General Conference - Fall 2010

[colton]

Man, it's a gay ex-mormons opinion. Take it for what it's worth. What about the rest of the post?

Well, it's silly for him to suppose that Mormons are too dumb to have thought about those things before. (At least, that's how his post came across to me. And it's ironic that when insulting the intelligence of Mormons, he misspelled "their".)

When he asks, "So what is it? Are they prophets and apostles, or just men?" I respond "False dichotomy". They are both, obviously. I fully support Pres. Monson as a prophet, and believe that he has the ability/responsibility to proclaim God's word to the world today. That doesn't mean that every single comment Pres. Monson makes comes directly from God. It does mean that I should take Pres. Monson's comments seriously, and give serious thought about them. Similarly with other church leaders, but I would say to a lesser extent the farther "down the chain of command" you go.(*)

I think a lot of talks at conference were inspired, and I will think and ponder about how to apply those principles in my life and the life of my family... but "inspired" != "infallible" so it won't shake my testimony if (for example) a General Authority is found to be making up stories in his conference talks (nods to Elder Dunn).

(*) (This paragraph added after the initial post) For example, when I was a ward mission leader in California a while back I had to deal with a mission president who was (in my opinion) seriously abusing his power by instituting unreasonable rules for the missionaries and threatening to send them home in disgrace if they disobeyed. I told the missionaries I dealt with that "When all is said and done, you are responsible to God for your actions, not to the mission president. So, try to follow the mission rules as best you can, but if they come in conflict with basic courtesy and politeness, the scriptural injunction to love your neighbor trumps the mission president's wacky rules."

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Well, it's silly for him to suppose that Mormons are too dumb to have thought about those things before. (At least, that's how his post came across to me. And it's ironic that when insulting the intelligence of Mormons, he misspelled "their".)

When he asks, "So what is it? Are they prophets and apostles, or just men?" I respond "False dichotomy". They are both, obviously. I fully support Pres. Monson as a prophet, and believe that he has the ability/responsibility to proclaim God's word to the world today. That doesn't mean that every single comment Pres. Monson makes comes directly from God. It does mean that I should take Pres. Monson's comments seriously, and give serious thought about them. Similarly with other church leaders, but I would say to a lesser extent the farther "down the chain of command" you go.(*)

I think a lot of talks at conference were inspired, and I will think and ponder about how to apply those principles in my life and the life of my family... but "inspired" != "infallible" so it won't shake my testimony if (for example) a General Authority is found to be making up stories in his conference talks (nods to Elder Dunn).

(*) (This paragraph added after the initial post) For example, when I was a ward mission leader in California a while back I had to deal with a mission president who was (in my opinion) seriously abusing his power by instituting unreasonable rules for the missionaries and threatening to send them home in disgrace if they disobeyed. I told the missionaries I dealt with that "When all is said and done, you are responsible to God for your actions, not to the mission president. So, try to follow the mission rules as best you can, but if they come in conflict with basic courtesy and politeness, the scriptural injunction to love your neighbor trumps the mission president's wacky rules."

I see where you are coming from. But is it possible you're being a little defensive here and kind missing the bigger picture.

Obviously, the things this kid mentions in his letter do not apply to every Mormon out there, but I know many that use this line of reasoning when ever the LDS church is questioned. These issues are serious and require some of us to look at ourselves and ask tough questions.

Here's an article in today's paper. Believe me, the jury is out, even amongst the LDS churches own members.

https://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50413221-76/church-lds-packer-speech.html.csp

 

[Bronco70]

I see where you are coming from. But is it possible you're being a little defensive here and kind missing the bigger picture.

This could easily be said of either side.

 

[sirkickyass]

However, the question about which talks are canonical (as in should have the authority of scripture) is a deeper subject. Personally, I probably have a much more narrow view on that than most Mormons. I think the President of the Church has authority to declare canon;(*) talks by others may or may not be canon.(**) I wrote this a few years ago (10?) on the topic:
https://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/colton/personal/lds/conference.htm

Is it fair to say then that you believe some conference talks are incorrect or are incompatible in some sense with the totality of the views of God since they are are not all canonical?

If two conference talks contained conflicting messages (for the sake of argument we'll say they are from people of the same level, for example both seventies) how do you choose, or is it possible that you may disagree with both and have some third option?

I think where I'm trying to go is here: is it possible to be a) both a good Mormon and b) disagree with the church on this issue? Is there room for dissent without being evil or in sin?

And before I get blasted here by people who aren't colton (who I have a decent history with when it comes to discussing issues related to Mormonism, so I doubt he would take these questions from me the wrong way) I think it is extraordinarily difficult to cast me as an anti-Mormon. Please don't get defensive, I am truly asking in as respectful a manner as possible.

