I couldn’t help it, because, I couldn’t help it, because, I couldn’t help it, because, if I did help, there would be no progression and if there would be no progression, then I or the “fool”, most likely, would go beyond the fringe, which brings up…………

I am not going to make fun of this. I am not going to make fun of this. I am not going to make fun of this. I am not going to make fun of this. I am not going to make fun of this. I am not going to make fun of this. I am not going to make fun of this.

There. I feel better.

[1] “…if this desire is not disciplined, [then] it can cause some to pursue beyond the fringes…”

[2] When one goes beyond the “fringes”, seeking to answer obscure mysteries “rather than seeking a firmer understanding and a better practice of the basic principles of the Gospel,” then they loose the ability to go to the LDS official site and type in the search engine, ‘The basic principles of the Gospel,’ and should they make it that far, then they just won’t know what to do with the answers that come up.

Your answer in #104 sounds like what was just described.
You can “mock” the General Authorities if you like in the 1st half of your #104 and be sincere in the 2nd half, if you want.

Although you state that Elder Oaks “overall has some wisdom/pearls” – it sounds like you are saying – “so what?”

Now, Sxark, what I wrote above should seal the award, wouldn’t you say?

In all seriousness, I just finally read all of Elder Oaks article that you have been referring to. So here are a few questions:

1. What does he mean by discipline? ,ie,
a. How do I know when I have studied too little or too much
b. what topics are okay and which are not? (ex. Is getting into WOW study and changing it from a tenet/recommendation to ironclad commandment an example of hobby horsing? or focusing on too many earrings? Or rather is the intense, in depth study of Isaiah something that is clearly going overboard and needs curbing (google Gileadi)? I am not sure what is an appropriate topic to fixate on?
c. Is being disciplined a function of determining what narrative/histories are edifying and only telling that part of the story and having the discipline to never cross the line by mentioning anything not edifying/useful even if true? (“Carthage Conspiracy”)

2. What are the basic principles of the gospel?
a. Could it be defined differently by different folks?
b. Does it include the study of Open Theism as compared to Classic theism or is the study of the ever changing study of the nature of God way too speculative lest we actually come to know Him and His nature?
c. Does it include the study of the atonement? I would think so, but then how deep am I allowed to go in studying the different models/theories historically and how they developed before I am considered on the “fringes” ?? Is it when I discover that our penal substitution model (first created by St. Anselm in 12 c ad) repeated over and over again in conference is nonsense and arguably paganistic? In other words, it is fringe when I find something or anything that challenges the orthodox religion of any leader?

Finally, what I read from such talks is that while there is wisdom throughout the talk, the underlying theme is that we are the guardians of orthodoxy/ main stream and any deviations from what we consider normal is suspect. ,

However, I can only look at my little world and realize whether it is my oldest son (32) or youngest (13) they can question, explore, hobby horse, venture all they want—plumb the depths of one topic or another and then go on to the next. I am just not that comfortable with circumscribing the pursuit of knowledge.

When I first read Elder Oaks address it was just months after Gileadi was cut off from the church for hobby horsing the study of Isaiah (I had spent a week studying with Gileadi before he was just weeks later hauled into court). So Elder Oaks address has some special context for me personally.

What Elder Oaks stated overall has some wisdom/pearls but the real life application can sometimes be an excuse to demand orthodoxy ( and I dare say even tell misleading one sided historical accounts) and steer or rather compel the circumscribing of the pursuit of knowledge…

However, the Dalin Oaks quote is: “…if this desire is not disciplined, it can cause some to pursue…beyond the fringes…seeking answers to obscure mysteries rather than seeking a firmer understanding…of the basic principles of the Gosplel.”
So I would say that the “key” is that some seek answers to obscure mysteries rather than seeking a firmer understanding of the basic principles of the Gospel because their desire to know every principle of the Gospel, is not disciplined.

I’m glad to know that those cases I heard about were probably aberrant.

