Robert Millet puts it this way: “Catholica say the Pope is infallible–but they don’t really believe it. Mormons say the Prophet is fallible–but they don’t really believe it.”

“If the prophet told me to store mud in glass jars in my basement I would.”

This is not infallibility pre se, infallibility would suggest that they believe that the prophet has a unseen, but correct reason to store mud, or jump so high or whatever. The example suggest that even though there isn’t a higher reason for doing it that out respect for the very important office there is a willingness to comply.

I think that all to frequently people discount the value of submission. There is a certain beauty in the “I will go, I will do” attitude. I would contrast it to a child who has to constantly ask “why do I have to do this, why do I have to do that?”

See, what kills me in these discussions is that “prophet” is NOT a priesthood office. Just because somebody receive certain keys and authority with some priesthood office says absolutely nothing about what revelation they have or have not received. If somebody receives revelation, let them say so, rather than hiding behind their priesthood office. That’s what makes somebody a prophet.

Equating the presidency of the church with “the prophet” is a relatively new phenomenon. Up until the time of David O. McKay, the president of the church was not referred to as “the prophet.” That designation was always understood to refer to Joseph Smith. When McKay gave his advice on how LDS should vote on a particular proposition on the Utah ballot, and the vote went overwhelmingly in the other direction, church publications suddenly began using “the prophet” as a standard reference to the president of the church. Such has been the case, ever since.

danithew,
The story is fully explained, and very well cited, in D. Michael Quinn’s book, *The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power.* Whatever you might think of Quinn, he makes a clear case on this point.

Incidentally, I think President Hinckley backs this idea up somewhat. He has commented in print (Church News, sorry I’ve no idea what issue it was) that when he hears the song, “We Thank Thee, O’ God, For a Prophet,” he does *not* think of it being about him and his office. Rather, he thinks of the song as a tribute to Joseph Smith.

Essentially, the assertion that the prophet is fallible is meaningless if we’re never willing (or allowed?) to admit when mistakes are or have been made.

Are you talking public, official mistakes only or are you talking any mistake, like the prophet accidentally referred to San Jose as San Diego mistakes?

One of the principles under which the Lord seems to operate, in regards to revelations beyond the basic commandments, is to start small and work up; the line upon line thing.

If we follow the small things, then bigger things come. If we respond correctly to suggestions and hints, then the Lord will speak more plainly.

The one-pair-of-earrings thing may be a small test in order to prepare people for larger things.

I sometimes look at our stake’s 7:00 am stake-wide priesthood meetings that way. Or the Saturday night adult session of stake conference. The Lord is looking to see who shows up. The testing is not for the Lord’s benefit, because he already knows us. The testing is for our benefit. At a future date, we might ask why we didn’t get more significant callings, or were not invited to participate in important projects, or get sent to a highly productive mission.

The answer may be: “If you couldn’t make a 7am or a 7pm meeting across town, why do you want to be called to do something important on the other side of the world?”

If we aren’t willing to do the small, easy and boring things, then I doubt the Lord is going to call on us to do the big, difficult and exciting things.

danithew,
I’m not at home with my library right now, but I can try to post more detail for you later. I agree that Quinn is a reputable historian. He is an outstanding researcher. My concern with *some* of his writings has to do with whether his conclusions are fully supported. This particular point, however, was very well demonstrated, IMO.

danithew #15:
I have no doubt at all that the change was motivated by a sincere desire to remind LDS of the importance of following the counsel of the president of the church.

I will, however, go out on a limb enough to comment on the result. First, I simply cannot equate the prophetic role of modern LDS church presidents with that of Joseph Smith, so I think there is a bit of danger in lowering the impact of the title.

Second, while the original intent was clearly to remind LDS of the importance of following the counsel of the president of the church, I personally feel that a culture of near-idolatry has been the long-term result, even to the point of Deseret Book marketing very tacky resin statues of Gordon B. Hinckley, etc.

I once heard a higher-up church representative (a woman, actually) saying that if the prophet ate a certain breakfast cereal, she’d want to eat it to.

