General questions for the board,

[shobeewan]

I have read quite a bit of information on this board that I find very disturbing coming from members of the church. I haven't been on the board long enough to learn everyone's personality and stance on things but I still find it interesting that people who are members or claim to be members will outright critisize the leadership of the church. People wanting explanations and reasons why the church does or has done certain things in the past, having their lists of things that the church needs to change, and outright anger that the leadership of the church would dare make a statement against endorsing one of the most heinous sins committed by the people on this earth.

I have a few questions
1- Who is the leader of this church? If you answer anyone but Jesus Christ why are you a member of the church? This is not President Hinkley's church, or Joseph's church, or even Brigham's church. The Lord is at the head and he is leading us in the direction we need to go. Who are we to question the Lord?

2- Is President Hinkley a Prophet? Once again if he isn't why are you a member of the church? Now the "blindly following" and "elevating leadership to godhood level" people are already perking up and rebutting this, but you raise your hand to sustain President Hinkley as a Prophet multiple times a year, why would you do this if you don't believe he is? As a prophet he is the mortal/ physical leader of the church here on the earth. Not every word that comes from his mouth is scripture or a direct commandment, but by ignoring his counsel and teachings you are ignoring the Lord. President Hinkley has been given keys by the Lord to set policy, and receive revelation for the entire church. If you doubt this once again why are you a member? Every time we receive a new leader of the church I pray about whether he is a prophet, I receive a positive answer and that is good enough for me.

3- Why do you feel that you have the right to ask or demand explanations or policy from the Lord? If the leader of the church is a prophet who speaks for the Lord with policies and statements regarding the position or beliefs of the church what gives you the right to question the right of the Lord to say those things? If you want to blow them off as the diluded ramblings of an old man who is out of touch that is fine, but you also sustain that rambling old man as a mouthpiece of the Lord.

I have just been troubled after reading some of the things that have been said on this board for the past little while. If you question and don't follow the Prophet's council on little issues, how are you going to follow his council on big issues? You can justify why you won't follow the Prophet on this issue or that, but if you follow the Prophet you will be going in the right direction. The Lord is not going to allow him to lead us astray. I don't think it will be very comfortable sitting in front of the Lord and telling him that the reason I didn't follow his Prophet's council was because "it wasn't an official commandment" or "I am just smarter and knew better than the Prophet what I should do." or my favorite "there wasn't a temple recommend question regarding that point."

I am sure I will be blasted for this as a blind follower. No I don't believe President Hinkley is a perfect man. I do believe he is a Prophet who speaks for the Lord, so when he speaks for the Church we need to give heed and follow his teachings. It all comes down to my first two questions, if the answer to either one is no, you are in the wrong church.

Sorry for the rambling, but had to get it off my chest.

[Mormon Red Death]

whoa easy there Champ... Maybe you better sit this next one out

[MikeWaters]

I think all these points are valid.

Discussions often take place when a vacuum exists. Why were blacks denied the priesthood? Apostles and prophets (all dead now) have spoken. But there views have been subtly rebuked by modern day prophets who instead of providing answers and explantion, only wipe the slate clean. This is a stumbling block for some members. What discussion here and in other places does is help members understand this issue and let them make their own decision. Not everyone wants to explore these sorts of issues. That's fine. The discussion is not for those people.

I have gradually come to a different view of religion and God over the years. I think God rarely acts when we don't ask him to. I think the scriptures bear this out. God wants us to learn, and leaves us to our own devices much of the time. I've met many people over the years who have the view "God guides me in every step I take every second of the day and night." That's simply just not my view of how things work. I also think this principle applies to the church. God and Jesus have delegated many mundane tasks of adminstration of the church to imperfect human beings. Like any parent, he lets his children make mistakes at times. Our church rests on the foundation of personal revelation. Hence in a way, every person is their own prophet, meaning that they must be close enough to the Spirit to have an inner compass to guide them in their actions. How can it be otherwise?

Frankly, the David O. McKay biography changed my views on a few things. Importantly, it let me know that the Brethren tackle certain topics from the bottom up, instead of the top down. We see evidence of this almost every General Conference. GBH says "I received a letter..." or "It has come to my attention from many members..." This implies a different sort of relationship between the President of the church and its members.

Every organization probably needs its "blind followers." But it would be a mistake, in my opinion, to exclude those with a different approach from membership and participation.

[SeattleUte]

All it will take for the Church to change its stance on gay marriage is a dramatic shift in public opinion as occurred regarding racial segregation. You never know, it could happen, especially if gay organizations in major cities develop the good sense to cancel gay pride parades. One of the amazing attributes of the Church is that its instincts are always super conservative, and drawn to a quite literal traditional interpretation of the scriptures, but the Church is always able quickly and adroitly to adjust policies and arguably doctrines to evolving social norms. I know I don't need to cite specific examples.

[JohnnyLingo]

Hey, SeattleUte is CatBlue? I had no idea.

Regarding the idea that the church will change it's policy on SSM as soon as the general public comes to accept it is ridiculous and deluded. Do you believe the same regarding sex before marriage? The Word of Wisdom?

