Many years ago I bought a new computer — a 386SX-16running MS-Dos5, with a user interface called GeoWorks that had client software for this upstart on-line service that thought some day it could challenge the big-boys (Compuserve and GEnie) called America On-line. It had a free trial number of hours, and I looked around and around (it was a long-distance call to the only access number in my area, and things didn’t move fast on my 2400 baud modem), and, at the very end, I found a listing for Hatrack River Town Meeting, which rung bells from a book I had just bought by Orson Scott Card — there was a little blurb at the end of the book. So I went there, and met Scott and a bunch of people. After a while I was invited to come to a private area called Nauvoo, and there I met Robert Woolley. He was one of the more insightful folks in that space, but it was pretty low-key and happy for the most part.

Fall of 93, I got access to the internet, and discovered e-mail lists, among them one called LDS-Net (aka “Internet First Ward”), and one of the people there was Bob Woolley. I was, at this point, a very opinionated guy (I know that’s hard to believe) arguing for a very traditional by-the-manual approach to Mormonism from a position of ignorance in my first real contact with liberal/progressive/Sunstone/Dialogue Mormons. I was a mess. I didn’t know what I was talking about, and I didn’t even know that I didn’t know what I was talking about. I had my testimony, and I wanted to believe that Church leaders had never really got anything significantly wrong, and that, basically, nothing important had changed from the time Joseph walked out of the Grove.

Well, Bob took some serious time to spank the Hell out of me when I said something really stupid and wrong. He wasn’t alone. I met a bunch of people that I didn’t even know enough to know what kind of rock stars they were in the liberal/progressive/Sunstone/Dialogue community like Greg Prince, Jeff Needle, the Schindler brothers, Kevin Barney, etc.. And I also met some hard-core conservative Mormons like Red Davis and Jon Redelfs, and got to see both sides of a number of issues in Mormonism that I hadn’t really thought through. They all gave me way more to think about than I deserved for my little contribution, but I learned a lot about learning in an environment where views get to butt into each other.

And then, after a few years, and other mail lists like Morm-hist and Scripture-L, Bob Woolley contacted me off-list to let me know that I had posted something to whichever list that he could find nothing with which to argue, and he wanted me to know that. He did that a few more times after that (and I did a few in response). It was quite a sign of how much I had learned that Bob and I were close enough in our thinking at this point.

I left those mail lists after a time because of lack of time, and I lost track of Bob, and haven’t found anybody who knows how he’s doing or where he’s at. I’m not sure he’s still alive. But I think of him often and the debt I owe him that I can’t repay. So I do what I can to pay it forward (even though I find that phrase trite) by giving to others what he gave to me — an opportunity to step back and look at their assumptions, understanding and reasoning, perhaps with additional information they didn’t already know, so they can see if what they’re thinking really works or not. My style isn’t gentle, because gentle leaves wiggle-room for sloppy thinking, and that’s no favor. God chastens who he loves as well, from what I can figure out, and I think I understand some of why.

Bringing your ideas out of your head and placing them in front of other people is a gift, and an act of courage. It takes courage because, when you say something, people will say things back. They will know different things, and see things differently, and they will challenge you and your thinking. Sometimes they won’t be gentle (that would be me). But it’s not necessarily a lack of caring behind that lack of gentleness, and disagreement doesn’t mean you’re entirely wrong or stupid. You’re neither. But you’re not entirely right or more brilliant than everybody else either. You’re just like the rest of us — owner of a finite, unique and limited perspective. Just like the rest of us, you are a blind man facing an elephant. You can describe the part that only you can reach better than anybody else, and leaving your voice out deprives us of knowledge of that unique contribution only you can make. But you’re just one voice, and you don’t understand all that you see, so you need to listen to the other voices, describing what only they can see, and what they can understand of it. So some of the courage is to see and hear and consider, and then to adjust your thinking based on the new light and knowledge you received in the process. It’s hard. Very hard.

Don’t wuss out. Get your helmet, suit up, and get in the game. Let go of your ego (it’s not your friend). Be ready to fall down. When you find you’re on the ground, stand up and get back into the game. It is better to look stupid while you are learning than to look smart while remaining stupid. You have been blessed to live in a time when you can participate in a place like this, where people from all over the world can come and tell you why you’re wrong with the courage that comes from knowing they’ll never have to see your face or have you see their faces. With time, practice, and growth, you get better. You won’t be right all the time, but you’ll be right oftener, and you’ll know where you’re right and wrong oftener. Don’t bury your unique voice in the ground — bring it to the exchange, and make it grow. Truth is not fragile stuff, made of spun sugar and glass. Truth is sturdy, hard stuff, and you can beat it and push on it and twist on it and it will remain. You have to hunt it down, dig it out, and work hard to sift it away from error a grain at a time. You can’t do that in your comfort zone.

