CHURCH DISCIPLINARY COURTS ARE FOR ALL?

[Samuel the Lamanite]

http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/ ... ang=eng#76" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please note especially verses 81-82.

1. What does these verses say and what are the implications?
2. Is anyone in the Church exempt from falling? Would that include a Prophet?
3. Is this how God would handle such a falling IF it ever happened? Or would He simply take the fallen one away without using such a court?
4. Why would God leave these verses and the procedures if there was zero chance of their ever being needed? Remember that this is cannonized scripture that we are all bound to accept and practice.

[Original_Intent]

Rhetorical questions are rhetorical.

If you have any real questions to ask, then ask.

If you have any statements to make, then make them.

I know, I know, the Savior taught by asking questions, and you are just seeking to emulate...

"When ye are converted, strengthen thy brethren."

[Samuel the Lamanite]

OI: Here is an explanation of what a rhetorical question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Would you please explain why you accused me of this?

All my questions have at least two answers. I was expecting someone who was interested to answer and say why? IF not interested, no answer. It is how a dialogue starts.

I would consider them questions that require thought and pondering before answering. And yes, Jesus used questions as a major way to help people understand. AM I wrong in trying to follow His example?

Was that last comment a claim/charge/implication that I'm not converted? If so, wow!!!!

[Original_Intent]

To be blunt, you set yourself up as a teacher on one hand, and question/cast doubt/borderline accuse the General Authorities of acting improperly or not doing enough or not doing as you think they should.

I know, you've been a college professor for thirty years, you have worked in the CES, I don;t know why you keep bringing these facts up, they don;t give any added weight or validity to what you say.
They say those who can't do, teach. That is overly harsh, but my experience with college professors is more oftne than not that means they have a left-wing ideology and in their position of authority they tend to push that ideology (I haven't seen any sign of that from you), but also they tend to either knowingly or unknowingly push the statist agenda - i.e. they teach as they were taught.

As far as your involvement with the CES, it bothers me to see someone who should know better constantly calling into question the actions of the GAs. That's not cool imho, and it bothers me what exactly you might have been teaching while involved in the CES.

I do not believe that a converted person of 70 years of age would be casting doubt and publicly "calling out" the church leadership. I don't mind people who express a dissenting opinion, but when there is repeated "the GAs should...", "why aren't the GAs..." etc. - then yes I will say there is a conversion issue and maybe such a person should focus more on learning than teaching, regardless of their age and regardless of the letters after their name.

I don't want to be your enemy, but you should know me well enough by now that I do tend toward the blunt. If I have one redeeming quality it is that I do not have any agenda other than seeking and exposing truth. I'm not here to score debate points, or win arguments. I toss my thoughts out there and see how they fare. I see incorrect ideas (or at least my perception of incorrect) and I try to knock them down to see how strong they are. I try to keep my ego out of it, and I have a tendency to help those I see suffering from over-inflated egos. I can honestly say that I appreciate being shown that I am wrong, and my experience is that is a RARE gift. Sometimes my "help" is not appreciated and thus I tend to have a few friends that I would trust with my life, but it is not a trait that makes me popular.

I have never foed anyone, and don;t want to foe you, but I will if you want me to (so I will quit responding critically to your posts). Let me know if that is what you want.

If you truly want a dialogue on these scriptures that you linked - what do you want to dialogue about? Are you wondering how a lay member could initiate such a proceeding against a sitting prophet (or other GA)?
If that isn;t it, what exactly do you want to discuss? That is why I said you were just throwing rhetorical questions out there to make a subtle point. And why I challenged you that if you have a REAL question, ask, and if you were making a point, just make the point and don't play games. That will help your dialogue along immensely.

edit: btw I know what a rhetorical question is. You yourself say that you USE QUESTIONS TO TEACH. In other words, you are not seeking an answer, you are trying to persuade or teach via questioning. This is TEXTBOOK rhetorical questioning. So thanks for the attempt to "teach". From the Wikipedia link you posted:

Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to think about what the (often obvious) answer to the question must be.

