My fondest hope for Monson's presidency

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Out of curiosity...
-Are you claiming here that these inactive folks are inactive because of a mistake made by the church? Or, like most sane LDS people, do you accept the fact that Satan is trying damn hard to get his hooks into people in any way he can, and this was probably the hook for these two individuals?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never read Compton's book. It's fairly clear what Adam is claiming; that the church isn't open enough about its history and that some people, when they learn certain aspects of that history, find it incompatible with the beliefs they previously held about their church.

Originally Posted by Spaz

Forgive me..., but I'd actually like Adam to answer the questions I posed to him, rather than your interpretation thereof...

I'm certainly not trying to be accusatory.

Oh no, you're certainly not. Well, except that you lead with phrases like "or like most sane LDS people do you accept..."

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Adam

Both. Satan looks for places to put his hooks (to continue your analogy), by lying about our history, hiding our history, twisting our history, we give great openings to Satan wherein to put his hooks. Honestly tackling our history, which is starting to happen with Bushman and Prince and Compton and Hardy and Quinn building on what Arrington and Alexander started in the 80s and 90s, is the right way to go.

The church has gone from fighting honest history (firing Arrington as church historian and making it a GA position) to allowing it (Bushman's book was sold by Deseret Book, but they wouldn't publish it). The next step is to embrace it. I look forward to that day.

OK - I can understand this approach. Understand, however, that I take all historical records with a grain of salt. Bias is inherent in everything, especially historical records. I, therefore, won't accept an individual account of the history of the church at face value. Outside that qualification, I have no problem with an accurate account of church history.

Originally Posted by Adam

I think it is mainstream Mormon doctrine to believe Wilford Woodruff's statements excerpted after the Manifesto in the DC regarding God taking a prophet who is leading the church astray. I think it is unquestionable that HBLee was a racist (as were most white men born in America around the turn of the century) and he refused to consider the question/ask god about giving blacks the priesthood. I think it is undeniable that HBLee was taken long before his normal lifespan and health should have carried him. I think it is a fact that SWK gave blacks the priesthood shortly thereafter.

You are uncomfortable with the obvious "therefore" statement that follows these facts. You say it isn't our place to use our heads and say "therefore".

I understand and accept that most Mormons agree with you. I do not.

-I believe that God will remove a prophet who ACTIVELY leads the church in a direction He doesn't want the church to go.

-I don't know enough to make a determination on whether HBLee was a racist, nor does that affect me nor my beliefs in any way whatsoever.

-I am not uncomfortable with the 'obvious therefore'. I simply don't view it as my place (nor yours) to determine whether the cause of HBLee's death was a split from the Lord on the subject of Blacks receiving the priesthood.

Originally Posted by Adam

It is an interesting theology that says man has no right to use their god-given agency to determine for themselves if their leader is right on a given policy/doctrinal point. To quote a great modern poet: "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill." (Extra credit to the person that can name to poet without using Google.)

If one determines the leader is wrong, a second separate step is to determine if you should follow that leader anyway.

I have no problem saying HBLee was wrong on blacks and the priesthood. I might have stayed in the church anyway because the church, even with significant flaws, is the repository of the keys of baptism through sealing and I want to partake, and have my family partake, of those ordinances.

-I did NOT say we don't have the right to make any such determination. It is, IMO, REQUIRED for us to prove the teachings of the prophets to determine if they are of any worth. IMO, I've done that in various ways, and have neither the desire nor the requirement to do so for every single doctrine.

-I would have no problem with you pesonally disagreeing with HBLee, when he made the pronouncement that blacks would not receive the priesthood during his lifetime (Oh, wait - was that a pronouncement or a rumor based on third-party recountings?).

-I would, however, have a problem with you pronouncing, upon his death, that he was wrong and that's why he was killed by God.