 

[TroutBum]

Is it fair to say then that you believe some conference talks are incorrect or are incompatible in some sense with the totality of the views of God since they are are not all canonical?

If two conference talks contained conflicting messages (for the sake of argument we'll say they are from people of the same level, for example both seventies) how do you choose, or is it possible that you may disagree with both and have some third option?

I think where I'm trying to go is here: is it possible to be a) both a good Mormon and b) disagree with the church on this issue? Is there room for dissent without being evil or in sin?

I'm a good Mormon and I totally disagree with Packer. I'm infuriated by him, actually.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

This could easily be said of either side.

Who's lifestyle and sexuality are being critiqued here? Who's actively trying to deny people rights to marriage?

I think, this time, the LDS Church is not being victimized here. They've taken their stance, they need to live with the criticism as well.

 

[colton]

Who's actively trying to deny people rights to marriage?

"Deny people rights to marriage" assumes that such rights actually exist. Last time I checked, the Supreme Court has not said that homosexual unions have a right to be marriages. That decision will undoubtedly have to come from them. Until such time, my personal opinion is that homosexuals do *not* have a right to marriage. There is (clearly?) no absolute "right to marry anyone you want", because otherwise (for example) brother-sister marriages would not be forbidden like they currently are. And if states have a right to forbid such marriages, then it seems to me like states absolutely have a right to forbid homosexual marriages as well.

 

[YB85]

I'm a good Mormon

I stopped reading after that.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

"Deny people rights to marriage" assumes that such rights actually exist. Last time I checked, the Supreme Court has not said that homosexual unions have a right to be marriages. That decision will undoubtedly have to come from them. Until such time, my personal opinion is that homosexuals do *not* have a right to marriage. There is (clearly?) no absolute "right to marry anyone you want", because otherwise (for example) brother-sister marriages would not be forbidden like they currently are. And if states have a right to forbid such marriages, then it seems to me like states absolutely have a right to forbid homosexual marriages as well.

You know, they used the same argument to keep black people from marrying white people back in the day. Jus sayin.

 

[Archie Moses]

You can disagree with leaders, but the church teaches that you should support them. Even if you feel like what they are teaching is something contrary to your personal belief, we believe you still should support them. In fact, it's one of the questions that is asked to be able to have a temple recommend. "Do you support your leaders?" I've had leaders like bishops, stake presidents, etc that have said something crazy things and were crazy hard to support. I've learned that I'm not here to judge, no one is perfect. I should support them and help them with their callings. Maybe the Lord has something for them to learn. As for Packer, I think he tells things how they are. It's black or it's white and there is no gray. I think a lot of members can't hack this, so they justify. I for one believe he is an Apostle of Christ and he receives divine revelation. I know that the family is the focal point of the church and how important the mortal existence is. People get upset with what he says or with what the church says about marriage, but ultimately, it's nothing new. We believe that God says that homosexuality is a sin because it mocks the plan of salvation.

Prophets and apostles are called of god, but they are only ordinary men trying to follow God's plan too.

"The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible."

"The Presidency of the Church have to walk just as you walk. They have to take steps just as you take steps. They have to depend upon the revelations of God as they come to them. They cannot see the end from the beginning as the Lord does. They have their faith tested as you have your faith tested. . . . It is just as necessary that the Presidency and the Apostles should be tried as it is that you should be tried. It is as necessary that our faith should be called into exercise as that your faith should be called into exercise. We can see a certain distance in the light of the Spirit of God as it reveals to us His mind and His will, and we can take these steps with perfect security, knowing that they are the right steps to be taken. But as to what the result will be, that is for the God of Israel to control. That is the way in which the Church of God has always been led, and it will always be led in that way until He comes who is our King, our Lawgiver and our President, even Jesus Christ."

Here's a quote from Elder Packer himself.

"The prophets, as they walk and live among men, are common, ordinary men. Men called to apostolic positions are given a people to redeem. Theirs is the responsibility to lead those people in such a way that they win the battles of life and conquer the ordinary temptations and passions and challenges. And then, speaking figuratively, it is as though these prophets are tapped on the shoulder and reminded: "While you carry such responsibility to help others with their battles, you are not excused from your own challenges of life. You too will be subject to passions, temptations, challenges. Win those battles as best you can. Some people are somehow dissatisfied to find in the leading servants of the Lord such ordinary mortals. They are disappointed that there is not some obvious mystery about those men; it is almost as if they are looking for the strange and the occult. To me, however, it is a great testimony that the prophets anciently and the prophets today are called out from the ranks of the ordinary men. It should not lessen our faith, for example, to learn that Elijah was discouraged at times, even despondent. (See 1Kgs.19:4.) This calling forth of ordinary men for extraordinary purposes is as evident during the Savior's earthly mission as in former and later eras."