[LukeAir2008]

http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/ ... ang=eng#76

Please note especially verses 81-82.

1. What does these verses say and what are the implications?
2. Is anyone in the Church exempt from falling? Would that include a Prophet?
3. Is this how God would handle such a falling IF it ever happened? Or would He simply take the fallen one away without using such a court?
4. Why would God leave these verses and the procedures if there was zero chance of their ever being needed? Remember that this is cannonized scripture that we are all bound to accept and practice.

It says in Alma 42 that God is capable of falling - not that he ever will but if he didn't do the right thing he could - so how can any human be beyond falling.

We haven' t had a Prophet fall in this dispensation but every other Church Officer has including members of the First Presidency and Twelve. So God has a way of removing men from the leading councils of the Church or curtailing their power. It doesn't have to be because of transgression.

The only GA I can think of who has been excomunicated in modern times is Elder George P Lee of the Seventy. It's done very discretely. It depends on the situation. Someone like Elder Paul H Dunn who didn't believe in letting the truth get in the way of a good story just agrees to step down and are released without any fuss.

[sbsion]

another question........are church courts ONLY for the "fallen"?

[Original_Intent]

another question........are church courts ONLY for the "fallen"?

I would hope not. Ideally, any two members who are having a disagreement or problem that they cannot resolve would turn to the church court system to mediate a resolution.

At least it is my impression that is a valid use for the church courts...right/wrong? <---not rhetorical!

[LukeAir2008]

The wonderful thing about the genius of the organization of the Church is that in order for it to collapse you would need a majority of the First Pres. and Twelve to go astray. Thats why Joseph Smith said always go with the majority of the Twelve and the records of the Church. He foresaw a time when the members would need to understand and use that counsel. It happened at the time of his death. Pres. Reuben J Clark indicated that it will probably happen again in the future. It would certainly be a great test for the members of the Church. :-s

[LukeAir2008]

another question........are church courts ONLY for the "fallen"?

No, definately not. The most high profile church disciplinary cases are usually over doctrines or teachings that the Brethren disagree with.

[Zkulptor]

OF COURSE the Brethren are fallible. They are not perfect as the Savior was, they have not been translated, they are here to be tested as we are, and have been given jobs in the church just like everyone else. People have this "hero worship" idea even on local levels - that the bishop or stake president "could never do.....(whatever)". That is completely naive. It is documented that Brigham Young witnessed the twelve as they sat in a meeting conspiring to kill the Prophet Joseph Smith. How many early church leaders went before church courts and were disciplined as a result of their actions. What about George P. Lee - a general authority excommunicated in 1989. Of COURSE they are just as human as us, and this would apply to them as well.

I agree, however disagree in constantly trying to judge them for not teaching this or that, and even trying to get people to think the same way... I have to this day never heard the current 12 or the prophet state anything that would make me feel they are lying etc... but if the day comes... you can be sure I will pray about it.. until I know what is going on.
well stated Jules;)

[Nan]

actually the saying why aren't the brethren saying x,y, z reminds me of people who ask why isn't the government taking care of things. I probably have too many people saying the second in my life.

[Zkulptor]

OF COURSE the Brethren are fallible. They are not perfect as the Savior was, they have not been translated, they are here to be tested as we are, and have been given jobs in the church just like everyone else. People have this "hero worship" idea even on local levels - that the bishop or stake president "could never do.....(whatever)". That is completely naive. It is documented that Brigham Young witnessed the twelve as they sat in a meeting conspiring to kill the Prophet Joseph Smith. How many early church leaders went before church courts and were disciplined as a result of their actions. What about George P. Lee - a general authority excommunicated in 1989. Of COURSE they are just as human as us, and this would apply to them as well.