Re #96 “the more we attempt to emphasis our point the more aggressive we seem”

Would you classify Elder Holland’s two talks that defend the status of Mormons as Christians to be seemingly aggressive? He prefaces his first talk with a rationale of clearing up misperception rather than being apologetic. Some historical and theoligical information is presented. I would consider their tone somewhat unusual as far as general conference addresses go.

It would seem that in the Ballard model, we would simply answer with the first article of faith, perhaps bear testimony of Jesus Christ as our personal savior and “move on.” If someone had a sincere interest in knowing, then they could be referred to the Holland talks. If they merely want to contend, then the opportunity to find “common ground” is not there. If people disagree with me and think I am not Christian, then I’m not going to lose sleep over it. If people who truly know me label me as acting “unChristian”, I would probably lose sleep.

Don’t worry Holden, Seth is just still bristling from conversation on other sites about the same subject.

I have learned, the hard way, that on these threads that it is wise to read the preamble, the source which the preamble is based on, and everyone’s comments before making my own.
A moment of clarity was expressed by Ron M. in his #71 that may reinforce, somewhat, my #41 ["there is 'something' about communicating on the internet that plays tricks with senders and receivers] and some communicate – badly.

Please permit me to place, in nomination, a few awards:

Best Response Award: To Andrew S. in #68.
Best Explanation Award: To Andrew S. in #72&73.
Best ‘Persecution Complex’ statement Award: To Ron M. in #81 [don't worry - many here probably won this at one time]

Ron M.

re #92: Thought you spent way too much time on following the leaders blindly etc.
also: “You may consider this cocktail of ‘established’ priciples [by Ainsworth] as a proposed vaccine for inoculating the Saints from becoming dissilusioned…”
No Thanks – sounds more like poison to me.

#96 MrQandA:

I agree with you, however I’m now concerned with Dalin Oaks entire article and it gives me pause.

No,he is not. But he is, perhaps, an Authoritative Generalist on Mormon Matters.

I am not an ex-Mormon. Our church always takes credit for the good of the church. Ever quote Utah’s longevity of life or lower heart disease rate as proof of the inspiration of the Word of Wisdom? Most do. By their fruits you will know them. We say that a lot. I don’t know exactly what the high Utah bankruptcy means. It’s got to mean something.

I agree I don’t believe you can just ignore the questions or turn to personal attack.

There were many points that I would love to comment on. But will be pointless at this stage.

#94 I will however comment on the Oaks quote, #41

IMO: the key is “if this desire is not disciplined”.

Our desire to study the gospel & histories should be disciplined, seeking the best books, avoiding irrational speculation, studying from good sources and continually using the tool of prayer & contemplation.

we also need to pause at times, be willing to place that which causes difficulty on the shelf for a period of time, until the tide goes out and we can think clearly and ensure we are on a solid foundation of Christ.

If we are based on a firm foundation then relatively we have little to fear, however Satan would seek to draw us out of this safety.

All these subjects are good to study at some point, but it needs to be done line upon line and in its time and season.

Is Andrew Ainsworth a General Authority in the LDS Church?

I just finished reading “Revelation on Priesthood Accepted” by Pres. Eldon N. Tanner, Ensign Nov. 1978. and the letter from Pres. Spencer W. Kimball, dated June 8, 1978.
It didn’t sound like President Kimball was addressing “a big boner/doctrinal error” to me.

You said you would comment on Dalin Oaks statement in #41. – but you haven’t. Nor is there any acknowledgement concerning the Head of the Church raised in # 79.

However, my #85 was addressing your #63, which appeared harsh to me. You appeared to clarify, somewhat, in #92 and I share some of your concerns.
But I’m most affected by Dalin Oaks statement in #41, of which, I would like to hear everyone’s opinion on his [Oaks} entire article, in light with the questions raised in this thread.