If you want to maintain the belief that President Lee was taken by God because he wouldn't accept God's direction regarding blacks, you're certainly welcome to. Just don't try to tell me it's a fact, and that I should believe it too. I'll accept that it MIGHT have been the way things went down, so to speak, but I would require PERSONAL REVELATION as such to believe it's true...

Lastly, I don't believe that I SHOULD seek personal revelation on that subject. Nor do I believe that it's something God would share with me.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never read Compton's book. It's fairly clear what Adam is claiming; that the church isn't open enough about its history and that some people, when they learn certain aspects of that history, find it incompatible with the beliefs they previously held about their church.



Oh no, you're certainly not. Well, except that you lead with phrases like "or like most sane LDS people do you accept..."

I clearly reacted emotionally to his initial post, and clearly misunderstood it.

Still, the question, while it included my obvious bias, was a fair question, which I wanted answered by the person it was directed to. I don't feel the need to apologize for that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Adam

To quote a great modern poet: "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill." (Extra credit to the person that can name to poet without using Google.)

Rush.

(the band, not the blowhard)

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Adam

My fondest hopes for the Monson presidency:

1) After calling Clayton Christensen (innovation scholar at Harvard Business School and local area authority in the Northeast) the next Apostles will speak Spanish or Portuguese or Tagalog as their native languages,

2) Secrecy regarding church finances be lifted and an SEC style disclosure be made public by the church every year at April conference,

3) Completely revamp our failing missionary program by sending out all the YM and YW upon high school graduation to service missions in third world countries for 18 months after which, if they choose, they can serve a proselytizing mission for another 18 months.

4) The seminary program be revamped by firing all full time seminary teachers and replacing them with lay teachers from the surrounding stakes and have four years, instead of being centered around the four standard works, be centered around the following four topics: a) Jesus the Christ and the Atonement (using Talmage's book as the center), b) Joseph Smith (using RSR by Bushman as the central text), c) Church History (using Arrington's Great Basin Kingdom and American Moses, Prince's DOM and the Origins of Modern Mormonism, Kimball's bio by his son, and similar books a the central texts), and d) Charity focusing on how to live a Christian life through unselfish service--the meaning of the pure love of Christ (I'm not sure the right books have been written for this year yet).

5) The Temple be stripped of the tedious theater leaving only the essential ordinances and that the celestial rooms be less like silent freezers and more like Eli's temple where Hannah cried out for relief from her empty womb and was granted Samuel. (can you imagine the nasty looks and physical violence that would befall someone wailing and thrashing on the floor as the supposed-drunk Hannah if that were to happen in our temples today?)

6) BYU is freed of a GA president and true academic freedom is instituted, the honor code is replaced by the behavioral temple recommend questions,

7) The church opens thousands of church affiliated secondary schools in third world countries manned by a new missionary program where every stake sends out and supports three families at all times to work in the schools,

8) A church-wide repentance and forgiveness reformation ala Jeddiah M. Grant in the 1850s be announced with the mass baptism of all those committed to signal a new start. Only those so baptized would be included on the newly purged records of the Church. Everyone, even excommunicated and disfellowshipped are welcomed to have a fresh start by joining in.

Interesting.

My guess is that none of this happens. Not even a small part.

[SteelBlue]

#3 and #7 are really interesting ideas.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Interesting.

My guess is that none of this happens. Not even a small part.

My guess is (and it is just a guess) the Lord wants few-to-none of these things to happen, and my fondest hope is that the Lord's will be done.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Spaz

My guess is (and it is just a guess) the Lord wants few-to-none of these things to happen, and my fondest hope is that the Lord's will be done.

My guess is that every program, as currently situated, is the best it can be, and if there are to be any changes, it certainly will not come from the rank and file members. We live in the best of all words, and don't you forget it.

[Indy Coug]

God doesn't really care what is done, just as long as the Twelve can all be of one mind and one heart on the matter at hand.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

God doesn't really care what is done, just as long as the Twelve can all be of one mind and one heart on the matter at hand.

The fifteen.