I can name tons of examples from the scriptures that show either how prophets or apostles messed up some how, or sinned, or had their teachings changed. The only person who ever lived a "perfect" life was Christ. No prophet or apostle will ever be perfect, and because since the fall, they can't. We can't. Why was Lot the most righteous man when he was messing around with his daughter? How could David commit adultery and murder? Why did the Mosaic Law change? Why did Peter deny Christ? Why did Bruce R. McKonkie have to be corrected about the priesthood? The answer, to me, is simple. We don't know everything that god has planned for us and sometimes we miss understand things. However, we believe the heavens are open and that god continues to reveal things to us to help us along the way. So why do things change sometimes then? Sometimes we know, and sometimes we don't.

"Noah occasionally drank wine to the point of drunkenness and unconsciousness (Genesis 9:21, 23). Abraham acquiesced in his wife's mistreatment of his second wife (Genesis 16:6). Jacob "with subtlety" and deception obtained his brother's blessing from his blind father Isaac (Genesis 27:12, 35), and also hated his first wife Leah (Genesis 29:30-31). Moses at the least committed manslaughter prior to his call as a prophet (Exodus 2:12-14), and after that call occasionally exhibited doubt in God's word, fierce anger, and boastful arrogance (Exodus 4:10-14, 5:22-23, 32:19; Numbers 20:10-12). The Lord had to intervene directly to prevent Samuel from choosing the wrong man as king (1 Samuel 16:6-7). Daniel sought forgiveness for his sins while prophet (Daniel 9:20). Jonah resisted the commandment of God to him (Jonah 1:2-3, 4:1) James and John, as apostles, delighted in the thought of their opponents being destroyed (Luke 9:52-56) and pridefully sought to elevate themselves above the rest of God's children in the eternities (Mark 10:35-38). Peter was impudent, boastful, arrogant, and cowardly as an apostle during the life of Jesus (Matthew 16:21-23, 26:69-75; John 13:8-9, 18:10-11). Despite Christ's command to send the Gospel to all nations at His ascension (Matthew 27:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47), it required another specific revelation to Peter to persuade him that the Gospel should be taken to those who were not Jews (Acts 10-11), and even years after that revelation Peter continued to demonstrate his prejudice (Galatians 2:1,9,11-14). Nor did Peter hesitate to criticize the approach of his fellow apostle Paul in teaching the Gospel (2 Peter 3:15-16); Paul likewise boasted that he had publicly condemned Peter and "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Galatians 2:11-14). Moreover, conflicts between Barnabus and Paul resulted in the disruption of their mission (Acts 13:2, 15:36-39)."

https://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/priesthood/prophets/infallibility.html

This is a pretty good link that clarifies a lot of stuff. I didn't read everything on it, but I'm going to now.

It comes as a matter of surprise to many people that Church leaders do not always have the same understanding of all gospel principles. That surprise reflects the confidence the members have in their leaders and suggests that they almost expect the leaders to be infallible. It also suggests that they equate priesthood offices with knowledge. It would be comfortable to suppose that among our leaders there are no unanswered questions and that a perfect equality of understanding exists. Realizing that each of us is responsible for our own understanding and that no two people are at exactly the same place in that process is an important lesson. It is also important to realize that we cannot always lean on others. To walk by borrowed light is necessary for a time and a season, but at some point it is expected that we take our place as the source of light for others.

There is room in the Church for differences of understanding. On matters about which the revelations are plain, however, there ought to be a unity of thought and faith. We need not put question marks at the end of revealed pronouncements. We sustain the man who stands at the head of the Church as the living constitution of the Church. We follow the direction he points and accept his voice as final where doctrinal differences may exist. Such authority must rest with him if the Lord's house is to be a house of order and if we are to avoid being tossed about by every wind of doctrine. This is simply to say that there is but one head, and in this sense, one spokesman, for the Church.

It is not to be expected, however, that every General Authority will be the equal of every other General Authority in doctrinal understanding any more than it is to be expected that every bishop have the same understanding as every other bishop or every Sunday School teacher have the same understanding as every other Sunday School teacher. It is common to see people change and improve their views in the process of serving. We should all find ourselves giving better answers to questions and preaching better doctrine with the passing of years. That is true at all levels of the Church. It is also to be expected that the present generation can and will improve upon the preceding generation. Surely we are obligated to improve upon what we have been given. There is danger that some may use that idea as justification to liberalize their views and move further and further from the mainstream of faith and truth. That is a shabby counterfeit to be guarded against. The greater danger rests in our refusing to move forward, announcing that what we have received is sufficient and that nothing more can be added to it. Warning against such an attitude the Lord said: "From them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have" (2 Nephi 28:30).