Sometimes I think these kind of expressions are simply a way of expressing affection for the church leader and devotion to the Church (rather than some kind of slavish desire). But I do think we have to be careful, to some degree, to recognize that the prophet is human. It’s not our purpose or the Lord’s purpose for us to imitate the prophet in every single insignificant life detail.

I’ve learned more about Brigham Young recently than I had known about him previously and to some degree I think some of the things I have learned have demonstrated his limitations. I still respect him as the anointed prophet of the Lord during the time period that he had that position. I still think it’s a serious and important thing and I’m still willing to look to Brigham Young’s words for inspiration. At the same time I keep in mind that he lived during a certain time and that he may have been subject to certain prejudices. Likewise, I think each prophet is subject, to some extent, to ideas/errors of his time.

Why would you obey something you knew to be wrong or felt was wrong?

Because sometimes I am wrong too.

Nick #18 - I think you laid out the near idolatry that sometimes exists in the Church of leaders. It is not unlike the hero worship that occurs for sports figures. I would guess GAs often get asked for their autographs by members. I did not know about the statues - that is a bit odd…

Danithew - I agree with you, but I think SteveM had a great point which is that we can easily find fault with historical prophets but modern members are highly unlikely to point to a fault of a more recent prophet. I remember having a conversation with someone about some of President Kimball’s talks in which he was blatantly prejudice against people of color (I understand the context of his background which allows me to give him some leeway), and the person was horrified that I would suggest such a thing. I have had similar discussions with members about some of the crazy things that President Benson used to say about the civil rights movement. I think that some of President Hinckley’s words have been a bit off and wrong at times. However, it does not take away from the facts that - he is a prophet, he is divinely inspired, he is NOT perfect, he knows a lot more than I do, but I have the agency to determine whether what he is saying is true inspiration or not.

To argue the other side, Devyn, I think you theory is fine as long as you see your religion as something personal and something bent on individual pursuit of truth. But what if one were to argue that Mormonism is about communal solidarity? Building a “Zion”? As such, while everyone is “free” and even obliged to gain a personal testimony, it is the act of obedience that signifies membership in the community. We are not on an individual task, but a relational task of group salvation.

Mephibosheth, thanks for that reference. Very interesting!

Re: MAC (#12)

Are you talking public, official mistakes only or are you talking any mistake, like the prophet accidentally referred to San Jose as San Diego mistakes?

I was referring to public, official, or significant mistakes that in some way affect the Church. Like Brigham Young claiming that the Saints’ salvation depends upon their acceptance of the Adam-God doctrine. When it comes to that kind of thing, I think it behooves us to admit the mistake.

Devyn S.,

I have to emphatically disagree that President Kimball ever made a racist remark. You may be referring to his idea that people should by and large marry within their own race, but that was part of a larger discussion of looking for the most possible compatibility in backgrounds when people are selecting a mate. That’s not racist; it’s just common sense if you want to avoid problems in a lot of circumstances, and it it was much more true when he spoke it, not so much today.
You or Margaret may be aware of different statements on his part, but I don’t know of any.
Anyway, I am quick to defend Pres. Kimball because I know of some awful things that other prophets have said with regards to race, and I don’t think his views were even in the same ball park as theirs on the matter. Again, I could be wrong- you may know of a quote that I’m not aware of.

Re: Nick (#30).

Touché.

Conventional Mormon wisdom usually places greater weight on what the living prophet is saying versus what past prophets have said. Additionally, the sheer quantity of prophets (both modern-day and scriptural) whose teachings seem to contradict Brigham’s Adam-God theory is probably ample evidence for most LDS that Brigham was the one who was mistaken. Given that there’s a contradiction between what Brigham taught and what modern church leaders teach regarding the relationship of Adam to God, it’s difficult to make the case that both Brigham Young and his successors are correct (although some have rationalized Brigham’s teachings by speculating about what he really meant). If someone is in error, most will probably agree that it was President Young.

