CCM: If You Don't Know, Don't Condemn.

[jbalm]

Maybe. But the guys at the COB make the final call.

[ajax]

Suppose it is the case that the Brethren are doing as they are directed of God. It seems to me that option 3 looks an awful lot like a textbook example of man counseling their fellow man, or, alternatively, of trying to persuade men away from their divinely appointed course.

We're back to common consent. Let's not go in circles. As long as there is ZERO transparency and ZERO common consent, it is my right and responsibility to call time out when I see things like malls going up.

You asked for the standard by which I judge this, and that is the standard. I don't call individuals names, or call into question their worthiness. But I do call question the process that has become corrupted.

[log]

Suppose it is the case that the Brethren are doing as they are directed of God. It seems to me that option 3 looks an awful lot like a textbook example of man counseling their fellow man, or, alternatively, of trying to persuade men away from their divinely appointed course.

We're back to common consent. Let's not go in circles. As long as there is ZERO transparency and ZERO common consent, it is my right and responsibility to call time out when I see things like malls going up.

You asked for the standard by which I judge this, and that is the standard. I don't call individuals names, or call into question their worthiness. But I do call question the process that has become corrupted.

Indeed, let's not go in circles. Let's flesh out the thinking.

Can a thing done by common consent not be of God?

Can a thing not done by common consent be of God?

[freedomforall]

What's with the slam on business? When did business become a problem for members of this church, who ought to know full well that the Lord established a constitution that encourages the free market. That is, unless you're part of that "you didn't build that" crowd...

I've been searching for a website, or something, that would show all the church owned stores from the 1800's to present. No luck so far. anyway, I think these stores were owned or at least in part had something to do with the church.

Apparently, some people have forgotten all about Zions Cooperative Mercantile Institution (ZCMI) opened in 1868?
How about Utah Woolen Mills open since 1905?
Auerbachs from the 1850's.

Does anyone know of others?

[hyloglyph]

Suppose it is the case that the Brethren are doing as they are directed of God. It seems to me that option 3 looks an awful lot like a textbook example of man counseling their fellow man, or, alternatively, of trying to persuade men away from their divinely appointed course.

We're back to common consent. Let's not go in circles. As long as there is ZERO transparency and ZERO common consent, it is my right and responsibility to call time out when I see things like malls going up.

You asked for the standard by which I judge this, and that is the standard. I don't call individuals names, or call into question their worthiness. But I do call question the process that has become corrupted.

Indeed, let's not go in circles. Let's flesh out the thinking.

Can a thing done by common consent not be of God?

Can a thing not done by common consent be of God?

Let me interject Log.

Doctrine and Covenants 104:71

71 And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order.

Doctrine and Covenants 26:2

2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith.

Doctrine and Covenants 28:13

13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

So we agree that the D&C calls for common consent in matters financial and otherwise?

Are you proposing that God would now be directing the Brethren via revelation to go against a previous revelation?

And then on top of that to be doubly tricky-- God is then not allowing them to publish the new revelation that directs them to go against the former revelation?

And then, they are instructed to go against revelation again, by not allowing the church an opportunity, through much prayer and faith, to accept the new revelation (that contradicts the old revelation) as authentic and of God?

Is that what is being suggested or am I miss-reading the whole thing?

[log]

Indeed, let's not go in circles. Let's flesh out the thinking.

Can a thing done by common consent not be of God?

Can a thing not done by common consent be of God?

Let me interject Log.

Doctrine and Covenants 104:71

71 And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order.

Doctrine and Covenants 26:2

2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith.

Doctrine and Covenants 28:13

13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

So we agree that the D&C calls for common consent in matters financial and otherwise?

It says many things we don't do anymore. Heck, D&C 89 was explicitly not a commandment.

Are you proposing that God would now be directing the Brethren via revelation to go against a previous revelation?

We do pretty much nothing by common consent anymore. I'm simply asking questions.

And then on top of that to be doubly tricky-- God is then not allowing them to publish the new revelation that directs them to go against the former revelation?

The Brethren also did not run the Prop 8 campaign by common consent, neither did they publish new revelation, as such, directing them to do it.

And then, they are instructed to go against revelation again, by not allowing the church an opportunity, through much prayer and faith, to accept the new revelation (that contradicts the old revelation) as authentic and of God?