In fact that doesn’t describe ANY of my bankruptcy clients – of any ideology or persuasion. Job loss, medical bills, collapse of mortgage values, and divorce – in that order. With predatory lending practices exacerbating the whole thing.

Actually, it could refer to ONE of my clients in over 4 years of bankruptcy practice. But that’s about it.

I think it’s really cheesy, incidentally, how the ex-Mormon crowd has been using bankruptcy as an insult against Mormonism. Always easy for people who won the financial lottery to sneer at those who didn’t. Irrespective of how I feel about Mormonism, I find the insult toward the bankrupt implicit in these criticisms of the Church to be disgusting.

thank you. You mentioned that Jesus “promised” that his “church” would never be led astray in the last days. I am, of course, aware of President Woodruff statement that a prophet would not be allowed to lead us astray without being taken and also Pres. Benson’s “Fourteen Fundamentals.” I am not entirely sure what the phrase “lead astray” means? No mistakes at all? What about some big boners/doctrinal errors like the made up “blacks are not entitled to the priesthood”? Wasn’t a whole race led astray for a season? And the rest of us led astray with that and other falsehoods for a season??

So if a person who is fallible tells you that he will not or cannot lead you astray then can such a statement be considered “infallible”??
Of course, the reasoning is circular. DC 107: 81-84 tells us that NO one is exempt from the councils of the church and that is why I find it very faith promoting to learn that JS was subject to a disciplinary council after Zion’s Camp even if he was not disciplined–And paradoxically I believe it is the belief in “never being lead astray” that is more perilous to our faith when we are on occasion led astray on one issue or another or even a major doctrine/policy then having a healthy “testing and proving” all things attitude that allows us to have faith in what is authentic without requiring us to be tethered to a falsehood that will with time erode faith and confidence when the falsehood is finally exposed. I “worry” more about those that cannot compartmentalize between what is authentic/true and what may very well be false. Compartmentalization allows fire walls so that if something that a prophet or leader teaches proves wrong the whole house need not burn down…

Several months ago I read a post from Andrew Ainsworth–might have come from “Mormon Matters’ on this topic and I will paste his nine conclusory statements below. I agree with all his statements. I respectfully believe that not only are prophets fallible and are capable of making really big fundamental mistakes but that no church–even a true one is immune, including ours, from going astray for a season or even collapsing–unless our individual and collective agency is taken away. I believe that we have been led astray at times and that for me at least it is a false dichotomy to believe that if we are led astray in one area then we are led in all areas OR if we have been led astray for a season that the ship cannot be righted. So, for example, if the last year in Nauvoo is a holy mess and the prophet who received authentic revelations and laid a firm foundation is veering off/going astray for a season, then he can be taken and we can drift for a while and then recover. I see the church as organic and having seasons of sputtering and advancing.

In 1945 a Home Teaching Lesson which was the basis used by Pres. Benson in his fourteen fundamentals stated that a prophet would not ever lead us astray. Pres. George Albert Smith wrote a denunciation of that lesson and said in essence that a prophet could err. His letter fell into relative oblivion while the Home Teaching Lesson by committee survived and thrived.

Anyway, here are a few quotes followed by the ten statements by Andrew Ainsworth stripped of his commentary:

“And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them., if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery to the extreme, and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he returns from his folly. Any man of God…would despise the idea. ” Joseph Smith

“What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they oculd give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. ….(JD 9:150 Brigham Young)

“they cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody must control them. ” BrighamYoung JD 1: 312

then George Cannon warns: “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 will be gone”

The following is a post from Andrew Ainsworth of “Mormon Matters” web site:

“In my view, the needed changes in Mormon culture do not require Church members to depart from their leaders’ counsel. To the contrary, I believe the most needed changes in Mormon culture will occur when Church members “catch up” with what the General Authorities have already told them. In my opinion, one of the most needed changes in Mormon culture is to eliminate Church members’ tendency to elevate the Church, its leaders, and its doctrines to a mythical state of perfection and completeness.