So, shake it off. You’re not a deer, and these aren’t headlights. You’re not in danger here. You’re among friends. A little butt-kicking never hurt anybody.

I am so posting this to my own blog.

I don’t know how to fly a NYM!!! I don’t know what a NYM is but I think I know what you mean and 64 is whoever he or she is is not me!!

“I’m interested in learning all the time, and I can’t do that if people think I’m wrong but won’t show me why.”

I guess I am kind of like a deer with head lights on me , when someone attacks I find it hard to think I’m stunned!! Ask my wife

But on the other hand I know Im a hypocrite because I do dish it out here and with my kids. But I do respond to conversation style more than something that appears to be agreesive.

I don’t know about you but if someone is aggressive the fight of flight charactersits come out and if I choose to fight sometimes Im defending something I wouldn’t fight for just to save face!I think we all get enough of that in real life.

life’s tough, brother — get a helmet. It’s good to have your thoughts though and they are thought provoking and challenging

Now, if you’re actually James flying under a ‘nym, and you’re trying to say that I’m not welcome in your threads, then just say so as James and I’ll leave your threads alone. If you’re a perma flying under a ‘nym, then let me know and I’ll leave your threads alone. WordPress doesn’t really give you the capability of shutting me out of commenting without moderating everything (perhaps post-only — I don’t know), but that’s not necessary. I’ll respect your space, and I’m not going to waste my time in a place where I’m not going to get thoughtful responses. That’s not a diss of the blog (and it remains to be seen that it would apply to the whole blog — I don’t think so).

FWIW, you might want to see if I’m being so terribly impolite, or if I’m using a very direct conversation style. I spend a lot of time in recovery settings, and find that leaving lots of possible ambiguity about what I mean counterproductive (sometimes, dangerous), so try to limit the possible ambiguity about the things I’m trying to get across, and then those who see the problems in what I’m saying will have a better chance of showing me that I’m wrong if I am. I’m not interested in being right all the time — I’m interested in learning all the time, and I can’t do that if people think I’m wrong but won’t show me why. It’s frankly less useful than the people who want to make everything I say wrong, even when they have to twist my words to make it look that way, because at least they give me something — benign disagreement isn’t even that substantial.

So, I’m sorry you don’t like my tone. I didn’t care for what I saw as a false dichotomy and mischaracterization that I saw in the OP, and I might have been in a grouchy mood at the time. If you want me out of your threads, I’ve told you what I need to do that. If you can look at what I’m saying a little differently in a way that works for you, then cool. If not, then maybe the best thing is to ignore my comments. It won’t hurt my feelings if you do.

Admin…is there any way we can block people from appearing in our comments section?

My impression is that some quotes and teachings are being presented as mutually exclusive arguments, and I don’t see it that way.

The debate is assuming there is cognitive dissonance by suggesting church leaders say “Don’t think for yourself” and others say “Only think for yourself”. I don’t believe the quotes support that interpretation.

To me, it is better to understand the concepts of personal revelation and institutional revelation (revelation for the church).

I don’t know of any examples that I can think of that suggest those 2 types of revelation are conflicting, thus do not create dissonance.

I cannot receive revelation on the stance the church should take on any matter. I do not hold the keys for that. So if I think for myself, that does not mean that what I think is right is “right” for everyone else in the church. I am allowed my interpretation…and I may be wrong.

The church leaders cannot deprive me of personal revelation and free agency, so I must take what they say and apply my own thinking, studying, and personal revelation to understand what their words mean to me personally, and what I must do so that on the day I stand before God, I can have a clear conscience that I did always seek the will of God and was always obedient to God.

When I don’t agree with what the church may say (for example, my understanding of what the church says on Prop 8), I can choose to act. That does not mean I must shout on the roof tops why I think they are wrong, or leave the church beacuse I disagree with them. But it does not mean I must obey without thinking for myself. In the prop 8 example, would anyone be excommunicated for not contributing funds to the political cause? I know of no one. My understanding is participation was voluntary, with the strong influence of church leadership. They may have exerted heavy influence (which I may disagree with), but there was always a choice by everyone (bishops, members, and everyone).