Personally, I don’t entirely believe that Adam was a literal human being, so I’m not going to weigh in on his relationship to God.

Bookslinger - fascinating and thoughtful response - thanks. A couple of comments / questions: I would agree completely that youth callings are much more critical (and enjoyable) than the High Council. I like the scripture from Luke, but I think that we can also waste a lot of time doing silly, sometimes, meaningless tasks. For example, I have had leaders who often called meetings because it says you should in the handbook although they admitted there was nothing to meet about - that is a waste of everyone’s time. I know that some Stake Presidents may call 7am meetings just to see who shows up, but I am not sure of the point, I know a lot of people who show up at those meetings who never do hometeaching so I don’t think that is really a measure of much besides the ability to get up early. I guess we differ on one point and that is, I don’t believe that God cares much about who shows up at a 7AM meeting, but he cares much more about who is serving their fellow men. That is much more important to me.

Finally, I had a roommate once who cautioned me from publishing an article or subscribing to Dialogue or Sunstone as it could mess up my Church career and prevent me from being a Bishop someday. I thought that was typical of many people I have met, and if it messes up my “career” so much the better, I really don’t have a desire for “higher” callings, I love serving in the trenches in my local ward.

In Hawaii in 1978, President Kimball admonished the Saints

“to marry within their own race. There is nothing wrong with any other course, but it is generally better if two people can have the same background and similar experiences before they’re married.”

Is this what you are referring to?

“I don’t believe that God cares much about who shows up at a 7AM meeting,”

I just want to belabor the point that he might in certain circumstances, and that he might tell the SP to call such a meeting as a test. The scriptures have several places where the Lord says he will test his saints.

Zion’s Camp was such a test. It was a totally useless exercise in terms of the initial stated object of the trip. However it was an excellent training exercise and test.

“but he cares much more about who is serving their fellow men. That is much more important to me.”

And to me too. That’s the big picture.

The context of Elder Oaks’s remarks can be found in an article he wrote .

“[If] I think the one pair of earrings recommendation is bunk, then that is between me and the Lord…. I usually find my opposition in small things like earrings…. I don’t think silly things like the number of earrings are a part of becoming a zion people.”

I think it’s not about the earrings or about infallibility or free agency.  When you bring this up in Sunday School and your classmates look at you “as a pariah,” they may possibly be thinking about apostolic counsel like this from Elder David A. Bednar:

“Sister Bednar and I are acquainted with a returned missionary who had dated a special young woman for a period of time.  He cared for her very much, and he was desirous of making his relationship with her more serious.  He was considering and hoping for engagement and marriage.  This relationship was developing during the time that President Hinckley counseled the Relief Society sisters and young women of the Church to wear only one earring in each ear.

“The young man waited patiently over a period of time for the young woman to remove her extra earrings, but she did not take them out.  This was a valuable piece of information for this young man, and he felt unsettled about her nonresponsiveness to a prophet’s pleading. For this and other reasons, he ultimately stopped dating the young woman, because he was looking for an eternal companion who had the courage to promptly and quietly obey the counsel of the prophet in all things and at all times.  The young man was quick to observe that the young woman was not quick to observe.

“I presume that some of you might have difficulty with my last example.  You may believe the young man was too judgmental or that basing an eternally important decision, even in part, upon such a supposedly minor issue is silly or fanatical.  Perhaps you are bothered because the example focuses upon a young woman who failed to respond to prophetic counsel instead of upon a young man.  I simply invite you to consider and ponder the power of being quick to observe and what was actually observed in the case I just described.  The issue was not earrings!”  (David A. Bednar, “Quick to Observe,” Ensign, Dec 2006, pp. 30–36)

If we pray and don’t receive an affirmative answer regarding counsel, it could be because we don’t want an affirmative answer and don’t intend to follow the counsel anyway.

It seems kind of petty to me, to begrudge a prophet the advice/counsel that is easy to follow. It’s not hard for a woman to limit herself to a single pair of earrings.