We, and they, have inherited a system which no longer runs by common consent.

Is that what is being suggested or am I miss-reading the whole thing?

I'm only asking questions. I can understand why those questions may well go unanswered.

[hyloglyph]

Indeed, let's not go in circles. Let's flesh out the thinking.

Can a thing done by common consent not be of God?

Can a thing not done by common consent be of God?

Let me interject Log.

Doctrine and Covenants 104:71

71 And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order.

Doctrine and Covenants 26:2

2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith.

Doctrine and Covenants 28:13

13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

So we agree that the D&C calls for common consent in matters financial and otherwise?

It says many things we don't do anymore. Heck, D&C 89 was explicitly not a commandment.

Are you proposing that God would now be directing the Brethren via revelation to go against a previous revelation?

We do pretty much nothing by common consent anymore. I'm simply asking questions.

And then on top of that to be doubly tricky-- God is then not allowing them to publish the new revelation that directs them to go against the former revelation?

The Brethren also did not run the Prop 8 campaign by common consent, neither did they publish new revelation, as such, directing them to do it.

And then, they are instructed to go against revelation again, by not allowing the church an opportunity, through much prayer and faith, to accept the new revelation (that contradicts the old revelation) as authentic and of God?

We, and they, have inherited a system which no longer runs by common consent.

Is that what is being suggested or am I miss-reading the whole thing?

I'm only asking questions. I can understand why those questions may well go unanswered.

Yes I am aware of D&C 89 issues, and many many others.

I guess we agree that there are many church policies and practices that seem to sidestep the revelations.

What I am wondering is--

Are you saying it is possible that God has instructed the brethren (secretly) to go against His word?



If you don't know, don't condemn-- well yes, I agree.

But we do know, that the scriptures call for common consent in many instances.

We also know that this is not being followed.

so.....

What are you getting at?

[log]

Are you saying it is possible that God has instructed the brethren (secretly) to go against His word?

Without knowledge, it is impossible to know, one way or the other. Nephi was secretly instructed to kill Laban, after all, so it's not like there's not precedence for that.

If you don't know, don't condemn-- well yes, I agree.

But we do know, that the scriptures call for common consent in many instances.

We also know that this is not being followed.

so.....

What are you getting at?

I'm simply asking questions. What we have is not what Joseph restored, granted. The system we have inherited does not follow the scriptures, granted.

Now, if someone wants to get around to answering those questions, maybe we can go somewhere. Of course, I will completely understand if those questions go unanswered.

[hyloglyph]

hyloglyph wrote:Are you saying it is possible that God has instructed the brethren (secretly) to go against His word?


Without knowledge, it is impossible to know, one way or the other. Nephi was secretly instructed to kill Laban, after all, so it's not like there's not precedence for that.

So that is what you are suggesting-- that it is possible for God to go against His own word?


I almost see your point with the Nephi thing but, I could also say a lot about that-- for example I suspect that while Nephi killing Laban in that one isolated incident is one thing (Laban was at least guilty of multiple counts of attempted murder, had also stolen his property, may still have men out looking to kill Nephi and fam etc etc), it would be totally different if Nephi came out and said "okay guys no need for us to follow the thou shalt not kill thing anymore, we are just gonna start killing whenever we please." But we don't need to get into that now.

I'm simply asking questions. What we have is not what Joseph restored, granted. The system we have inherited does not follow the scriptures, granted.

Now, if someone wants to get around to answering those questions, maybe we can go somewhere. Of course, I will completely understand if those questions go unanswered.

Wait what questions are you asking exactly that will probably go unanswered?

[Brother of Matt]

There was a time where I would follow blindly . But know I know better. When god creates or inspires something and then turns it over to his children, he honors our agency to choose what to do with it. When we change it and say we are improving gods design, we then fall under condemnation. Huh haven't we been under condemnation since 1832, we need to repent do everything that HE asks us to, not men.

[log]

These.

Indeed, let's not go in circles. Let's flesh out the thinking.

Can a thing done by common consent not be of God?

Can a thing not done by common consent be of God?

[hyloglyph]

These.

Indeed, let's not go in circles. Let's flesh out the thinking.