I always have a choice to agree with or disagree with church quotes, and choose to live my life as I think God wants me to. But I do not have the ability to speak for the church. I may be annoyed if I don’t like what church leaders are saying, but part of this life is coping with our circumstances in a Christ-like way…not pointing out Blain is right or Blain is wrong. I appreciate Blain’s point of view, and I choose to create my own understanding of the principles, always trying to become more like Christ in how I do it.

Obedience and Free Agency are not mutually exclusive or diametrically opposed in their principles.

Perhaps I need specific examples where a prophet has led people astray or where personal revelation was squelched to see where the church has ever infringed on either of this eternal principles. I tend to think God is more concerned with the state of our hearts, than He is about getting all the prophets throughout history to be accurately quoted in books. That is why there must be continuous revelation…to continue to clarify what we need to understand to become better.

Does that work for just the factoids or the entire conglomeration of incongruencies found in church history?

Look, when you’re taught American history in your schools, what are the stories they tell you? Do they start by “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” or similar stories about the Europeans’ uncivil, untrustworthy and downright racist genocide ideas. How many peace treaties were discarded like toilet paper, when more land was wanted from the Natives’ areas?

My point is not to expose Europeans’ lengthy uncivilized and racist ideas in North America; my point is, that nobody, who wants you to get to know them better, starts with the worst things he’s ever done.

I will continue to think for myself. Some things take longer to understand than others, but if there’s a “factoid” that doesn’t seem to fit the general picture of the Church or anything else I have preconceived notions of, I study and pray. Usually I come to a good understanding.

“Sometimes this means stepping up and saying something or doing what we can to correct injustices in the world. Like it or not, the ban from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball on blacks in the church was an injustice.
• Joseph Smith ordained at least three blacks to the priesthood – they’re buried in Salt Lake City.
• So either God changed his mind,
• Brigham Young had some ideas of his own,
• or Joseph Smith was wrong – you can each pick.
• But the real injustices were carried out by the dozens or hundreds (thousands?) of church members who came up with and published, then taught all those strange and horrible “reasons” why blacks couldn’t hold the priesthood.
• And the people who worked their way through genealogies to make sure that there was no African blood back as far as could be found in any new member who was worthy of the priesthood.
• Think of the thousands of people who were hurt or missed out on the gospel because of this!
• If we didn’t have a culture where good people can step back from difficult issues and say “well, if God wanted it to happen he would reveal it to his prophets” who knows what might have happened or how much faster this might have been resolved.
• And I don’t think saying “Well, God must have had His reasons” is acceptable – because it is an abandonment of our responsibilities to think and question and hold our leaders responsible. But that’s just me.”

Mark thanks for your thoughts. I particuarly like the above i bullet pointed. How do you in your mind think about revelation then. I question if God couldn’t through to Brigham Young then how do we know he was able to speak to previous prophets?

The way I see it (and definitely not the way Blaine sees it) is this – when a church leader talks about either being led astray or not being led astray, that is ONLY about doctrinal issues. We’re not talking about the mountain path from Logan to Salt Lake City. And the POINT (or one of the points) of James’ original posting, I think, was to point that out that having a church leader say, “Don’t worry, I and my brothers up here on the podium won’t lead you astray, so just do what we tell you to do [meaning believe what we tell you to believe] and you’ll be fine” is very much the opposite of the comments (sometimes by the same people) directing us to think for ourselves. The idea that “once the prophet has spoken the topic is closed” is inimical to the idea of learning and growing for ourselves in our quest to be like God – you can’t become like anything just sitting on your ass listening to what other people tell you!

Of course, how to reconcile the fact that leaders contradict others, or that some people contradict themselves? Well, one step is to admit that people in general (ourselves included) live lives characterized by varying levels of dissonance at the cognitive level. And James’ point (again, I think) is that members of the church are put into positions where cognitive dissonance can take over because we have church leaders telling us on the one hand to relax and trust what they say – trust where they lead us and trust their opinions on issues big and small because they won’t lead us ASTRAY [again, astray is a code word for DOCTRINALLY ASTRAY - after all, Satan sits at the other end of "astray"] – and on the other hand we have leaders telling us that to unquestioningly accept what we’re told is the worst thing we could do. Sometimes the same people tell us both things, and that’s cognitive dissonance for us trying to make sense of that.

