The zealot defenders of blacks and the priesthood

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Not your assumption? Isn't that exactly what you are expressing here:

"No, instead my objection is that it must necessarily lead to the conclusion that God is not nearly so concerned with how his church is guided (or how his children are taught about its precepts) as we all thought. "

It NECESSARILY leads to the conclusion that God is not concerned with how the church is guided is a pretty strong phrasing for something you are repeating but don't believe.

I didn't say I didn't believe it. I said I didn't assume it. But, whatever, it's not really important.

The point is, there are people who think this way ... that God just kind of allowed his prophets to do whatever they wanted until Kimball came along. I don't find that thought to be consistent with the rest of what we know about Him.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mmmm ... I'm not really making the assumption. Others have said it and I'm just repeating it.

On an intellectual level, I allow that your hypothesis is a plausible explanation. But as with the "God is passive" theory, I cannot accept it either. It doesn't seem consistent to me, especially in light of this (apocryphal?) story of McKay and his petitioning the Lord on the subject.

Is it possible that God is passionately interested in the affairs of men and still leaves them in the hands of His children? I believe many of us are passionately interested in sports, for example, but I don't recall any of you rushing to the field to help John Beck when Utah had the lead.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

Is it possible that God is passionately interested in the affairs of men and still leaves them in the hands of His children? I believe many of us are passionately interested in sports, for example, but I don't recall any of you rushing to the field to help John Beck when Utah had the lead.

Christ's church does have His name on the letterhead... I think there's good reason to believe He hasn't abdicated that position.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Christ's church does have His name on the letterhead... I think there's good reason to believe He hasn't abdicated that position.

You're right, I overstated it.

Is it possible that God is passionately interested in the affairs of men and still leaves many of them in the hands of His children?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I didn't say I didn't believe it. I said I didn't assume it. But, whatever, it's not really important.

The point is, there are people who think this way ... that God just kind of allowed his prophets to do whatever they wanted until Kimball came along. I don't find that thought to be consistent with the rest of what we know about Him.

Eh? So it must happen (because it is necessary and there is no possibility of it not happening) and you believe it will happen, but you assume it may or may not happen?

I understand some people take the position you just gave. What I disagreed with was your statement/assumption/belief that that position MUST be taken if you think the prophets were blinded by racist tendencies.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, instead my objection is that it must necessarily lead to the conclusion that God is not nearly so concerned with how his church is guided (or how his children are taught about its precepts) as we all thought. I reject that premise. I think it's out of harmony with what I read in the scriptures.

I think there's a third scenario that can allow for prophets to run with incorrect doctrine/policy AND allows for God to be concerned with the details of managing the church, and even in an individual managing his life. It's not either/or in my mind.

We're having a human experience and it's wrought with all kinds of hard stuff. Competition for resources, scarcity, struggle to connect with God and faith, sickness disease heartache, struggling to learn how to love and obey, learning to teach children or serve over a stewardship, learning how to be taught and be served. Why should the church escape these imperfections? If I trip on the sidewalk on the way to go to my car for lunch does it mean I was lacking God's guidance in my life at that moment?

LDS a-holes love Bednar's talk because it gives them a license to offend. But what they should read was a talk Bednar referenced in the talk. Maxwell's "Jesus Our Perfect Mentor", especially the section "Our Clinical Material". Our marriages, friendships, families, neighbors, and coworkers, and church are clinical material, where we learn how to love and serve. This whole life is a training ground. The church is a great training ground and it's not impossible to think the Lord, while being ever attentive, allows bishops and higher even the prophet to make mistakes even large mistakes that will create a training environment that will only enhance our experience.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

You're right, I overstated it.

Is it possible that God is passionately interested in the affairs of men and still leaves many of them in the hands of His children?

It seems for some to believe in God's passitivity is tantamount for God not to give direction to the Church.

As I see it, I don't see Christ personally standing up before us, I don't see him performing ordinances and rarely do any leaders state they've even seen Christ. So in a traditional sense, Christ is not actively involved. That doesn't mean I disbelieve his role, I just understand it differently, despite Indy and Tex being willing to throw a bunch of "proof texts" which could be argued serve to legitimize the authority of those seeking to assert their authority.

We understand enough scripture and GA talks to think through this ourselves.

Why is it hard for members to accept the premise God is passionately interested in our affairs but willing to allow us to exercise almost unfettered agency, even in the management of an organization to which he lends his name? I'm not asking for a proof text, or a quote. Give me theological or philosophical why that must be so?

Isn't it more marvelous that he will allow us to work out our own way, with small course adjustments here and there? To me, He's showing greater faith in us than we are in him, by requiring him to do everything and by requiring word for word dictates.

In fact, it seems more marvelous that God works through fallible men and doesn't require their conduct of his affairs to be perfect, even allowing them to espouse and to conduct heresy.

Why is your faith challenged if God is not personally micromanaging the affairs of the Church?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by All-American

You're right, I overstated it.