I agree, however disagree in constantly trying to judge them for not teaching this or that, and even trying to get people to think the same way... I have to this day never heard the current 12 or the prophet state anything that would make me feel they are lying etc... but if the day comes... you can be sure I will pray about it.. until I know what is going on.
well stated Jules;)

I agree, and this has been a point I've been adamant about in the past - having the spirit confirm right and wrong to us - not simply trusting in the arm of the flesh. Because although the church leaders are in the positions they are, we have also been warned of wolves and the fallibility of men - including them. So there is an exercise of trust in church leadership, but at the same time, we receive confirmation of their leadership actions by trusting the constant that we KNOW cannot fail - the spirit. We are all subject to the same laws, and we are all if we were to fall - ANY of us. Thanks Zkulptor

Thank you my friend, in other words trust the brethren but never loose connection to the source... in case they er... because to er is human

[Samuel the Lamanite]

OT: You are IMO being evasive. Simply answer the questions as you believe the right answer is and why you take that stand. . No tricks on my part. I also attempt imperfectly to use the Socratic approach to learning which is considered one the best ever developed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Most important is that asking question is a method used often by Jesus. The lecture method is NOT an effective method for helping critical thinking skills. I thought we'll here came to learn from each other, not attack each other. Am I mistaken?

But it's easier isn't it to say because I'm a retired Professor, I MUST be a liberal and statist. Why the evasion?

[Samuel the Lamanite]

OI: to clarify, I never worked for CES. I have taught Institutute at several colleges and my wife and I served as senior for CES/Institute in Phila, PA. Asking questions accuses no one???? It promotes pondering and thinking: it enables one to perhaps learn new perspectives.

Do you actually read that D+C Chapter and the special verses mentioned? What conclusions did you draw? Do these verses show that no one is exempt from Church Courts even the President of the High Priests? Who is the Presdient in terms of office name? Why would this be placed in the D+C if there was zero chance of the President going astray?

My guess is that you're a very smart person who doesn't wish to look at a scripture that may cause you some rethinking. I do understand that. I will NOT call you names nor make accusations about your conversion and faith as you have mine.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Luke: Yes God does have a way and its clearly stated in the D+C referenced. I believe that some think God will come down "with a bolt of lightening (of course an exageration)" and remove a fallen Prophet. But that's NOT what the scripture says.

My expereince dealing with God is that He delegates to us such things, expecting us to do what is necsassary not use God as a crutch. If He did this, how would we ever learn to make tough decisiosn and eventually become "gods?"

[Samuel the Lamanite]

OI: In fact the NT says that no saint having a legal or other disgareement should go to mammon to decide but find good men to make the decision in a Church Court. I don't ever rememebr this being taught in Priesthood or any other class. I learned it from self study.

FWIW, I did this back when I lived in Atlanta in the 1970s. The issue was over a member who had a Job Placement company. I did register with her. But, I also registered with a nonMormon company. It just so happened that this other company was more agressive and found me a job interview and I was hired. The Mormon firm tried to make me pay the commission even though they never referred me to the hiring firm. I simply went to the Bishop, explained the situtaion, and asked for a Bishop's Court. The sister was in another Ward. She was approached I assume by her Bishop. She relented her claim and we never held a Bishop's court.

Perhaps a big problem I have is trying my best to do what the scriptures teach. Perhaps some think this is simply being self righteous. I tend to be a literalist when it comes to the scriptures recognizing many symbolisms also exist. I beleive, for instance, when jesus said the ONLY reason for a divorce that He allows is for adultery. Imo, that is NOT a temporay command but an eternal one. Now, I know that even Temple divorces can be granted for other reason than adultery. I find that troubling. Maybe that PARTIALLY explains why Temple sealing "divorces" are increasing in record numbers?

Has anyone else done this or have you used mammons court system?

[Amore Vero]

Now, I know that even Temple divorces can be granted for other reason than adultery. I find that troubling. Maybe that PARTIALLY explains why Temple sealing "divorces" are increasing in record numbers?

