Brigham Young on the Attributes of Deity - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

tooblue · 11-26-2007, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solon

I'm glad you see it this way. I don't blame the LDS leaders (although they could be more clear), but the rank-and-file membership that wants any notion of disagreement eliminated.

The June 1945 "Ward Teacher’s Message" in the Improvement Era church magazine cautioned that Satan “wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak out against their own leaders and ‘do their own thinking.’” Furthermore, the Message asserted, “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan – it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.” (Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 354.)

Six months after the publication of this "Ward Teacher’s Message," in response to a query on the matter by a Salt Lake City Unitarian Reverend named Raymond Cope, LDS President George Albert Smith wrote that the message had not been approved by the leaders of the church, that General Authorities had been embarrassed by the misstep and “does not express the true position of the Church.” He continued, “Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel.” (Smith’s emphasis. See Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19, no. 1 (Spring 1986), pp. 35-39 for reprints of the "Ward Teacher’s Message," Rev. Cope’s letter, and President Smith’s response.)

Despite LDS leaders' counsel, there are many members who seem to want a ban on any type of dissenting opinion.

And such is the nature of imperfect people ... the most telling aspect of what you have written is that the leadership corrected the error and that gives me hope, and sustains my testimony.

Consider that the episode didn't result in a new faction of the faith starting up a part of but autonomous from the church which is often what happens in the Catholic faith. It’s remarkable. For all of the hand ringing about local leadership missteps the church is remarkably resilient -principally we are a church of service.

Many like Seattle try to obscure this truth and hold out hope that the church’s growth will cease … it’s a means of suppressing the fond feelings of the spirit experienced as a child at home and at church –the pang of which rules their very thoughts and actions. But I digress …

There is room for disagreement, it has it’s place within the context of the current leadership structure. Of course we have so much disdain voiced about that structure and processes most fail to see that structure as the opportunity it is … many here revel in the idea that leadership and stewardship should be abhorred and in turn give further credence to the disdain … when in fact they could embrace the blessing of service and seize the opportunity to teach and influence change.

Tex · 11-26-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

No way. Most of the demands for people to conform their views are on matters that are not "must believes" for Mormons. The "foundational doctrines" are a very short list. Fundamentalists want to make it a longer list.

Evolved? No. Correlated? Yes.

I realize it's very vogue to be anti-correlation in the intellectual world, but you're really missing the forest. It took years--in some cases, decades--to come to an understanding on topics that today we take for granted as settled doctrine.

For example: perfectly normal, active LDS members were being re-baptized as a renewal of their covenants up through the late 19th century, until the doctrine of the sacrament and its relationship to baptism was better understood. The much-maligned Word of Wisdom has evolved mightily over the decades as well.

There are still areas where debate is had, but it's not as broad or as deep because some questions have 180 years of experience and revelation behind them, not due to the disregarding of some imagined-sacrosanct principle of disagreement.

Mormon Red Death · 11-26-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooblue

There is room for disagreement, it has it’s place within the context of the current leadership structure. Of course we have so much disdain voiced about that structure and processes most fail to see that structure as the opportunity it is … many here revel in the idea that leadership and stewardship should be abhorred and in turn give further credence to the disdain … when in fact they could embrace the blessing of service and seize the opportunity to teach and influence change.

I have had 2 instances this year where my disagreement was pushed aside and I was told "the stake president has decided and that is how we are doing it".

tooblue · 11-26-2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I have had 2 instances this year where my disagreement was pushed aside and I was told "the stake president has decided and that is how we are doing it".

Will he be acting Stake President for the remainder of his natural life? Will his views change with time –within months or years? Will your discussion prove fruitful as the dynamic of his Stake changes over time? Are your suggestions ahead of their time? Church membership and leadership is not instantaneous -it's a long process that engenders growth in both the individual and the organization.

Is it realistic to expect a good idea on your part to effect immediate change in others?

Tex · 11-26-2007, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooblue

Will he be acting Stake President for the remainder of his natural life? Will his views change with time –within months or years? Will your discussion prove fruitful as the dynamic of his Stake changes over time? Are your suggestions ahead of their time? Church membership and leadership is not instantaneous -it's a long process that engenders growth in both the individual and the organization.

Is it realistic to expect a good idea on your part to effect immediate change in others?

PS. Does a priesthood mantle mean anything anymore? Is "dissent" to be more highly praised?

tooblue · 11-26-2007, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

PS. Does a priesthood mantle mean anything anymore? Is "dissent" to be more highly praised?

Mantle and discernment are not the arm of the authoritarian ... they are the means by which a man or woman qualified by God blesses the lives of disciples of Christ with selfless service and humility. The humble listen to and respect the stewardship of the PEC Welfare and Ward commitees. Disagreement is not dissent!