NOM

Heard is RS today. With lots of agreeing head nods. After a comment on the top 15 being men who have been refined but are still just human.

And that it's ok if you follow a prophet or a bishop and end up doing the wrong thing. Not your fault-blame will lie on the priesthood holder.

I have never heard either of these before. And both comments went against the lesson that basically said prophets are men (albeit given authority to preside) and that God won't allow the prophet to lead us astray (except in giving the blacks the priesthood, Adam God theory, and interracial marriage /s).

Have you heard either of these before? I would never teach my children to forfeit their agency to blind obedience like this.

This from Heber J. Grant:

"My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it."

There are others. This teaching has been around a long while. Sadly.....

See Mountain Meadows.

I doubt it helped ease the conscience of some of those participants who were never the same for the rest of their lives.

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:44 pm This from Heber J. Grant:

"My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it."

There are others. This teaching has been around a long while. Sadly.....

See Mountain Meadows.

I doubt it helped ease the conscience of some of those participants who were never the same for the rest of their lives.

Oh yuck. I forgot about that one.

I feel like we're in a tug of war. One side is telling us that prophets never make mistakes while the other is telling us that we are to blame when we expect prophets to never make mistakes.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:01 pm I feel like we're in a tug of war. One side is telling us that prophets never make mistakes while the other is telling us that we are to blame when we expect prophets to never make mistakes.

I told my oldest about it when I got home and got this response, well then they better quit saying "he was speaking as a man". And this is my most TBM child.

God judges us according to our own conscious. I doubt that many women could get away with, "I was just doing as the man said."

However, there is a massive amount of functionality in following orders. For thousands of years marriage worked because men and women could put the burden on God. As we become more independent, we take more responsibility and oddly, more relationships fail.

I sort of miss the days I could just follow directions and think it would all work out.

Follow church leaders no matter what, God approves... Sounds more like an authoritarian corporate or military mandate than what a church should be teaching. Whatever happened to following your conscience? Or thinking for yourself. Or teach them correct principles and they will govern themselves.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:01 pm I feel like we're in a tug of war. One side is telling us that prophets never make mistakes while the other is telling us that we are to blame when we expect prophets to never make mistakes.

Yep. They want to eat their cake and have it too. They decry the idea of infallible leadership (often incorrectly using Catholics as an example in the process) and then go about teaching and practicing a form of leadership infallibility in all but name. If cornered you'll get them to admit that leaders are men and they are capable of mistakes but you get teachings such as the prophet can't lead the church astray or that right or wrong the right thing is to do what the prophet says. The truly amusing thing (if you have to heart to find it amusing) is they can produce quotes for both positions. Call them out on worship or abrogating their moral responsibility and they'll quote:

Attributed to Brigham Young wrote: The greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord.

Suggest the Prophet might have been speaking as a man and they'll quote:

Official Declaration 1, Wilford Woodruff wrote: The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

What's even crazier is you don't have to look to far to find a TBM willing to assassinate the epistemological validity of prayer if you dare suggest you prayed and god told you something contrary to church positions and teachings. I've honestly had conversations that basically went:

TBM: We don't blindly follow the prophet, you should pray to know what he's saying is true.
Non-TBM: What if an answer doesn't come or doesn't come immediately?
TBM: Then you should continue to act as if what the prophet says is true until you receive an answer.
Non-TBM: What if the answer I receive says the prophet is mistaken?
TBM: Then you're being deceived, the spirit would never contradict the prophet. Continue acting as if what the prophet says is correct until you receive an answer and any answer that says he's wrong is Satan's counterfeit.
Non-TBM: So you're saying you don't blindly follow the prophet but I should act like he's always correct until I receive confirmation he is correct and that I'll never receive an answer that he's incorrect.
TBM: Exactly. Make sure you pray though, Christ doesn't want people to just blindly follow the prophet. *insert Brigham Young quote*

The cringey thing looking back at it is I was the TBM in the conversation.

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:44 pm This teaching has been around a long while. Sadly.....

See Mountain Meadows.