Yes, it does seem that many church leaders are allowing divorce for any reason & without any consequences today, & thus the divorce rate will continue to sky rocket.

For it seems few will stay & work on a difficult or boring marriage if they can just leave & be rewarded with a fresh new romance & remarriage in the temple, even if it's not what Heavenly Father really allows.

[Original_Intent]

OT: You are IMO being evasive. Simply answer the questions as you believe the right answer is and why you take that stand. . No tricks on my part. I also attempt imperfectly to use the Socratic approach to learning which is considered one the best ever developed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Most important is that asking question is a method used often by Jesus. The lecture method is NOT an effective method for helping critical thinking skills. I thought we'll here came to learn from each other, not attack each other. Am I mistaken?

But it's easier isn't it to say because I'm a retired Professor, I MUST be a liberal and statist. Why the evasion?

I'm well familiar with the Socratic method, which, since you claim to be using I wonder why you objected to me saying your questions were rhetorical. The Socratic method, or Socratic questioning, tends to be rhetorical in nature. (i.e. the "correct" answer is known to the questioner, thus the questions are not seeking an answer but rather are a means of guiding the "instruction" of the audience. Thus rhetorical. Hence, I must ask a rhetorical question - why do you claim to be using the Socratic method on the one hand and object that you are asking rhetorical questions on the other?

Why was Socrates the wisest man in Greece? <----(rhetorical question)

[Samuel the Lamanite]

OI: Still evading. Are you afraid of the logical conclusions that may be reached? BTW, the question on Socrates is a LEADING Question . It assumes a fact not yet in evidence. Where have you used the Socratic method since you claim to know a great deal about the method?

I'm curious... will you ever answer the questions I asked or simply argue over approaches I use? It seems the latter.

[Silas]

Since it says a president of the high priesthood and not the president of the high priesthood, I tend to think this is in reference to stake presidents who are the Presidents of the High Priests Quorums of their own stake. Certainly the president of the church is not infallible but if he ever did anything to merit removal from his office, I imagine his court would be with the Lord. We have been assured that this will not happen though, so I wouldn't worry about it.

[Jnewby]

We have been assured that the Prophet won't lead the Saints astray, quite frankly, that is good enough for me. The Lord has a way of taking care of his business, I suspect his way will be made clear if and when that time is needed. In the meantime, while it may be interesting to surmise, it really doesn't matter and I for one can think of whole slew of other topics that are much more pertinent to today's climate.

[Zkulptor]

We have been assured that the Prophet won't lead the Saints astray, quite frankly, that is good enough for me. The Lord has a way of taking care of his business, I suspect his way will be made clear if and when that time is needed. In the meantime, while it may be interesting to surmise, it really doesn't matter and I for one can think of whole slew of other topics that are much more pertinent to today's climate.

agreed my friend!

[reese]

The Leadership Of The Church
One of the areas of concern expressed by many Latter-day Saints today is the concept of infallibility of the church leaders. It seems to be generally taught in the church today that the General Authorities, and especially the prophet, can’t make important mistakes or teach things which are incorrect. Yet, as we have already demonstrated, it is clear that there are contradictions between the teachings of the early prophets of the church and the later ones. In almost every major area of LDS doctrine, from the attributes and nature of God to the purpose and function of the ordinances, we find discrepancies that are difficult, if not impossible, to completely harmonize. This tends to give rise to debate by honest seekers of truth and doubt to those who would find fault with the church or the gospel. Given these apparent contradictions, an honest truth seeker should not be too heavily criticized for asking which position is correct, if any. It seems to be a legitimate question to ask.