We should remember Naaman of Syria getting angry because he was asked to wash himself seven times in the inferior stream of water (the river Jordan) and the wise advice his servant gave him:

If the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? (2 Kings 5:13

Counsel against pornography, gambling, fornication, drug abuse and other serious evils is much more extant than advice regarding earrings.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that it is NOT a prophet’s job to be completely reasonable, politically correct or your buddy.

I understand DKL’s expression of contempt, because it appears that the guy took very little thought to the girl’s potential. I think that to evaluate a significant other’s spiritual potential based on one point of disobedience, and to make that the only point of focus, is to invite huge problems into a relationship, and for that reason, the outcome of this case makes me happier for the girl than for the guy- she avoided marrying a guy she might never be able to measure up to.
That said, I also see Elder Bednar’s larger point, that it’s not about the earrings. I think the prophets often employ the broken windows theory with us, and it’s hard sometimes to see the larger positive results that comes from those simple acts of maintenance we are asked to do.
I often wish these requests for healthy obedience would extend to our diet and exercise habits…

#38 - Dan and Howard #37 - that is one example of the quote - there are many others he made in a similar light. Dan, accept my apology for using this example, as you are correct, it is not a great example.

Mephibosheth and ARJ - fascinating talk from him. I think that it is interesting that they basically say, if you disagree shut up. Wow - that is fascinating…

Bookslinger #39 - perhaps God does inspire SPs to call an early morning meeting occassionally, I am just not sure how to figure out which ones those are since they seem occur all of the time. My method has been to determine if the subject seems like something I could benefit from then I go, otherwise no.

#43
And thank goodness that young man stopped dating that young woman, seeing he was so “quick to observe,” that he could reject her over a second pair of earrings! Sounds an awful lot like a controlling, domineering, perhaps even abusive husband in the making!

#44 DKL:

AMEN!!!!
Let me suggest, however, that these men are trying to “brainwash you to Christ,” rather than one of your two options. I think they are entirely benign in their intentions, however creepy their methods may seem from the outside.

I agree; to paint the prophets and apostles as trying to brainwash, even unwittingly on their part, strikes me as a judgment with a level of harshness I would never wish upon myself.
Elder Oaks remarked that it’s not okay to criticize our leaders, even if they are wrong. I agree with that completely; I think ideas are open to criticism and analysis, but we should never criticize the person. I know that prophets in the past have been very wrong in their views on many subjects, but again, if I were to make it personal and deny all the things they have gotten right simply because they were unable to see past their worldview in some instances, that is a standard of judgment I would never wish upon myself.
It takes more courage to honor the callings of imperfect (and sometimes offensive) people, as Elder Oaks has asked us to do.

Mephibosheth,

Thanks for the link! Giving it a quick read I think he is saying something much more nuanced than what I got from The Mormons. I think that the message of his talk allows private dissent to be thoughtfully communicated to the decision maker. What it doesn’t allow is public airing of personal failings or some forms of public protest.

I do think that it could have been more careful about two distinctions. The first is between being critical of a person and being critical of a policy. The second is public versus private criticism.

In the eyes of some this comment probably is in violation of his talk.

I think the example of “mud in glass jars” is a good one.

If you believe that the church is lead by revelation, the question becomes; Who is speaking when we are asked to “store mud in glass jars in my basement”?

1) Is it Gordon the man who on his own decided to use General Conference or a TV interview with Larry King as a platform to convince us of this practice?

2) Is it President Gordon B. Hinckley who, drawing on his experience as a man and from previous revelations on similar subjects is inspired to present this practice?

3) Is it Gordon B. Hinckley the prophet, seer, and revelator who is presenting the latest direction from the Lord?

I enjoy personal revelation from the Spirit. Occasionally I am directed to do the equivalent of putting “mud in glass jars”. I rarely understand the logic of this at the time. Later I am shown how this has untangled a complicated issue that I simply didn’t understand.

This is why my motto is: Listen to the prophet, follow the Spirit.

Howard - well said. Although I have not had any of those “put mud in jar” experiences, I am glad that you have had experiences that require you to put your faith first.