I doubt it helped ease the conscience of some of those participants who were never the same for the rest of their lives.

Had the same exasperated conversation with DW in the car park after SS, after comments about obedience, and not following your own wisdom. Mentioned to TBM DW Mountain Meadows and the Martin Handcart Company.

Folk prattling on about Obedience and Satan drive me nuts.

The 14 fundamentals in following the prophet get drug out at least once every 6 months, either during general conference or in talks at the local level. Some people feel more comfortable/safer by allowing people in positions of authority to define their moral compass for them.

http://rationalfaiths.com/fourteen-fund ... g-prophet/

nibbler wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:02 am http://rationalfaiths.com/fourteen-fund ... g-prophet/

Super link

nibbler wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:02 am The 14 fundamentals in following the prophet get drug out at least once every 6 months, either during general conference or in talks at the local level. Some people feel more comfortable/safer by allowing people in positions of authority to define their moral compass for them.

http://rationalfaiths.com/fourteen-fund ... g-prophet/

Oh, good heck, that talk was awful, and even though the then current prophet rebuked him for the speech, it's still quoted all the time. Also, I have heard the Heber J. Grant/Marion Romney quote many, many times. It's quoted in numerous lesson manuals.

It's interesting to see how far Wiford Woodruff felt compelled to go to overcome the momentum of his previous "Arizona revelation" (1880)that defended not only polygamy, but imminent Armageddon.
And then his words took on a life of their own. A circular reasoning life of their own.
The baffling truth is whatever god gave Woodruff that revelation was playing him, just as whatever god inspired Parley Pratt to curse the Sunderland guy in his "Mormonism Unveiled" tract was playing him. This takes us back to Joseph Smith's missing revelation about the Canadian copyright for the BOM. But it is a rare Mormon that will take the time to listen to the context. They just want a simple, comfortable, convenient falsehood like "the prophet will never lead the church astray."

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:20 pmFor thousands of years marriage worked because men and women could put the burden on God.

It worked pretty well for men, anyway. It worked great for Brigham Young and his buddies who put all of the blame solidly in God's court.

Dravin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:21 am

Attributed to Brigham Young wrote: The greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord.

Was that before or after he said people in mixed marriages should be killed, and their children along with them? I wonder if the shooters and clubbers at the MMM were first offered the option to kneel, pray and ponder before doing their "priesthood duty"?

Dravin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:21 am TBM: We don't blindly follow the prophet, you should pray to know what he's saying is true.
Non-TBM: What if an answer doesn't come or doesn't come immediately?
TBM: Then you should continue to act as if what the prophet says is true until you receive an answer.
Non-TBM: What if the answer I receive says the prophet is mistaken?
TBM: Then you're being deceived, the spirit would never contradict the prophet. Continue acting as if what the prophet says is correct until you receive an answer and any answer that says he's wrong is Satan's counterfeit.
Non-TBM: So you're saying you don't blindly follow the prophet but I should act like he's always correct until I receive confirmation he is correct and that I'll never receive an answer that he's incorrect.
TBM: Exactly. Make sure you pray though, Christ doesn't want people to just blindly follow the prophet. *insert Brigham Young quote*

Boy, that's pretty much it in a nutshell! And all of the statements from the TBM are taken directly from conference talks.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:57 pm

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:20 pmFor thousands of years marriage worked because men and women could put the burden on God.

It worked pretty well for men, anyway. It worked great for Brigham Young and his buddies who put all of the blame solidly in God's court.

I resist judging the past based on what I know or believe. Not long ago, men could barely conceive that women should vote. They couldn't conceive many things that we do know. And I am sure the future will look back at us. Some will call us heroes, some will call us slime.

But marriage, hitherto now, has been one of the building blocks of civilization. As it dies, will the future cheer us like the development of education, or mourn us like the fall of Rome?

Whether marriage was good or bad, it was part of what got us here. Men and women being what they were, physically got us here. Can the switch ups, the gender tornadoes, the mass rejection of traditional, leave us with enough functionality to continue on?