For the record – cognitive dissonance has this definition (among several): Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one’s behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that the attempt to reconcile two statements with rather (or diametrically) opposed points of view by church leaders we are all trying to take seriously would induce some sort of feeling of cognitive dissonance. Well done James!

So I think being put in a position as a person trying to live a fully Christian life and as a faithful member of the church while being told by some church leaders to trust them and their words without worrying and simultaneously being told by others that the last thing you should do is trust them implicitly is a great example of something that could lead us as members to positions of cognitive dissonance. Maybe that’s not the definition Blaine has in his head, but it is a valid one.

Just to be as transparent as possible, I’m on the side of this idea – to become like God I have to figure out how to understand and see things the way God sees them. There are many aids placed here to help me, but I have to develop that understanding (I can’t just take it from someone else fully developed.) If I just accept what someone else tells me about how God sees things I never challenge myself to grow and move closer to the goal of becoming like God. Others don’t see it this way – I have friends who believe all they need is for someone to tell them what to believe. But my current perspective is that we become more godlike (or Christ-like if that makes you feel better [but remember that Christ said if you've seen Me you've seen God]) requires us to exert ourselves. Sometimes this means stepping up and saying something or doing what we can to correct injustices in the world. Like it or not, the ban from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball on blacks in the church was an injustice. Joseph Smith ordained at least three blacks to the priesthood – they’re buried in Salt Lake City. So either God changed his mind, Brigham Young had some ideas of his own, or Joseph Smith was wrong – you can each pick. But the real injustices were carried out by the dozens or hundreds (thousands?) of church members who came up with and published, then taught all those strange and horrible “reasons” why blacks couldn’t hold the priesthood. And the people who worked their way through genealogies to make sure that there was no African blood back as far as could be found in any new member who was worthy of the priesthood. Think of the thousands of people who were hurt or missed out on the gospel because of this! If we didn’t have a culture where good people can step back from difficult issues and say “well, if God wanted it to happen he would reveal it to his prophets” who knows what might have happened or how much faster this might have been resolved. And I don’t think saying “Well, God must have had His reasons” is acceptable – because it is an abandonment of our responsibilities to think and question and hold our leaders responsible. But that’s just me.

And while I agree with whoever wrote up there that I’m (like you)not in a position to judge any church leader, I can look at an act or a belief or a policy and come to a conclusion on whether it’s good (from God) or bad (from man). That’s called the Light of Christ and we all have it (not to mention the Holy Ghost and the Spirit of God.) If our starting position is that anything and everything ANY church leader does or says is by definition correct and unquestionable, we are denying the point of the Light of Christ and introducing an infallibility doctrine that actually doesn’t exist. Are Bishops who decide to forgive (and not report to the police) spouse and child abuse acting in inspired ways? Of course not. Are church leaders who excommunicate guys who come to them and say “I think I’m gay” acting within the bounds of inspiration? Maybe, but if they are then the Bishops who welcome gays and lesbians to their congregations must be wrong! Or maybe that’s another example of actions that can induce feelings of cognitive dissonance in church members who experience both types of bishops!

And don’t forget about our right to object to our leaders – I know no one does that these days (can you imagine the reaction of the congregation?!?) but it did happen in JS’s day.

Also (and sorry for the length of this) look at the recent passage in Salt Lake City of protection in housing and employment for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Before the church sent a spokesperson to address the City Council it was going to be a close vote. After the spokesperson read the church’s position, the bill passed unanimously. Why didn’t everyone ALREADY have enough moral courage and Godlike moral insight to know that people should NOT be fired or thrown out of their home because of sexual orientation – surely people should be protected in their ability to keep a job they are performing well to have the money to live ON and a place to live IN? The church’s position didn’t make that suddenly a just cause – it WAS and IS a just cause. I know it’s just me, but I think God has got to be shaking his head in great sorrow that we have so little compassion and moral courage while claiming to be members of His church.

