LDS Freedom Forum

Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 6:29 am The liberal members of the church to not idolize leaders. They are all on the same page. They can all quickly cite "blacks and the priesthood" to insinuate that the leaders are constantly wrong, then bludgeon the rest of us into being "open minded"

The conservative members like to see things continue as they are, so they are likely to say "when the brethren say so". This might be out of convenience to their world-view more than idolization. It obviously depends on the person.

Then there are the internet disillusioned folks who have no problem pointing out what you're saying. They are all over the political/social spectrum

-----

I've heard a lot of this complaint about idolization (and I agree to a certain extent), but what I haven't heard is a suggestion of what a good balance is. What is a good behavioral pattern where the leaders play their intended role in the sight of the Lord? Several folks on this forum would suggest that we do away with the leadership altogether.

If we did "everyone just get your own revelation" (pertaining to running the kingdom), it would be the wild West. We'd have polygamy over here and gay marriage over there. We'd have women and pets being ordained, new offices created, etc.

BruceRGilbert wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 7:39 am Babylon and Zion cannot converge. At some point, there has to be a division. If not by volition, it will be by cataclysm with "Visions of Glory" entering from stage left.

Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 8:35 am I've seen plenty of worship of Sherri Dew over the years.

Aprhys wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 7:03 am There is a lot of truth in this post. Just take a look at the individual apostles IG pages. There is nothing but sappy adoration and worship. All of these people fawning over the apostles even though they have rarely if ever met one of them. Bednar might me the nicest guy ever. He might be a total jerk. I do not know as I have never met him. I will never say I love someone simply because of their position in life. But if he were to post a picture of a really killer burrito he got from Rancheritos there would be a line of cars full of members trying to buy a three-meat burrito at the same retaurant. Oh, and heaven help you if you go to Betos instead...you heathen.

johnBob wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 7:00 am What I don't understand is the liberal members push inside the Church. There is already a Church that does everything they want, it's called the Community of Christ. Now, I guess the only big difference is they don't have Temples and we do-so maybe that's the push so they can get Temples . . .

Robin Hood wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 8:48 am

johnBob wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 7:00 am What I don't understand is the liberal members push inside the Church. There is already a Church that does everything they want, it's called the Community of Christ. Now, I guess the only big difference is they don't have Temples and we do-so maybe that's the push so they can get Temples . . .

The CofC has 2 temples, they just don't use them for the same purpose we do.

johnBob wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 6:54 am It's unfortunate, the liberal members understand how the Church actually works, while the conservative members have this fantasy as to how the Church should work. The liberal members understand that if they push hard enough for long enough and have enough people pushing that direction then the Church will change direction.... Thus the Church will absolutely shift into a progressive liberal Church and as it does those conservative members will shift right along with it.

I'm all for splits-there is a reason why religions split, divide branch off, etc. Unfortunately we have set ourselves in a bind, we have the form of a religion which claims to be lead by God directly-but no actual revelations-read DC 1 to get an idea as to what an actual revelation is. It's a mess. I'm not for a wild-wild-west; however I am for splits in religion. Sometimes it's proper for religions to split, I don't see why when 2 groups (or more) have drastically different opinions why they are forced to be together-like the UMC. Over time we'll see which one devolves into utter chaos and which one's don't.

SPIRIT wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 8:50 am this has always been, and has been going on for years,
but just like everything else, it's become worse.

It's you and Christ. there's no middleman.
You can't live or be saved on borrowed light.
Following the prophet can't save you.
Going to church won't save you.
JESUS CHRIST is the ONLY ONE that can save YOU !
seek to know him ! the one that died for YOU !

"I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
John 14:6

"And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ,
we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ,
and we write according to our prophecies,
that our children may know to what source
they may look for a remission of their sins."
2 Nephi 25:26


"We are beginning to resemble God's ancient covenant people as they became ripened
in iniquity. Indeed, there exist parallels between ancient and modern Israel that provide a yardstick by which we can judge ourselves."

"It is an amazing phenomenon that we can see so clearly
the idolatory of the past but cannot see our own."

The dangers of idolizing Mormon prophets
https://religionnews.com/2014/10/24/ido ... authority/

If people only have time to read one chapter in The Crucible of Doubt, the book we’re discussing here on Fridays (see here and here for the first two parts of our five-part conversation), I hope chapter 5 will be that chapter.

Every religion has its shadow side, an element that, when taken to extremes, can be dangerous. For Mormons that shadow lurks in our tendency to idolize — as in actually make idols of — the men who run our church.

An idol is anything we use as a substitute for God. And I feel that sometimes, we cross that line in Mormon culture.

For example, we sometimes sing a hymn that celebrates Joseph Smith not merely as a human prophet, but as a heavenly intercessor who now mingles with deities and enjoys great glory.

That is not okay.

Through language like this we are teaching people that prophets are akin to gods, even while also trying to communicate the message that no, of course prophets are just human.
The Church teaches us on the one hand that a living prophet is more valuable to us than even the scriptures (!), and instructs Primary children to follow the prophet and never “go astray.” But then it also tries to emphasize that a prophet is only a prophet “when he is acting as such,” and that not every teaching is doctrine.