Can a thing done by common consent not be of God?

Can a thing not done by common consent be of God?

Yes

and

Yes





Now this:

Does God give revelation that contradicts His own revelations?

Even if He did, would this be done in secret so that there is no way for all to be warned that there has been a change made?

[log]

These.

Indeed, let's not go in circles. Let's flesh out the thinking.

Can a thing done by common consent not be of God?

Can a thing not done by common consent be of God?

Yes

and

Yes

Great! Then you, at least, agree that common consent is not the issue with CCM. Now, whether Ajax agrees is a different issue altogether.

Now this:

Does God give revelation that contradicts His own revelations?

As in telling people to do stuff that might appear to break his commandments, like, say, Nephi slaying Laban, contrary to the revelation which says "thou shalt not kill"?

Hear the Prophet:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.'

Dean C. Jessee (editor), The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 507-509

Even if He did, would this be done in secret so that there is no way for all to be warned that there has been a change made?

God will do as he will. That kind of question has no set answer. The only thing God would not do is lie.

[Hippophibia]

Now this:

Does God give revelation that contradicts His own revelations?
As in telling people to do stuff that might appear to break his commandments, like, say, Nephi slaying Laban, contrary to the revelation which says "thou shalt not kill"?

It is very common in the scriptures to give contradictory commandments - but one needs to follow the higher law.

A few quick examples.
=In the garden of Eden they were told to not eat the fruit and be fruitful and multiply.
=Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son, but thou shalt not kill.
=When Jesus prepared for his mission by fasting 40days he was taken to pinnacle of the temple and Satan quoted scripture to him - He responded with scripture.
=Thou shalt do no work on the Sabbath but if the ox is in the mire!!!

[hyloglyph]

Great! Then you, at least, agree that common consent is not the issue with CCM. Now, whether Ajax agrees is a different issue altogether.

No. You are taking a leap. Common consent is still an issue.

As in telling people to do stuff that might appear to break his commandments, like, say, Nephi slaying Laban, contrary to the revelation which says "thou shalt not kill"?

lol, how many times can Nephi be brought up? Did you read what I wrote earlier about Nephi v. Laban?

Nephi did not change the practice of a whole nation, it was just one incident involving someone who was guilty of crimes punishable by death anyways. Nephi was justified in killing Laban not only by the Lord but also by the law. The thou shalt not kill rule stood before, and still remained after. Nephi then made public the revelation that he received in that special circumstance, even quoting the Lord word for word. This showed that his actions were justified by God. He also made an effort to explain how he was justified by the law. He did this for a reason. The command to not kill could not just be ignored without explanation.

The common consent thing is now changed basically for good (not just a one-time thing), with zero revelation produced and no explanation or justification--

Are these differences not obvious? I do not see any honest way that Nephi v. Laban can be used as a sound precedent.

Are we not bound by what the scriptures say in plainness?

The law of common consent is not some deep obscure, hard to understand doctrine about higher spiritual/individual things. It is a temporal law given to us in plainness-- a law regarding how the temporal church is to operate. A law like that cannot be set aside without being replaced with another revelation explaining the new terms.

Look, by your same logic, I could argue that the Pope actually still has authority from God and we actually all need to still be following his traditions...all the innovations contrary to scripture-- the praying to saints, the money for forgiviness, etc etc they actually all this time have been doing God's will. Sure it's not in scripture, but I bet God is still directing them in secret? Do you see how that kind of logic moves into the absurd..?

If scripture is to be ignored, it can only be done with a new revelation--made public. Nephi did it. Jesus did it. Joseph did it. Many others did it.

In my opinion, we can only ignore the scriptures at our own risk. If that wasn't the case, I would be Catholic (they actually accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, and have new revelations on the proper mode of baptism-- the Vatican just hasn't made them public yet).

[log]

Great! Then you, at least, agree that common consent is not the issue with CCM. Now, whether Ajax agrees is a different issue altogether.

No. You are taking a leap. Common consent is still an issue.

Well, since you have agreed common consent is neither necessary nor sufficient for a thing to be of God (or not of God), then common consent is not relevant to whether CCM is of God. There's no leap there.