Back to cognitive dissonance – I think another (and my last point) is this. In many ways the cognitive dissonance in the church is really the conflict between the culture of the church [which is really all about obedience (at it's best interpreted as "we really care about you, we don't want you to fail in this life so trust us, do what you're told by inspired leaders and all will be well"] and the culture of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is )I think) about learning and striving to be like Christ and therefore like God through all the difficulties, failures and learning experiences that it requires. The redemption was made because we WILL fail; living a life of maximum protection to prevent us FROM failing is an attempt to obviate the need for redemption and I think that’s sort of scandalous that we would presume to do that. Developing a moral compass in partnership with God is the point of this life – God rejected the other plan that pretended to guarantee our return to God. Why – well, how could we become like God if we never faced challenges, failed (and repented) and therefore grew in knowledge and capacity sometimes? I mean, Christ managed but then we are all NOT Christ – just trying to be like Him. Figuring out how to do all this with respect and understanding both ways is of course part of the complexity of the issue. But that’s my perspective. Sorry for the LONG post!

PS I’m OK being like Sebastian in those Renaissance paintings – thrown the darts and shoot the arrows if you must!

PPS Sorry for any spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. It’s getting late, I’ve had some cold medicine and it’s off to bed for me. Thanks for your compassion!

The way I read it. I’m thinking the rule is Mor before mon, except after e.

But is it a new concept to someone, that we (hopefully) have a relationship with the Lord that is independent of the Church?

For me, for a while after I was baptized, I thought that the Church pretty much is God (not literally!), but then I learned to pray. For me, real, constant prayer was a totally new concept. The evening prayers that my mom made me say made me squirm (the hypocrisy or something, I’m not totally aware of what it was; just her mental/spiritual absence maybe). So that was not exactly a good point to start from…

“Through the medium of your paper, I wish to correct an error among men. . . . The error I speak of, is the definition of the word “MORMON.” It has been stated that this word was derived from the Greek morme. This is not the case. There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of God, translated the Book of Mormon. Let the language of that book speak for itself. On the 523d page, of the fourth edition, it reads: “And now behold we have written this record according to our knowledge in the characters which are called among us the Reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech; and if our plates had been sufficiently large, we should have written in Hebrew, but the Hebrew hath been altered by us, also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold ye would have had no imperfection in our record, but the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also, that none other people knoweth our language; therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.” Here then the subject is put to silence, for “none other people knoweth our language,” therefore the Lord, and not man, had to interpret, after the people were all dead and as Paul said, “The world by wisdom know not God.” So the world by speculation are destitute of revelation; and as God in His superior wisdom has always given His saints, wherever he had any on the earth, the same spirit and that spirt, as John says, is the true spirit of prophecy which is the testimony of Jesus. I may safely say that the word Mormon stands independent of the learning and wisdom of this generation.–Before I give a definition, however, to the word, let me say that the Bible in its widest sense, means good; for the Savior says according to the gospel of John, “I am the good shepherd;” and it will not be beyond the common use of the terms, to say that good is among the most important in use, and though known by various names in different languages, still its meaning is the same, and is ever in opposition to bad. We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, god; the Goth, goda; the German gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word MORMON; which means, literally, more good. Yours, Joseph Smith.”

I quoted that entire section because it shows the great length to which Joseph Smith went to explain his inspiration and the lack of that of the world. He used that inspiration to tell the real meaning of the word Mormon.

In 1990 in the Ensign Pres Hinckly wrote, “I knew, of course, that “more good” was not a derivative of the word Mormon. I had studied Latin and Greek, and I knew that English is derived in some measure from those two languages and that the words more good are not a cognate of the word Mormon.”

His insertion of “of course” to me is interesting. Who knows what to believe, what to think. To me, more reading of the past only creates more uneasiness. I have always felt the same way about Zelph.

I think that his point was that personal worthiness and all other things being equal, he would not deny people blessings of the gospel based on race, gender, wealth, status, etc…

Like BiV, I’ve always seen that as referring to fundamentalist/polygamous groups (and when I’ve asked my bishop and SP, they’ve said that’s what that means.)

however, i can’t say i’ve ever answered that one ‘yes’. I’m more prone to saying “no” one too many times.

If I were to get an infallible communication directly from the Lord explaining to me that my existing moral compass was wrong to rule something out, then I’d consider it. (After getting my head examined by a competent mental health professional.) But if the communication is coming from someone I know to be potentially fallible, then while I would generally obey a direction I believe to be misguided, I would absolutely refuse one I believed to be wicked.

It seems as though this is dealing with control of our thoughts to some extent. Has anyone heard a reasonable explanation of this question? Known anyone who didn’t get TR because of “sympathies”?