It is interesting to note that the doctrine of infallibility itself seems to be one of the apparent discrepancies between the early brethren and the modern leaders. Although it is taught with great frequency and force in the LDS church today, most of the early brethren seemed to stay away from the doctrine of infallibility. For example, the Prophet Joseph Smith boldly taught-

"We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them (even) if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves." (Millennial Star, Vol. 14, Num. 38, pp.593-595)

President Brigham Young was also very concerned about the saints blindly following their leaders-

"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 that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:151)

"The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness, each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray." (JD 6:100)

"I do not want men to come to me or my brethren for testimony as to the truth of this work; but let them take the Scriptures of divine truth, and there the path is pointed out to them as plainly as ever a guideboard indicated the right path to the weary traveller. There they are directed to go, not to Brothers Brigham, Heber, or Daniel, to any apostle or elder in Israel, but to the Father in the name of Jesus, and ask for the information they need. Can they who take this course in honesty and sincerity receive information? Will the Lord turn away from the honest heart seeking for truth? No, He will not; He will prove to them, by the revelations of His Spirit, the facts in the case. And when the mind is open to the revelations of the Lord it comprehends them quicker and keener than anything that is seen by the natural eye. It is not what we see with our eyes they may be deceived but what is revealed by the Lord from Heaven is sure and steadfast, and abides for ever. We do not want the people to rely on human testimony, although that cannot be confuted and destroyed; still, there is a more sure word of prophecy that all may gain if they will seek it earnestly before the Lord." (JD 12:96)

These remarks seem to be quite a different story from the “follow the brethren” rhetoric so often taught in the LDS church today. This teaching continued through President Joseph F. Smith’s day-

"I know of but One in all the world who can be taken as the first and only perfect standard for us to follow, and he is the Only Begotten Son of God. I would feel sorry indeed, if I had a friend or an associate in this life who would turn away from the plan of life and salvation because I might stumble or make a failure of my life. I want no man to lean upon me nor to follow me, only so far as I am a consistent follower in the footsteps of the Master." (Gospel Doctrine, Pg.4, underline added. See also the Juvenile Instructor, 1915, Vol. 50, pp. 738, 739.)

[Amore Vero]

Having served a mission in Italy & seeing 1st hand over & over how they believe the Pope could do no wrong, I often see & feel the same 'blind faith' with some in the Church. I believe such a thing blocks progression & makes one spiritually weak, because we then don't stay alert & take responsibility on themselves to judge from the scriptures even what leaders may say & thus, we become unable to discern either 'truth or errors'.

If we put blind faith in someone & believe they can never be wrong than it only encourages us to not check things out for ourselves & make sure what is taught is true or not.

We know that Prophets are not infallible, & can fall. At times Prophets seem to teach opposite things from the pulpit & so when we find they do, we must study & pray about it all to know which one is right. For we are told that all true revelations will never contradict each other.

Joseph Smith taught that we must weigh everything that is taught by anyone in the Church by what the scriptures say, to see if it's true or not. Joseph Smith & Brigham Young did not seem to believe they couldn't fall or couldn't teach false doctrine. And thus they warned the Saints to always be on guard for their own salvation & not rely on any man or men to do that for them.

I can't find anywhere in the scriptures, (where Joseph said to look to confirm a truth) where it says that 'a Prophet can never lead us astray'.

[Jnewby]

I don't believe many would argue that we must seek the spirit in all things, that is repeated many times in scripture and by the leaders today. We should all be doing that daily. I would submit that seeking the spirit and looking for errors might be two different things. The Lord has told us that he will not allow the prophet to lead his sheep away, that should help us with many of the questions that we may have.

While even a prophet is prone to human error and weakness, knowing that Lord has said he will take care of the problem if it arises - means I don't have to.

I can concentrate on the other things that I have been counseled to do to prepare. There are far to many mysteries and unknowns in this world for me to attempt to find fault in our leaders (who may even have more eternal insight than do I), when the Lord has said he will take care of it.

Yes, it is fun to question motives and wonder why some of the things are the way they are, I think that is human nature. But it is also potentially very damaging when we think we have the right answers based on what we know without the "mantle" the leaders have been given by the Father.

Our stand on various views and issues largely comes from where we have sat throughout our lifetime. I haven't sat in the prophets seat as of yet, so my stand is incomplete.