Tradition is sort of the science of what worked before. Change is great, but there is no precedent for what is happening. As much as I dislike BY, what he had was working. Civilization can be a fragile thing. I'm not convinced that we are rebuilding it in a sustainable manner.

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:47 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:57 pm

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:20 pmFor thousands of years marriage worked because men and women could put the burden on God.

It worked pretty well for men, anyway. It worked great for Brigham Young and his buddies who put all of the blame solidly in God's court.

I resist judging the past based on what I know or believe. Not long ago, men could barely conceive that women should vote. They couldn't conceive many things that we do know. And I am sure the future will look back at us. Some will call us heroes, some will call us slime.

But marriage, hitherto now, has been one of the building blocks of civilization. As it dies, will the future cheer us like the development of education, or mourn us like the fall of Rome?

Whether marriage was good or bad, it was part of what got us here. Men and women being what they were, physically got us here. Can the switch ups, the gender tornadoes, the mass rejection of traditional, leave us with enough functionality to continue on?

Tradition is sort of the science of what worked before. Change is great, but there is no precedent for what is happening. As much as I dislike BY, what he had was working. Civilization can be a fragile thing. I'm not convinced that we are rebuilding it in a sustainable manner.

So... Which version of marriage is the "Tradition that worked before"?

Biblical?


Early mormon version?


I wonder how many other marriage "traditions" Google knows about?

wtfluff wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:53 pm

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:47 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:57 pm
It worked pretty well for men, anyway. It worked great for Brigham Young and his buddies who put all of the blame solidly in God's court.

I resist judging the past based on what I know or believe. Not long ago, men could barely conceive that women should vote. They couldn't conceive many things that we do know. And I am sure the future will look back at us. Some will call us heroes, some will call us slime.

But marriage, hitherto now, has been one of the building blocks of civilization. As it dies, will the future cheer us like the development of education, or mourn us like the fall of Rome?

Whether marriage was good or bad, it was part of what got us here. Men and women being what they were, physically got us here. Can the switch ups, the gender tornadoes, the mass rejection of traditional, leave us with enough functionality to continue on?

Tradition is sort of the science of what worked before. Change is great, but there is no precedent for what is happening. As much as I dislike BY, what he had was working. Civilization can be a fragile thing. I'm not convinced that we are rebuilding it in a sustainable manner.

So... Which version of marriage is the "Tradition that worked before"?

Biblical?


Early mormon version?


I wonder how many other marriage "traditions" Google knows about?

Thanks wtfluff. I was looking for that and couldn't find it!

Saidnobody-lots of good info on the origins of monogamy out there in the Internet if you're interested.....

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:44 pm This from Heber J. Grant:

"My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it."

There are others. This teaching has been around a long while. Sadly.....

See Mountain Meadows.

I doubt it helped ease the conscience of some of those participants who were never the same for the rest of their lives.

I know that basic higher intelligence wouldn't accept this without trust. But it can and does work. The military has plenty of intelligent people, but if the soldiers were second guessing orders at any given point, it wouldn't work. Not to say they will do just anything. Like in the story of a Few Good Men. Unity usually blesses everyone.

It sounds oppressive, I get it. But unity gives us most of our blessings. When in the priesthood, I had no problem following direction, but I was never asked to do something that offended my conscious. I wasn't blind or dumb about my willingness to support and follow. My ideas eventually took me another direction. Now I am more a rogue priesthood guy, just helping where I can.

MMM wasn't so much about following direction. Johnson's army was coming, rumours of war were floating about, and apparently they had nice horses. It was a mixture of local greed, group hysteria.

BY just covered it up.

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:01 am MMM wasn't so much about following direction. Johnson's army was coming, rumours of war were floating about, and apparently they had nice horses. It was a mixture of local greed, group hysteria.

BY just covered it up.

I'm going to be honest SaidNobody-You're fairly new and you don't have a ton of posting history. But I can't decide if the things you say are a play on your username or if you mean these things. A quick search will give you plenty of information on BY's involvement in MMM.