Give me a break.

Oh, and shobeewan... you're right. Your words are unwelcome here and will brand you as a "Morbot".

Of course, the Zoramites also rejected similar words.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Hey, SeattleUte is CatBlue? I had no idea.

Regarding the idea that the church will change it's policy on SSM as soon as the general public comes to accept it is ridiculous and deluded. Do you believe the same regarding sex before marriage? The Word of Wisdom?

Give me a break.

Oh, and shobeewan... you're right. Your words are unwelcome here and will brand you as a "Morbot".

Of course, the Zoramites also rejected similar words.

I'm not CatBlue; I just compulsively plagiarize him because I think he's such a cool cat.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by shobeewan

...If you answer anyone but Jesus Christ why are you a member of the church?

...Once again if he isn't why are you a member of the church?

...If you doubt this once again why are you a member?

...if the answer to either one is no, you are in the wrong church.

First of all, I think you have grossly mischaracterized the overall tenor of discussions on this board. Most of us consider ourselves to be faithful members of the church and we respect the church leaders, including GBH.

Second, I think most of the folks on this board genuinely respect your opinion and your obviously sincere belief. I think it is reasonable to expect some respect in return.

Finally, it puzzles me that you would use that phrase "why are you a member?" so repeatedly in your post. It implies that you are uncomfortable with the thought of having members of the church that don't hold the same religious philosophy that you do. I find it sad that you would feel that way.

Peace, brother.

[shobeewan]

Originally Posted by homeboy

First of all, I think you have grossly mischaracterized the overall tenor of discussions on this board. Most of us consider ourselves to be faithful members of the church and we respect the church leaders, including GBH.

Second, I think most of the folks on this board genuinely respect your opinion and your obviously sincere belief. I think it is reasonable to expect some respect in return.

Finally, it puzzles me that you would use that phrase "why are you a member?" so repeatedly in your post. It implies that you are uncomfortable with the thought of having members of the church that don't hold the same religious philosophy that you do. I find it sad that you would feel that way.

Peace, brother.

First of all, I apologize to anyone who feels like I exhibited a lack of respect in the first post of this thread, that was not my intention and I have a great deal of respect for people who have differing viewpoints. That is one of my favorite things about the Gospel is that there are so many ways to look at things and to interpret scripture.

My multiple questions regarding membership of the church stems from the basic precepts of the gospel. If Jesus is not the head of the church, or if GBH doesn't speak for him there are tons of other church's that you can have alot more fun in than this one, and it is a sincere question of why are you hanging around?

I guess my main question is how do you decide when to follow the Prophet's council and when he is just blowing smoke that we can ignore? Was the Prophet being a Prophet when he councils with us not to gamble? To avoid porn? To avoid movies with questinable morals? For mother's to stay home and raise their children? When he tells us to support an amendment? How do you draw the line as to what you will follow and what you won't?

Once again I apologize for offending anyone it is not my intention.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by shobeewan

I guess my main question is how do you decide when to follow the Prophet's council and when he is just blowing smoke that we can ignore? Was the Prophet being a Prophet when he councils with us not to gamble? To avoid porn? To avoid movies with questinable morals? For mother's to stay home and raise their children? When he tells us to support an amendment? How do you draw the line as to what you will follow and what you won't?

A couple of things come to mind here. First, I can't remember any discussion here about whether his counsel to avoid gambling, porn and questionable movies is right. I think there has been some discussion about the difference between improper movies and movies that have received the MPAA "R" rating - that doesn't mean we don't follow the counsel of the prophet - or when we don't, that we don't accept the fact that we should.

Another thing comes through in your statement, "when he tells us to support an amendment" - he didn't actually come out and say that so bluntly - did he imply it? Or was he purposely oblique about it? There are many Mormons who read more into counsel than others do, and possibly even more than was intended. (Caffeine, anyone?)

If you're uncomfortable with this, you don't have to participate in the discussions. But if you decide to call people to repentance for even discussing these things, you'd probably be better off elsewhere.

[Surfah]

The Church, as SoCal mentions is perfectly oblique concerning many matters. And I too agree with much of his sentiment that many members do look to define counsel for themselves to eliminate any gray areas. I think we as members have a tendency to want black and white and nothing in between. Which is why the sexually frustrated mormon high schooler wants to know "how far is too far before I have to chat with my bishop" defined. We want parameters because most of us (my own opinion) aren't comfortable enough with allowing the Spirit in our lives to determine our stance before God. We want a checklist that we can carry with us to see how close or not we are to exaltation.

Using SoCalCoug's reference to caffeine I remember specifically a Q&A session before a Sharing the Gospel class with Bro. Bott. Someone asked him if he drank caffeinated beverages and Bro. Bott said he would not answer that question. He reasoned that if he said yes, then those who don't think it is wrong would tell those that believe it is wrong "see Bro. Bott drinks caffeine." And conversely the opposite if he said no.

Ultimately I believe the Church remains oblique so one school of thought doesn't demonize or vilify another. We do enough of that ourselves without the need of official declarations or directives through policy. Teach correct principles and let them govern themselves.