Is it possible that God is passionately interested in the affairs of men and still leaves many of them in the hands of His children?

Is it possible? I'll copout and say "sure, anything's possible." I don't find it likely, but handicapping God's involvement in each detail of the universe is an extremely difficult task.

I give you just a couple of examples from modern-day apostles (paraphrased, because they're from memory) that illustrate my thinking.

Neal Maxwell used to have a presentation he'd use with mission and stake presidents where he'd start with a "photo" of the Milky Way galaxy on an overhead and explain that God is God over all those creations. Then he'd put up an image of a DNA molecule and explain that God created it too, and he'd say, "God is in the details of that molecule." Then he'd quote C.S. Lewis' "living house" metaphor and say "God loves you too much to leave you the way you are, so he provides for you 'defining moments' that are highly customized."

And then I once heard Boyd Packer (sorry, Arch) say once (again, paraphrased): "When the veil is lifted and we can see our lives in the grand scope of history, we will be stunned and amazed at how intimately a role God played in our lives on a daily basis and we never knew it."

Now I find it very difficult to believe that we believe in a God who is in the details of our lives, so much so that he provides "customized defining moments" to shape us; that we believe in a God who we pray to about every little thing: from what job to take, to how to handle a church calling, to which door to knock on as a missionary; that we believe in a God who is aware of the hairs of our heads, who clothes the lillies of the fields--and yet when it comes to his church and his prophet, he sits back and just kinda allows things to run their course.

I may be wrong, but that's not how I see it working.

Originally Posted by jay santos

I think there's a third scenario that can allow for prophets to run with incorrect doctrine/policy AND allows for God to be concerned with the details of managing the church, and even in an individual managing his life. It's not either/or in my mind.

I think that's about right.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Eh? So it must happen (because it is necessary and there is no possibility of it not happening) and you believe it will happen, but you assume it may or may not happen?

I understand some people take the position you just gave. What I disagreed with was your statement/assumption/belief that that position MUST be taken if you think the prophets were blinded by racist tendencies.

Your first sentence reminds me that you are a lawyer.

As to your second, as I said ... I wasn't the one to draw that conclusion. I was just repeating it, although I do agree that such is the inevitable conclusion. But either way, somehow I'm not surprised you chose to take issue with something almost entirely peripheral to the topic.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Is it possible? I'll copout and say "sure, anything's possible." I don't find it likely, but handicapping God's involvement in each detail of the global universe is an extremely difficult task.

I give you just a couple of examples from modern-day apostles (paraphrased, because they're from memory) that illustrate my thinking.

Neal Maxwell used to have a presentation he'd use with mission and stake presidents where he'd start with a "photo" of the Milky Way galaxy on an overhead and explain that God is God over all those creations. Then he'd put up an image of a DNA molecule and explain that God created it too, and he'd say, "God is in the details of that molecule." Then he'd quote C.S. Lewis' "living house" metaphor and say "God loves you too much to leave you the way you are, so he provides for you 'defining moments' that are highly customized."

And then I once heard Boyd Packer (sorry, Arch) say once (again, paraphrased): "When the veil is lifted and we can see our lives in the grand scope of history, we will be stunned and amazed at how intimately a role God played in our lives on a daily basis and we never knew it."

Now I find it very difficult to believe that we believe in a God who is in the details of our lives, so much so that he provides "customized defining moments" to shape us; that we believe in a God who we pray to about every little thing: from what job to take, to how to handle a church calling, to which door to knock on as a missionary; that we believe in a God who is aware of the hairs of our heads, who clothes the lillies of the fields--and yet when it comes to his church and his prophet, he sits back and just kinda allows things to run their course.

I may be wrong, but that's not how I see it working.



I think that's about right.



Your first sentence reminds me that you are a lawyer.

As to your second, as I said ... I wasn't the one to draw that conclusion. I was just repeating it. although I do agree with it. But either way, somehow I'm not surprised you chose to take issue with something almost entirely peripheral to the topic.

How is it peripheral to the topic? You presented a false dichotomy that left out many other possibilities which could explain the issue we are discussing. I still have no idea what you are trying to argue, because you continue to hold fast to that false dichotomy (by saying you "believe it") while also accepting the possiblity that there are alternatives. If you accept that there are alternatives (and I think there are many, the one I noted being among them), then it doesn't necessarily follow that God isn't as involved in his church as we would like to believe.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

How is it peripheral to the topic? You presented a false dichotomy that left out many other possibilities which could explain the issue we are discussing. I still have no idea what you are trying to argue, because you continue to hold fast to that false dichotomy (by saying you "believe it") while also accepting the possiblity that there are alternatives. If you accept that there are alternatives (and I think there are many, the one I noted being among them), then it doesn't necessarily follow that God isn't as involved in his church as we would like to believe.

Fine. There are other possibilities. Your Honor, I move that we strike the word "necessarily" from the record.

Let's move on.