Therefore, you don't get to condemn CCM because no common consent; you rather must condemn everything the Church does because no common consent; CCM doesn't differ in principle from the publication of the latest Lorenzo Snow manual from the perspective of common consent. It seems people aren't actually being principled when it comes to CCM.

Since common consent, and its absence, are neither necessary nor sufficient to warrant that a thing is, or is not, of God, is it safe to cry that the Brethren have sinned in this or that thing because no common consent? Given, of course, that being wrong (or, perhaps, being right for bad reasons) leads to one being cursed of God?

Aside from simply not taking a position, would it not be safest to ask of God whether the Brethren have sinned? Then one would know. Oddly, nobody seems to be doing that. Or, if someone is, it seems that someone is not saying the Brethren have sinned.

Are we not bound by what the scriptures say in plainness?

Apparently the Church is not. And it doesn't matter how we got here, either, or how our traditions have made the commandments of God of none effect. We must operate in the system we have unless directly instructed otherwise by God.

Matthew 23
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Luckily, there is not as yet a conflict between the commandments of God, and that which the Church asks of us.

The law of common consent is not some deep obscure, hard to understand doctrine about higher spiritual/individual things. It is a temporal law given to us in plainness-- a law regarding how the temporal church is to operate. A law like that cannot be set aside without being replaced with another revelation explaining the new terms.

It can't? It seems it has. Whether the jettisoning of common consent was of God or not is something I don't feel like venturing an opinion on; it's the system as we have it. No use crying over spilled milk; I ain't got a mop or a hanky.

Look, by your same logic, I could argue that the Pope actually still has authority from God and we actually all need to still be following his traditions...all the innovations contrary to scripture-- the praying to saints, the money for forgiviness, etc etc they actually all this time have been doing God's will. Sure it's not in scripture, but I bet God is still directing them in secret? Do you see how that kind of logic moves into the absurd..?

It's not absurd to me, actually, and it is not absurd to the Catholics. In fact, I think we are slowly but surely morphing into Catholics.

If scripture is to be ignored, it can only be done with a new revelation--made public. Nephi did it. Jesus did it. Joseph did it. Many others did it.

Look, you can be an idealistic extremist, rejecting the system, hacking the planet, or whatever - or you can work with what you have until God says otherwise.

In my opinion, we can only ignore the scriptures at our own risk.

I personally do not ignore the scriptures. Therefore, I have no need to worry about it. And that's all that is required of me, and that's all I can do.

[hyloglyph]

Well, since you have agreed common consent is neither necessary nor sufficient for a thing to be of God (or not of God), then common consent is not relevant to whether CCM is of God. There's no leap there.

Ah you don't see it? One does not need common consent to do a Godly thing. But one does need common consent to use money from the church treasury.

And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order.

The only exception to this would be if one received message from God saying otherwise.


So do you see the leap? Common consent is not necessary to do a Godly thing, but that does not prove that it is not necessary in matters regarding the operation of the temporal church. You made that leap. I did not.


Matters taken care of by leadership that affect the body (such as use of treasury funds)-- need to be ratified by common consent. The body needs to remain free to give or take away their consent-- now, as we have seen it is very possible/easy for the leaders to move beyond common consent, but this basically takes away the body's chance at having agency on a church-wide level, and turns them into subjects. They are no longer free agents giving consent, but they are non-voting persons being subjected to any decisions the leaders think up. This is not right.

I suppose it could be possible for God to command the law of common consent to be broken (though it goes against most righteous principles), but then we would need to hear the revelation that asks for it to be broken, pray on it, and receive a confirmation it is true before we could accept it. Until then, we are held to the scriptural standard, even if others are following other commands-- it does not matter what any leader, prophet, pope, or angel says.

Like I alluded to before-- If this were not the case, M. Russell Ballard might today be a Catholic.

Look, you can be an idealistic extremist, rejecting the system, hacking the planet, or whatever - or you can work with what you have until God says otherwise.

I agree with this-- and I think that for many people, God is saying otherwise, and He is saying it louder and louder.

[Hannant]

I can't believe how much things have changed for me the past month, since I read one of the threads here, and was introduced to "Mormon stories podcasts".

For months, heck probably years I could read these kind of threads.

Now, just not even, well, barely interested.

I've just lost my best friend, and his wife and family.

