Simplicity spares apostasy
 

-- Henry B. Eyring, April 1st Presidency Message

I remember it, but still don't know if I accept the premises and conclusions.

It is an interesting focal point in urging simplicity for the sake of keeping people in the fold.

The apostolic K.I.S.S. message. Hooray!

Simplicity is good. But not always.

Who cares about the false doctrine boogie man?

I don't believe the same things I did 20 years ago, and I'm better for it. Figuring out that some POV has error is a great way to cultivate love of truth.

As Hugh B. Brown said, the remedy for bad thinking is generally more thinking.

I'm not interested in becoming a simpleton, or a tape recorder for someone else's thoughts.

Mortality is not about safety. Adam chose safety, but Eve chose rightly. It's as though some members of the Church have a "stay in the Garden where it's safe" fetish.

Seeking truth and avoiding error are not the same quest. I'm all about the former.

A ship that will not risk running aground will never find new lands.

Very good thoughts.

Apparently, Henry Eyring does. His message is titled "Teaching True Doctrine". Here's another worthy snippet:

Is "personal interpretation" kind of like "personal revelation"? and if so, does the Holy Ghost help us avoid it?

Simplicity in teaching or in thinking? Or both? You seem to be taking his message about what we should teach as doctrine and concluding that we don't need to do any personal thinking or study beyond that. Obviously what I think after my own scripture study and what the spirit reveals to me personally isn't doctrine and I won't teach it as such. But I can share some thoughts in class and let others make their own conclusions. Is there something wrong with that? Or do we want to be like the JW's where hear the same thing from every person as if turning on the tape recorder? Halfway into my mission after running into so many JW's I think I knew about all there was about their doctrine because it was so simplistic. After 18 months or so I probably knew more JW doctrine than plenty of JW's I met and could correct them from their own books if I wanted to. I think you can take things too far in that direction.

I do?

Ok, then I guess not. You tell me what you meant then.

Why don't you just say what you think about the quote, eh? I'm not sure why you are thinking there has to be some hidden subtext.

My "who" was rhetorical. I read your post and President Eyring's article. I don't think the counsel would serve me well at all. If you think it will serve you well, have at it.

Some of my thinking on this comes from the fact that I don't think President Eyring's teaching here is in accord with the standard works. My allusion to the Garden story is only a small part of my understanding, but nonetheless, JFS's counsel has served me well:

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works" (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203).

I did say what I thought about it. Why can't you?

You went back and modified your original post after I read it.

Obviously I agree with Elder Eyring. We get precious few minutes of formal teaching each week, and it ought to be spent teaching the fundamentals rather than digressing into speculation and hypothesis.

This is especially true in a church that is adding 300,000 new fledging testimonies a year, though I think there are plenty of long-time members who still struggle with the basics.

That's quite a bold assertion there.

No doubt it is--from your perspective.

Mmm, not only mine.

Alleging that a First Presidency member is teaching doctrine out of harmony with the scriptures in the church's signature publication is a fairly bold thing to say. Not sure how you think it's not.

Is the church more worried about a 35 year old housewife hearing non-simple doctrine, or the disaster that is the current curriculum that makes many members 1) not attend or 2) dread and resent attendance?

I suspect they are more worried about non-simple doctrine being taught.

What gets kicked up the line to the GAs? The problem cases. The apostasties and excommunications that have been appealed.

Who kicks up, "Elder, half of our ward does not attend Sunday School, what should we do?" Doesn't happen.

Thankfully I have found a church-proscribed way to not go to Sunday School.

Oh, I guarantee this happens.

Are you a hall monitor like me?

Tex, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

Here's Joseph Smith's POV, regarding Pelatiah Brown teaching (let alone believing) false doctrine:

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latterday Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

So what Tex is doing is accusing you of being a Methodist?

I have no idea what Tex is accusing me of, but I do know that I don't think President Eyring is a bad man.

I don't think the issue is whether or not you think President Eyring is a bad man, just whether or not he is teaching false doctrine.

What you think is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

LOL! The issue is whether or not you're saying that President Eyring is teaching false doctrine and the newer issue is seeing how you duck answering that question.

Hardly. The issue is how cowardly you'll be in your efforts to ape off of tex.

I already said that I believe that in the article tex cited, President Eyring teachings things that do not square with the Standard Works. I also suggested that if he thought following such teaching would serve him well, he should do so.

What more could you possibly want to know, High Inquisitor?

I'm familiar with the quote, and I also know you think it grants you license to say whatever you like about the church or its leaders.

A point of view that concludes Eyring's April First Presidency message contradicts scripture is a point of view that deserves re-evaluating.

PS. I do appreciate you channeling Obi-Wan:

what's so bad about contradicting scripture?

are you one of those "scriptures are inerrant" folks?

I don't know about "license," but I don't think what I've said on this topic is of much eternal significance. I'm certainly not "speaking evil" of President Eyring, nor would he be "speaking evil" of me if he told me he thought I was in error on something. President Eyring does and says many things that I agree with, and I have no problem sustaining him.

If he came to my house in need of refreshment, I'd be happy to pour him a glass: "For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward" (Mark 9:41).

Red herrings, all. No one has suggested your comments are of "eternal significance" or that they constitute "speaking evil," (why is that in quotes?) and I'm thrilled that you are willing to give a thirsty Elder Eyring a glass of water. All of which are beside the point.

So what, then, is the point?

As I said: it's a bold allegation to say Elder Eyring's First Presidency message contradicts scripture.

Bold in what sense? Bold like Lea & Perrin's steak sauce? Bold in that the Danites are now going to come after me? Bold because I have just done a twisting backflip over the Sarlac pit?

Bold, like suggesting that the Force is just a bunch of little prokaryotes called Midichlorians.

oh boy, talk about bursting my bubble. this thing in itself pretty much made me want to draw and quarter George Lucas.

No worries. Midichlorians are just Lucas-speak for intelligences.

This is yet another effort to tell the members to read only what we tell you to read, study only what we tell you to study, ponder only what we tell you to ponder, or you will lose the guidance of the Holy Ghost, read lies, and open yourself to the deceptions of Satan.

Its like a cop standing on front of an accident telling the people "Move along..nothing to see here.

Somehow I don't think you are going to browbeat SEIQ on this one. Your point is well taken that when we find the brethren not to be in accord with other truth it ought to raise the red flag that we may be wrong. On the other hand, I don't think anything SEIQ has quoted was said with a wink. I think it means just what it says.

I think that Elder Eyring's counsel to stay close to the trunk of the tree so to speak is not new. I also think that there is a real distinction to be made here between teaching and personal study. There is a great deal which I know, thinking about and believe that would not ever come out of my mouth as an instructor. In some ways I feel that I have earned what I know and that something is lost if it is simply given. I don't mean that as arrogant, I just don't know where people are on their journey and don't assume that they can easily assimilate things that have taken me years to assimilate and understand.

I understand Elder Eyring to be saying, stay close to what is known in your teaching and don't go too far into speculation. I think there is plenty that is known that is interesting and that many are not aware of so I don't need to speculate as a teacher. Maybe I misread him, but I don't think he just called for the GD to be tossed and replaced with the Sunbeams manual. I don't think simple in this context means infantile or patronizing. Not saying anyone said that, just my thoughts.