#60

Yes that is the basis of the question.

But it doesn’t necessarily address all the issues

1) Do I need spiritual confirmation to follow Church leaders?
2) If I believe that I have spiritual confirmation that conflicts either directly or tangentially to to leadership instruction, which is then the more correct path?

Before anyone bites my head off, think of all the people who have gotten into trouble not because they have been misdirected by leadership, but because “the spirit told me to do it.” I would hazard that there are a lot more people in dire straights because of the latter than the former.

Is it safe to say that the president of the Church is less likely than others to be off base. And if that is then the case shouldn’t I be especially wary about the slippery slope that follows.

I think that anngb makes a very important observation in “I’ve noticed that the people who truly obey (they’re not as numerous as you might think, a lot of people obey on the things other people can see) seem to be happier and peaceful and have less strife in their lives.”

Shouldn’t that be what we are striving for?

You can call the dude a borderline kook for not marrying the girl who wouldn’t remove her earrings. But at the same time it is a certain amount of spiritual and emotional maturity to realize that it is such a small an inconsequential thing that questioning for more than a few seconds is time wasted that could be directed at the important.

I usually find my opposition in small things like earrings or the mantra that women don’t need to go on missions, etc. I don’t have issues with the Zionization issues (boy I like that word) like service and callings - I feel that these are critical to a zion people, but I don’t think silly things like the number of earrings are a part of becoming a zion people

This argument can be reversed, if it isn’t critical to our personal zionization, why argue just take them out.

Nick,

believing in a “prophet” who’s deity has nothing more useful to talk about than earring limitations takes some real mental gymnastics.

Approximately how much of Pres. Hinckley’s ministry would you estimate has been devoted to the earrings issue?
It sounds like you reject Pres. Hinckley’s prophetic calling pretty emphatically; are you sure this is the right forum for your point of view?

Wow. “Two simultaneous dramas” beat being unworthy for spacecraft curb service hands down!

I’ll drop it, Dan and dan.

To paraphrase DKL in #45:

The issue is that all this “follow the prophet” stuff, when it comes from Moses or his brother Aaron, or the other Levites, is entirely too self-serving. Every time I hear a statement like that, it lowers my respect for prophets, seers, and revelators one more notch. Honestly, are they trying to bring us to the Promised Land, or brain wash us?

Furthermore, I find it alarming that in a desert where we’re confronted with hardships on a daily basis — poisonous snakes, scorpions, scarce water, hardly any food, — that the message of Moses is: “Just look at this brass statue of a snake.”

Hey, I just got bitten by this poisonous flying thingee here, my hand and arm are going numb and I need some first aid, and old Mo’ is just yelling about looking at his brass statue. Hello! Can someone help me? I need first aid!

Bookslinger,

If you don’t mind, I’ll add sacrificing your son to the list of things that I’d be hesitant to do.

Nancy,

You don’t have a better reason than “just because?”

Seems to me that doing something as overt as piercing your nose is, in some ways, an attempt to illicit a certain perception.

MAC, why does Nancy need a “better” reason than “just because?” “Just because” can mean “just because she chose to,” or “just because it pleases her.” In our culture, we tend to insist on reasons or explanations, when often, the only honest answer is “because I wanted to.”

I think it’s rather disconcerting that without knowing anything about this woman, you reach a conclusion that she had her nose pierced as “an attempt to illicit a certain perception.” I understand that some of the anti-piercing and anti-tattoo statements of LDS leaders have suggested that such things are done as public declarations of rebellion. Is this the “certain perception” that you refer to? Is that really a reliable, or even fair, conclusion for you to reach, based on the single fact that she has a very small jewel nose piercing?

I live in a part of Seattle where it is common to see individuals with far more extreme piercings than what Nancy has described. Just last night, I saw a man with approximately 25-30 various piercings in his face and ears. Granted, this man was a professional piercer, who works in a piercing and tattoo shop, but outside of work, I’m sure he DOES expect a certain amount of attention. I’m sure, given the extreme nature of his piercings, that he even DESIRES that kind of attention/reaction. In my mind, however, you can’t put Nancy’s single, small jewel nose piercing in the same category.