Thus, in those instances when the views of one man reach beyond those of another, we ought to rejoice in the additional knowledge and in the realization that the process of spiritual growth is alive and well in the Church. To do so will require that we surrender our security blanket (or the notion that in this mortal world all are equal in understanding) and realize that learning the gospel is a process, not an office, and that each individual is responsible for what he or she chooses to believe and teach.

 

[colton]

Is it fair to say then that you believe some conference talks are incorrect or are incompatible in some sense with the totality of the views of God since they are are not all canonical?

If two conference talks contained conflicting messages (for the sake of argument we'll say they are from people of the same level, for example both seventies) how do you choose, or is it possible that you may disagree with both and have some third option?

I think where I'm trying to go is here: is it possible to be a) both a good Mormon and b) disagree with the church on this issue? Is there room for dissent without being evil or in sin?

And before I get blasted here by people who aren't colton (who I have a decent history with when it comes to discussing issues related to Mormonism, so I doubt he would take these questions from me the wrong way) I think it is extraordinarily difficult to cast me as an anti-Mormon. Please don't get defensive, I am truly asking in as respectful a manner as possible.

I absolutely believe that some conference talks in the past have been incorrect or incompatible with the views of God. I cited Elder Dunn's made up stories above as an example of that (although presumably the points of his stories still followed core LDS principles). As another example, the church "Gospel Principles" manual used to have a quote from conference by an apostle (if my memory holds; sorry that I forget the details) which said, "Fathers should prefer to have their daughters get murdered than let themselves be raped." That quote was found in the German version of that manual c. 1990, and presumably in some pre-1990 English version manuals as well. I recall distinctly because a fairly recent convert asked me then (I was a missionary) if that sentiment seemed right to me. Meanwhile, that quote has disappeared from the manual, presumably because current church leadership does not agree with it.

So, if a conference talk doesn't seem right to you, or if it conflicts with another talk, you choose by letting your own conscience (aka inspiration from the Holy Spirit) be your guide. As I said to the missionary in the story in my last post, when all is said and done you are responsible to God for the choices you make. So, do what you think is right and let the consequences follow.

(But, I would add, be very careful if your own inspiration takes you too far away from what church leaders are teaching. As I believe one of the speakers at conference said, there is such a thing as "inspiration" from the wrong source.)

Let me now address this specific question: "I think where I'm trying to go is here: is it possible to be a) both a good Mormon and b) disagree with the church on this issue? Is there room for dissent without being evil or in sin?"

As Trout said, sure you can be a "good Mormon" and disagree with church leaders. But I would say, only to a point. Taking Pres. Kimball as an example... when he said, "The Lord told me to remove the priesthood ban", to me that is clearly declaring the will of the Lord. "Good Mormons" sustain the president of the church as a prophet, and recognize him as the only person on the earth entitled to speak for the Lord. So if people disagreed with Pres. Kimball's change in policy back then, I would say that they had crossed a line and were no longer sustaining him as a prophet.

Would gay marriage be such a thing? Not necessarily, in my opinion. I could see a situation where a "good Mormon" might feel opposed to gay marriage on a personal level, but because of their overall world view of how the law should operate, might vote in favor of gay marriage. (Reference point: I recently had a Jewish research student who said that's the way he, and most of his congregation, view the gay marriage situation.) Actually, wasn't Steve Young's wife (I forget her name) in that exact situation? I don't think she was kicked out of the church, or anything like that, because she was actively against Prop 8.

(quick search) Yep, here it is:
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=32216
https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4686916

 

[colton]

You can disagree with leaders, but the church teaches that you should support them. Even if you feel like what they are teaching is something contrary to your personal belief, we believe you still should support them. In fact, it's one of the questions that is asked to be able to have a temple recommend. "Do you support your leaders?" I've had leaders like bishops, stake presidents, etc that have said something crazy things and were crazy hard to support. I've learned that I'm not here to judge, no one is perfect. I'm should support them and help them with their callings. Maybe the Lord has something for them to learn.

Thanks, Archie, I tried to figure out how to say something like that as well, but couldn't. I agree completely.

"Supporting your leaders" means to me that (for example) when a bishop says something in church that isn't quite right (happened Sunday before last!), I either let it slide or else talk to the bishop privately about it. What I *shouldn't* do is complain to everyone else in the ward and their dog about how misinformed our bishop is.