we can discuss issues and not feel some one is going to personally defame us in front of our good friends.

Even the issues we discuss our own personal views may change radically back and forth as we get further light and knowledge

Other wise keep up the good work its great to have a broad spectrum of views.

I’m sure you don’t like my perspective and what it says about your own ability to receive personal revelation. To me, the idea that our own wishes filter our apprehensions of reality is a truism - it hardly needs to be defended. And beyond that, that our wishes emerge, we are never really fully aware of how they may be influencing us. (As Carl Jung reminds us about the unconscious: it is clearly impacting us all the time, yet, by definition it is beyond our conscious awareness - it is unconscious.) Of course, this is a sword that cuts everybody. You can as easily say that my own desire that the manifestations of the Spirit are what they seem to be hightens or distorts in some way my perceptions. The only antidote I can see to this conundrum, and confess that it is likely one that can never be taken in a healing does, is relentless self-honesty and reflection, and a willingness to suspend the machinations of our own ego.

I can’t answer for you, and I don’t intend to. My only responce to you is: go your way and see where it takes you, and continue to be as absolutely honest with yourself as you can be, and god-speed.

~

Can a Prophet of God help us to find the truth?
Can the scriptures help us find the truth?
How should we go about trying to find truth?

Even you must understand that context matters in learning. No information exists in a vacuum, and we all are either put in an environment where reception and acceptance of information and arguments are either enhanced or detracted. To throw JS into an example, a person who is introduced to the man as a charismatic, yet flawed character who imagined seeing God and angels and twisted Christianity to his own purposes for the following reasons is more likely to distrust JS’s writings (if he or she ever gets around to reading them) than someone who is taught that despite the man’s personal failings, JS was a prophet of God and restored His church on the earth for the following reasons. Its the parable of the sower, kinda. An integral part of maintaining one’s testimony in the Church is constant effort to stay on the path, to keep the faith, etc. I think what Bushman is trying to say is that context matters: if we know we’re not living the commandments, our perception of the authority figures who have commanded or communicated those commandments changes. So if finding the truth is contingent upon hearing the promptings of the Spirit testify of truth and guide one’s decisions, it becomes harder to hear it when sin and doubt crowd themselves in.

I see what you’re saying, though, about the Emperor’s clothing effect in the church. I think that phenomenon exists far too often, and represents a violation of D&C 121 (which Thomas #14 quoted, btw).

Perhaps you just have more inspiration than the rest of us.

Haven’t you ever read the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes? This idea you mention isn’t new from Bushman. It’s an old refrain within the LDS church, claiming that if you don’t get the LDS-endorsed answer to your prayers about the truth, you obviously weren’t “sincere enough,” or “really listening,” or “living so as to have the Holy Ghost answer your prayers.” It’s just not acceptable to get an answer that contradicts the LDS position, so the person who’s praying must be faulty if they get no answer, or a different answer.

As I said, this amounts to the Emperor’s New Clothes. If you don’t see the clothing (or get the testimony) then you clearly weren’t wise enough to see them (or sincere enough, or righteous enough to get the testimony). Therefore, you will invariably get a certain percentage (note I said “certain percentage,” not “all,” or even “most”) who will claim to have seen the Emperor’s clothing, because they can’t face the social condemnation that comes from being “not wise (or spiritual, or righteous) enough.”

Shopping for my wife, that is when I really need inspiration.

That was the point of the commandment vs. explanation quote from Dallin Oaks. Having taught Blacks on my mission, and having confirmed one a member (with the startling message to me that he would be receiving the priesthood within the lifetime of an older general authority whose grand daughter I knew) I knew that as to that one person it was the will of God that he not have the priesthood at that time and that it was a blessing to him and not a curse.

Given the circumstances of the entire sequence, it was more than a missionary would expect. I’m not accustomed to rooms filled with bright light as the Spirit talks around my poor companion to communicate to an investigator things that it did not care to share with me.

Anyway, interesting discussion.

NICE!!

Seriously, I have a much more narrow view of that than many. “Astray” means “off course”. I don’t think the prophets ever will ask us to believe or do anything that will keep us from whatever higher end we would attain without it - that they will “lead us astray from” (off course of) our eventual destination. I can’t imagine a prophet saying something like, “It’s ok to go out and commit adultery. In fact, I encourage the membership to do so.” That would lead someone astray from a celestial to a telestial end, and I just don’t see it happening.

I obviously can see mistakes that will cloud our overall understanding for a time, but counsel that will alter our eventual outcome . . . I just don’t see it happening.

Frankly, I think the “lead us astray” equals “never be wrong” is an unfortunate natural man conclusion.

I accept your apology. I have to admit, however, I still find it confusing, but I’m trying.

For so long I have been taught