I understand the argument that if someone is going to get a piercing, and they know how a certain culture reacts to that piercing, they are choosing to draw that reaction or perception. I also, however, understand the position of a person who feels such perceptions are inaccurate, and chooses to defy them.

I wonder, MAC, if you would be similarly judgmental toward me. I wear a single earring, because I happen to like it. Not being LDS anymore, I don’t feel bound by Hinckley’s direction. As a Latter-day Saint, however, do you feel that Hinckley’s pronouncements represent the will of deity for non-LDS? Would you judge me as a “sinner” for not “following the prophet” in this regard?

Danithew - you are correct, there are judgemental people the world over (including myself too often than I like). There are other reasons than this for why I cannot live in Utah…

MAC - I sort of agree with Nick that if Nancy did it just because then good for her. It is none of my business why she did it, nor do I really care that she did it. If it makes her feel better then great.

re: 44 and 45

Perhaps unwittingly so, but Elder Bednar has taught those of who have daughters how to save them from preachy, self righteous nutjobs as future husbands. Insist that your daughter get two sets of earrings. It will ward off morons like the poor sap Elder Bednar referenced and your daughter will be better off for it. As a father, I would rather endure a possible pang of guilt from reading abstract, silly vignettes in Ensign articles about ear rings over the certain misery that would flow if one my daughters married a clod like the guy Elder Bednar described. If my daughters end up in college in the Mormon corridor, I will insist on two sets of earrings before they set foot on campus.

“Just because” is short for “I have a reason, but it’s none of your business.” I can respect that.

rbc, I couldn’t agree with you more. Perhaps the spirit told the girl that she was an exception specifically to give the dumbass a reason to look elsewhere. Perhaps the next day, she removed all her ear rings since ear rings are inherantly evil and she wanted to be extra righteous.

Nick wrote:

“For example, I spend each Friday night country western dancing at a gay bar.”

Nick, are you trying to scare me? It’s working.

Nick, the Timberline?

Nick,

To answer your questions specifically,

The question is whether you believe that Nancy’s desire to wear a nose ring is a “sufficient” reason for her to do so. I get the impression that you do not.

No, I am not judging her decision to wear a nose ring. But, her decision to fret about the reaction she anticipates receiving. If her reason for getting it is no deeper than “just because” seems like it would be simpler just to take it out.

You speak of a pierced nose being “part of a certain mode.” What “certain mode” do you refer to, MAC?

I don’t know. Don’t you make assumptions about the choices and motivations people make about their outward appearance? If she looked South Asian, I would have a different assumption than if she was running around in hemp sandals and a gypsy dress. No matter how polictally correct our society becomes we will not be able to legislate away first impressions.

Your answer may say much more about you and your personal attitudes, than it says about Nancy.

I think you would be surprised Nick. But feel free to describe your response in detail, you won’t hurt my feelings. It may very well be salient to the discussion. I think that the “expected” perceptions can sometimes have a greater impact on the overall interpersonal interaction that the actual perceptions.

KyleM #88:
The Timberline closed over a year ago. We go to The Cuff now.

danithew #89:
I apologize for offending you. It was not my intention to be “provocative.” I do hope, however, that mine isn’t the only “sin” that needs to be closeted in your effort to keep the atmosphere “faithful.” I’m sure if anyone else mentions behavior that contradicts the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you will move just as quickly and publicly to shut them down. (Okay, so NOW I’m being “provocative.” ‘Nuff said.)

MAC wrote:
“I think that the “expected” perceptions can sometimes have a greater impact on the overall interpersonal interaction that the actual perceptions.”

Again, an excellent point. You’re starting to make me nervous, MAC.

(Oh…and apologies to all for too many separate posts. I should have held and responded to all at once, rather than reading, answering, reading, answering…)

MAC, sometimes a private e-mail, expressing a concern, can do more good than a semi-embarassing public harangue.