The following is a list of ten things I believe every Mormon needs to know to avoid developing unreasonable expectations about the Church, its doctrine, and its leaders. You could consider this cocktail of established principles a proposed vaccine for inoculating the Saints from becoming disillusioned by just about any difficult or controversial information about the Church.

1. Our current understanding is incomplete. O
2. Church leaders do not claim to be infallible.

3. Not everything a Church leader says is inspired of God.
4. The scriptures may contain human imperfections.

5. Prophets do not claim that all their inspiration is received through face-to-face conversations with God.
6. Sometimes God gives Church leaders discretion to make their own decisions according to their best judgment.

7. Doctrinal errors may exist within the Church.

8. None of the above should undermine our testimony that the scriptures are the “word of God,” or that Church leaders are inspired by God. th

9. Questioning and examining Church leaders’ statements is not only allowed, it is encouraged.

Did their problems also tend to include involvment in multi-level marketing plans and finding reasons why working would be unproductive for them (such as placing their disability benefits and health insurance coverage in jeopardy)? I am aware of a couple of LDS families in such circumstances.

You are correct, sir.

Go to the official LDS site and type in “led astray” in the search engine, then pick #4 “Fourteen Fundamentals in following the Prophet” by Ezra Taft Benson.

got to be careful about “common knowledge”…because often, it might end up being hearsay, rumor, or folklore.

In this case, you can find in the Official Declaration 1 some excerpts from speeches by Wilford Woodruff…there he says that the Prophet will not lead the church astray.

Matt 16:18 is a good quote about the gates of hell never prevailing against the church, but watch out — this is also used by non-Mormon Christians to argue that a great apostasy as the LDS purports is unbiblical…

I was hoping you wouldn’t ask. I know the references are there, – just can’t find it now.
But I heard it so many times, I just assumed it was common knowledge.

However, it appears that you have neglected to bring up in your litany of issues with the LDS Church that the Head of the Church, is Jesus Christ.
And the vast majority of LDS and former LDS are aware that a “promise” was made, by Jesus, that this Church would not be taken away from the Earth and that He [Jesus], will not permit His Church to go astray.
I fear for those that bring their concerns about the management of the Church to light for all the world to see and gaze at.
Imagine, for a moment, if one was suddenly taken from this life and trying to explain their concerns to their Maker about the crummy way His Church is being run.
To me, it brings the statement of Dalin Oaks in #41 in sharper focus.

whoa. As a long time litigator I thrive on challenges but am caught off guard/disarmed with praise. “Sxark” we are all “bums” and I prefer the role of the fool myself. My intrusion was for me an interesting experiment in testing the original thesis–steering conversations and issues. Elder Oaks comments I would like to answer after work. Elder Oaks is a very friendly and wonderful person by all accounts by others and my very little experience. But that statement is also an attempt to control the conversation is it not? That may be this next generation of apostles most challenging problem. Even the question of control may be swept away by avalanche of the Karens out there.

I have reread Andrew S’s doctrinal responses to the scriptures I quoted and found his thoughts addressing the source of my questions/issues valuable and his interpretation has given me pause and I recognize that my interpretation may be unfounded.,What is revealing is that in so doing he did not attempt to steer me away from my core question but effectively addressed the foundational assumptions that I have been employing. In another thread maybe the issue of how to incorporate Mormon 8, 3 Nephi 16, types for our time per Pres. Benson found in Heleman and 3 Nephi, latter-day Davidid servant (Gileadi’s take found in 3 Nephi), Samuel Lamanite type and shadow, DC 112, etc. etc. can all be correlated and make sense–I confess it is too daunting for myself as a non-scholar to tackle. Trying to find meaning and consistency in all these types may be forever out of reach….

Finally, I use the title “Diogenes” in other forums I have just recently ventured into…and yes only a fool carries a lamp at noonday..but there is a reason for it….