I think I'm next. I don't know what my feelings are about this.

I think I only have one or two posts left in me.

Ajax, JBalm, I don't know how you do it.

You have something I don't have

[Epistemology]

soooo... this is how some posts are reading...

the Church body is not supposed to trust in the "arm of the flesh", but the prophets are supposed to trust in the "arm of the flesh" and do everything by common consent instead of just following the HG and Christ?

The church members are supposed to listen to the HG and not follow the prophet because he is a man, but the prophets who receive direct revelation are supposed to do everything by common consent of the people, even though the scriptures and prophets have shown an established pattern that Christ REVEALS to his prophets and the prophets pass the word on to us when it comes to running His church.

Incredible...

[keep the faith]

soooo... this is how some posts are reading...

the Church body is not supposed to trust in the "arm of the flesh", but the prophets are supposed to trust in the "arm of the flesh" and do everything by common consent instead of just following the HG and Christ?

The church members are supposed to listen to the HG and not follow the prophet because he is a man, but the prophets who receive direct revelation are supposed to do everything by common consent of the people, even though the scriptures and prophets have shown an established pattern that Christ REVEALS to his prophets and the prophets pass the word on to us when it comes to running His church.

Incredible...

Indeed. More logical fallacies than you can shake a stick at. @-)

[jbalm]

I can't believe how much things have changed for me the past month, since I read one of the threads here, and was introduced to "Mormon stories podcasts".

For months, heck probably years I could read these kind of threads.

Now, just not even, well, barely interested.

I've just lost my best friend, and his wife and family.

I think I'm next. I don't know what my feelings are about this.

I think I only have one or two posts left in me.

Ajax, JBalm, I don't know how you do it.

You have something I don't have

Lost your best friend how? Left church? Worse?

[jbalm]

soooo... this is how some posts are reading...

the Church body is not supposed to trust in the "arm of the flesh", but the prophets are supposed to trust in the "arm of the flesh" and do everything by common consent instead of just following the HG and Christ?

The church members are supposed to listen to the HG and not follow the prophet because he is a man, but the prophets who receive direct revelation are supposed to do everything by common consent of the people, even though the scriptures and prophets have shown an established pattern that Christ REVEALS to his prophets and the prophets pass the word on to us when it comes to running His church.

Incredible...

Indeed. More logical fallacies than you can shake a stick at. @-)

No logical fallacies.

Each person can listen to the HG as well as any one of the leadership. So, all the membership should have a say in certain things.

Hell, the 12 vote among themselves. What's the diff?

[keep the faith]

soooo... this is how some posts are reading...

the Church body is not supposed to trust in the "arm of the flesh", but the prophets are supposed to trust in the "arm of the flesh" and do everything by common consent instead of just following the HG and Christ?

The church members are supposed to listen to the HG and not follow the prophet because he is a man, but the prophets who receive direct revelation are supposed to do everything by common consent of the people, even though the scriptures and prophets have shown an established pattern that Christ REVEALS to his prophets and the prophets pass the word on to us when it comes to running His church.

Incredible...

Indeed. More logical fallacies than you can shake a stick at. @-)

No logical fallacies.

Each person can listen to the HG as well as any one of the leadership. So, all the membership should have a say in certain things.

Hell, the 12 vote among themselves. What's the diff?

You silly wabbit. The church is not run as a democracy. Priesthood govt. Is not run like the EU. Membership can't just willy nilly change Gods laws and commandments and revelations by majority rule. God speaks through His Prophets to declare his word to his church. If you don,t like or agree with what is revealed you can't just decide to alter or change things if you can get enough people to agree with you. That's just not how it works. I think you already know that being the savvy ambulance chaser you are.

[jdawg1012]

You silly wabbit. The church is not run as a democracy. Priesthood govt. Is not run like the EU. Membership can't just willy nilly change Gods laws and commandments and revelations by majority rule. God speaks through His Prophets to declare his word to his church. If you don,t like or agree with what is revealed you can't just decide to alter or change things if you can get enough people to agree with you. That's just not how it works. I think you already know that being the savvy ambulance chaser you are.

Wow! I have largely stayed out of this conversation, but, I am amazed at that last sentence. Can't we be a tad more civil?

[inquirringmind]

What is CCM?