Of course, I should take my own advice.

Danithew/MAC:
re: nick letting readers know he’s openly gay.

Sometimes knowing a person’s background does have a bearing on how readers interpret comments, or decide to be influenced by them. Sometimes, labels unfairly pigeon-hole people, but sometimes labels are legitimate shortcuts to understand where someone is coming from.

For instance, I was very confused over what John Dehlin was trying to do at MormonStories.org until he gave a plain explanation on how he viewed the church’s foundational stories and BoM historicity.

With all the lurkers reading the blogs, including non-members and new-members, it may be a good thing for people to occasionally self-identify, or at least give clues as to their attitude towards the basics of church belief.

One of the shortcomings of the PBS special was that the position/stance of the commenters and experts was not identified more clearly. I wanted to know which camp they were in, and it was unfair of PBS not to identify those who were _solidly_ in one camp or the other. Mostly, they failed to identify the confirmed critics (antis), but they also failed to identify Dan Peterson as a BYU faculty member.

I think it’s more alarming Nick admits he lives on the wrong side of Lake Washington than the occasional refrence to his homosexuality.

Personally, I was glad that the PBS program didn’t label individual speakers. First, what kind of labels would we expect? “LDS” vs. “Critic of the LDS Church?” Hugh Nibley, if still alive, would have fit both categories.

During an online question and answer, a woman asked Helen Whitney why she didn’t identify the speakers in this way. In asking the question, this woman noted that “most LDS tend to discount” the opinions of those who are not members of the LDS church. In other words, she wanted to know where each person supposedly stood, so she could know who to ignore!

Helen Whitney noted this, and said that she avoided such labels precisely for that reason. She wanted viewers to listen carefully to each speaker, and come to their own conclusions. She pointed out, as well, that within a few minutes, most of the speakers were rather easy to categorize on your own.

I think both the questioner and Helen Whitney had a point. In my experience, many LDS *do* disregard anything said about LDS-ism by those who are not members of the LDS church. They seem to take it for granted that any such persons will misrepresent, misunderstand, or even outright lie about the LDS church.

Nick: “In other words, she wanted to know where each person supposedly stood, so she could know who to ignore!”

Well, yeah. Me too! There is so much worthless blather in the blogosphere and on TV, we need quick ways of implementing our own personal filters.

(But what’s more dangerous than worthless blather are rationalizations or excuse-making on the part of people who come across as faithful and dedicated members, but who aren’t.)

Back to the PBS special, I think it was one of the anti authors, Bagley maybe, who I felt was disingenuously identified.

But you’re right, applying labels can be used just as much to give a slant as the absence of labels can.

But in analyzing church history and the actions of individual church leaders, I think one does need to know if the speaker is speaking from a “faithful” or “other” viewpoint.

In my relationship with the church, one thing it took me a long time to learn, is that one needs friends and sources in the church (and by that I mean friends and sources in faithful standing in the church) who give you a more complete story of things that you don’t get in Sunday School, and from the pulpit, and at general conference.

It’s not about “secret” things, but it’s the things that aren’t promulgated, or the things that aren’t generally brought up until they’re needed.

I’ve found that you need to get those things from faithful sources so you don’t get the twisted version of things, and so you don’t get an interpretation that’s going to cause you to lose faith or lose your testimony.

Maybe the general header is “exception processing.”

What we get from the weekly pulpit, Sunday School, and general conference are “the rules” not “the exceptions.” I took “the rules” too strictly, and as being without exceptions, and was way too harsh on myself and others.

And yet there are others, who go too far the other way and turn the exeptions into the rule.

I don’t need to know if someone is a 100% home-teacher or visiting teacher before I’ll read their posts/comments on the blogs. But I do want to know if they acknowledge the HT/VT program as an important ingredient in the gospel, or whether they totally blow it off. I want to know if they believe the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. I want to know if they believe in personal revelation. I want to know if they believe that they have actually received personal revelation, of any type or level or degree.