In chapter 5 the Givenses point out, in far gentler and more eloquent language than I have used here, that such conundrums have been with us for a long time:

. . . in 1945, a Church magazine urged upon its readers . . . that “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.” Many are familiar with that expression; fewer are aware that when President George Albert Smith learned of it, he immediately and indignantly repudiated the statement. (p. 63)

And throughout this chapter and the next, on priesthood authority, they beautifully get to the heart of one of the greater dangers of idolatry, that we will surrender our own agency and growth. We are so very eager to avoid making decisions ourselves: “too often, we confuse the call to discipleship with the desire to unload responsibility for our spiritual direction onto another. Christ invites us to assume the yoke, but we would rather ride in the cart.” (p 62)

Here are some questions to get our discussion off the ground, both for our marvelous team of featured commenters and anyone else who wants to weigh in (politely):

How might the Givenses’ view of the dangers of hero worship (ch. 5) square with the Church’s emphasis on, for example, the “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”?
Is a living prophet “more vital” to us than the Scriptures?
What are the spiritual blessings and dangers of such a view?
Mormons have taught that the prophet will never lead the Church astray.
Is this scriptural? Is it helpful?
“Mormons frequently describe priesthood as the authority to act in God’s name,” the authors state. “But they often fail to plumb the potentially vexing implications of that principle.” If a church leader’s action is wrong, “are we bound to sustain the decision?”
One of the book’s most interesting arguments is that decisions and statements made by priesthood leaders on earth can actually bind God’s will—even if they seem to be wrong. The notion is that God so deeply honors the principle of delegating authority that He will conform His will to ours, reordering whatever chaos we have created.
Do you believe this?
How would you relate this idea to, for example,
the racial priesthood ban of Mormon history?
-------------------------------------------------------
Be Wary of Man and His Words
http://www.7witnesses.com/uploads/3/8/9 ... _words.pdf

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 8:53 am

johnBob wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 6:54 am It's unfortunate, the liberal members understand how the Church actually works, while the conservative members have this fantasy as to how the Church should work. The liberal members understand that if they push hard enough for long enough and have enough people pushing that direction then the Church will change direction.... Thus the Church will absolutely shift into a progressive liberal Church and as it does those conservative members will shift right along with it.

I'm all for splits-there is a reason why religions split, divide branch off, etc. Unfortunately we have set ourselves in a bind, we have the form of a religion which claims to be lead by God directly-but no actual revelations-read DC 1 to get an idea as to what an actual revelation is. It's a mess. I'm not for a wild-wild-west; however I am for splits in religion. Sometimes it's proper for religions to split, I don't see why when 2 groups (or more) have drastically different opinions why they are forced to be together-like the UMC. Over time we'll see which one devolves into utter chaos and which one's don't.

I think your premise is true, but I'm curious as to how it would work out in practice. Since conservative Mormon doctrine has such a heavy emphasis on proper order and authority and keys to administers ordinances, etc., then to what authorities do you think that the dissenters would turn if they had to split from the mainstream church over homosexuality?

When the RLDS church schismed over the ordination of women in 1984, the conservatives breakaways ended up in a loosely organized collection of branches with no authority to ordain any office higher than elder. This works for them since their version of Mormonism doesn't require any offices that an elder can't perform. But as the Utah variety does require higher ordinances, and also insists that the main difference between it and every other religion is that is has a "living prophet," I just see that religious tradition having a very hard time surviving a split with Salt Lake.

Aprhys wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 7:03 am There is a lot of truth in this post. Just take a look at the individual apostles IG pages. There is nothing but sappy adoration and worship. All of these people fawning over the apostles even though they have rarely if ever met one of them. Bednar might me the nicest guy ever. He might be a total jerk. I do not know as I have never met him. I will never say I love someone simply because of their position in life. But if he were to post a picture of a really killer burrito he got from Rancheritos there would be a line of cars full of members trying to buy a three-meat burrito at the same retaurant. Oh, and heaven help you if you go to Betos instead...you heathen.

Aprhys wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 7:03 am There is a lot of truth in this post. Just take a look at the individual apostles IG pages. There is nothing but sappy adoration and worship. All of these people fawning over the apostles even though they have rarely if ever met one of them. Bednar might me the nicest guy ever. He might be a total jerk. I do not know as I have never met him. I will never say I love someone simply because of their position in life. But if he were to post a picture of a really killer burrito he got from Rancheritos there would be a line of cars full of members trying to buy a three-meat burrito at the same retaurant. Oh, and heaven help you if you go to Betos instead...you heathen.

johnBob wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 6:54 am It's unfortunate, the liberal members understand how the Church actually works, while the conservative members have this fantasy as to how the Church should work.
The liberal members understand that if they push hard enough for long enough and have enough people pushing that direction then the Church will change direction.
The conservative members believe the Church only moves when God tells them to-they believe the Church and Christ are one and the same. That the top leadership talk with Christ as if a man talks to another man.

The liberal members understand how the conservatives think but how the Church actually operates-so they push and push and push because the KNOW for a fact that when the Church moves-it moves the conservative members with it. It's devolved into a power struggle but the conservatives haven't figured out how the game is played.
...

Chip wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 9:53 am

johnBob wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 6:54 am It's unfortunate, the liberal members understand how the Church actually works, while the conservative members have this fantasy as to how the Church should work.
The liberal members understand that if they push hard enough for long enough and have enough people pushing that direction then the Church will change direction.
The conservative members believe the Church only moves when God tells them to-they believe the Church and Christ are one and the same. That the top leadership talk with Christ as if a man talks to another man.

The liberal members understand how the conservatives think but how the Church actually operates-so they push and push and push because the KNOW for a fact that when the Church moves-it moves the conservative members with it. It's devolved into a power struggle but the conservatives haven't figured out how the game is played.
...

Holy smokes!!!!

This is the most mind-expanding thing I've read in a long time.

This is the CRAZY truth. I'm quite conservative, too. I think the take-away is that a lot of what goes on is PHONY, in order for it be swayed, at all.

The liberals are clued in to the growing fact that they and the church are similar creatures. We conservatives don't want to believe it.