If there is a poster/comment who claims to be LDS, but doesn’t believe there was a civilization called the Nephites, and doesn’t believe that Jesus visited them, then I want to know that before I decide whether to allow myself to be influenced by their other opinions.

And from the other end of the stick, for those who don’t believe the historicity of the BoM, and are struggling with the decision on whether to remain active in the church, they might be more attacted to, and be more comfortable with John Dehlin’s reasons to stay active once they know his beliefs.

Nick, But if John Doe has a history of always putting a negative spin on something (like disaffected and bitter ex-members at RfM), or a history of outright lieing (professional antis), then no, I don’t really care what he says, and I don’t want to waste my time.

It’s not a matter that John Doe disagrees or disbelieves. That’s no sin. Billions of non-Mormons disbelieve. It’s the history of John Doe’s claims. RfM-ers and anti’s just have a bad history of twisting, misrepresenting, taking out of context, and out-right lieing.

There have been what I perceive to be real problems in the church, as in any growing volunteer-run organization, over the past 25 years that I’ve been involved with it (off and on). However, none of them have meant that the church isn’t God’s official church, or that the foundational stories are fiction.

But, having investigated those problems over the past 25 years off and on, and other alleged problems advertised by the bitter ex-members or professional anti’s, and having (mostly) worked through the problems why I left, I’ve come to this conclusion:

It’s a pure waste of time to take what bitter ex-members and professional anti’s say at face value because a) the bitter exes always twist and exaggerate, and b) professional anti’s always do a combination of misrepresenting and lieing, or c) what they claim is/was a problem really isn’t/wasn’t a problem, or d) yes, it is/was a problem, but the complainer just never found (or accepted) the right answer that would have resolved the concern.

If someone is looking for a _faithful_ answer, or a _faithful_ resolution to a problem, then sure, I’m more than willing to have a dialogue. But to someone who’s already made up their mind that there are no faitful answers or resolutions, then there’s no point in talking, and I don’t care to listen to them anymore.

So for those like John Doe, I try to let the professional or hobbyist apologists answer the questions, because my involvement in the matter is never going to satisfy John Doe unless I leave the church.

The problem with the John Doe’s is that they’re not trying to get people to stop eating bad sushi, they’re trying to get people to leave God’s official church.

The problem with the John Doe’s is that when faithful members do have a problem in God’s official church, John Doe’s solution is to leave the church, not to seek for an remedy that maintains compliance with the Gospel. Or sometimes the John Doe’s want to change the gospel.

20 years ago, I had problems in and with the Church. My solution was “problem avoidance”, so I left the church. I just left the people and situations that gave rise to the problems. I deeply regret that.

Had I been more mature, smarter, and humbler maybe I would have sought _resolution_ of the problems, instead of concluding that they couldn’t be resolved, and just fleeing them.

To: Devyn S. - on Infallibility

Good for you for being an individual and not a clone!

It is very revealing that you are branded a “pariah” (in your own words), just for exercising your God-given right to form your own conclusions, about ideas.

Somehow (and somewhere), the LDS Church has failed to give a proper understanding of that very principle, to the up-and-coming (the rising) generation.

A paradox that you have certainly overlooked, however, is that–although Pres. Hinckley teaches you to think for yourself, on the one hand–as president of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, himself, has said things (wink, wink)(not my “wink”, but his) that have been utterly disingenuous, in changing a longstanding “couplet”, first uttered by Lorenzo Snow and later actively and vigorously promoted by Joseph Smith, Jr.: to the inclusion of a sermon–teaching it at the funeral of one King Follett.

But, with an imperious fluorish of the hand; a sleight of tongue; and a General Conference “wink-wink”, he has effectively done away with a previous understanding, among the people.

People owe it to themselves to come out of their marvelous, endorphin-induced, warm & fuzzy stupor and not be impressed by the arm of flesh, like they are: even if that “flesh” happens to be that of a 96-going-on-97-year-old man 1) wearing a mantle; 2) standing by a mantle; or, 3) all of the above.