Over the past few weeks, Elder Bednar has been in the UK visiting the area and attending stake conferences, amongst other church business. Whilst Elder Bednar was in the UK, he held a special meeting for the YSA in England. Young single adults from all over the country travelled extortionary distances to get there. It is possibly the only church meeting I have been to where there was a queue outside the building to get in 2 hours before it even started (and I was there early because my ride was determined to get as close to an Apostle as she could).
Standing in queue with 200 fellow YSA to see an apostle, it’s hard not to think that many were lured in by the “cult of the celebrity.” There is a certain bewitchment that comes from the possibility of seeing someone famous, and in Mormon circles they don’t get much more famous than an apostle. As a result, the YSA were out in droves an hour before it even started and every chair in the 600-seating chapel was filled, and more were standing on the sides and sitting on the floor.
When he visits areas around the world, Elder Bednar hosts Question & Answer sessions. He started by saying that there was no such thing as a bad question, that all questions were good and worth asking. This was refreshing to hear from an apostle, to listen to him encourage members to use their cognitive powers to ask questions. I couldn’t help but think that perhaps he meant that it’s okay to question as long as you ask the right questions. He pointed out that for most, this will be their only opportunity to ask an apostle a question. In looking back over the minute the questions that were asked could be divided into several subcategories.
Personal Questions
I personally found these quite awkward. They were questions in which the person asked Elder Bednar about a personal problem that they had. For instance, one of them asked about how he could feel good about the fact that he came home early from his mission. He then proceeded to spend 10 minutes pouring out his heart about it. (The answer he got: speak to your bishop and read Alma 7:11).
These seemed to me people who wanted validation from an apostle, or, they wanted him to act on behalf of Jesus and tell them that their sins are forgiven them. It just seemed a bit pointless to me to ask a question about a problem that he had no knowledge. All he could give in response to them was general advice that could be obtained from any general conference talk.
Generic Questions
These were questions that were rather big and amorphous such as ‘What is the doctrine of grace?‘ A question like that hardly draws upon an apostle’s unique experience. If you want to know about grace, apparently you don’t need to ask an apostle as all Elder Bednar did was open up the scriptures and read from the Bible Dictionary.
One of the better generic questions was the difference between emotion, good thoughts, and the spirit. Elder Bednar’s response to this was that it doesn’t matter, as long as you are being good. If the thought or feeling invites you to be better and do more good, then it doesn’t really matter if it’s the spirit telling you or just your own thoughts and emotions. This was a good point, yet it failed to really give an adequate way of demarcating spirit from personal thoughts and emotion.
Biographical Questions
These I think were the best questions. They were questions that asked about things that only Elder Bednar knew or had experience of. They were questions such as ‘What was it like being in the room when President Monson was called?’ These were insightful. Elder Bednar said that when President Hinckley died that they all knew that President Monson was the one that God had prepared to be the president of the church and that God holds the keys of life, and preserves the lives of those that he wants to be the president of the church. This would seem to indicate that right now God wants President Packer to be the president of the church. I did wonder how Elder Bednar reconciled this with medical development, as surely the competency of the doctors also have a say in who lives and dies from the apostleship.
My Question
Having a suspicion that Elder Bednar would have questions and answers, I had prepared many questions that I wanted to ask him. Some of them fit into the final category, such as ‘How do homosexuals fit into the plan of salvation?‘ This question was half-asked by someone else, but it was more to do with helping to make homosexuals feel welcome at church. The answer he gave was similar to the one given here to the question ‘What will happen to someone with same gender attraction once they die?’ I also wanted to get his perspective on the September Six, D. Michael Quinn, and the church’s relationship with academics.
In the end I decided not to go for any of these more controversial questions but instead asked him about his experience as an apostle. I wanted to know how he stops the celebrity of being an apostle from going to his head, given the fact that everyone adores him, that in a Sunday School class no one would ever disagree with him, that if he asked people to jump they would jump without thinking. What stops him from abusing his position? What keeps the apostles from exercising unrighteous dominion? (Well, yes, this was three questions, but they were all related).
The answer he gave was insightful, and he answered in two stages. The first was to talk about the weight of the calling of the apostleship. He told us that the longer he served as an apostle and the more he understood what it involves, that directly causes that person to feel the crushing weight of responsibility and a feeling of inadequacy. He said that some days the weight of it all makes you want to crawl under bed and hide, and that the only way to go on it to realise that its not about you, but doing your best. That even though you feel you can only do little, that the rest is made up by God.
The second stage of his response was that we don’t see what goes on behind closed doors. That as soon as any of them go out and visit places and start to feel like they are cool, they return to the Quorum where they are soon put in their place. He then told us what it was like being in a meeting with the rest of the apostles. He described them as speaking very candidly, forthrightly, directly, and boldly, that everyone expressed an opinion and that they often disagreed in a strong manner on certain points. He told an interesting story about when Elder Scott was made an apostle. The candor and directness of the discussion was so intimidating that Elder Scott avoided making a comment for the first three months. During one of the early meetings the intensity of the discussion was higher then normal, and a fellow apostle passed him a note saying: “welcome to the quorum; we play hard ball here.” I did try to ascertain what things they disagreed on; the best I got was ‘things that concern the membership of the church.’
It was refreshing to hear that in meetings at the upper levels they are free to disagree. I had always suspected this to be the case but to hear it being said was encouraging. Elder Bednar also spoke about how, even though they spoke directly and with conviction (a nicer way of saying they disagreed strongly), none of them were trying to prove others wrong or to contend with each other. None of them were doing it to gain respect or validation from others but out of a sincere passion to do what was best for the church and was right in the eyes of God. It is a shame that this knowledge of the internal discussion and disagreement that constitute the mechanics of church meetings is kept from members. Perhaps if members knew then it would result in a more healthy attitude towards leaders, rather than a Mormon version of papal infallibility.
This healthy attitude comes from seeing them as ordinary men with an extraordinary role. It comes from having the faith to question. It was wonderful to see him encourage people to think and ask questions even if, despite saying the answers come from the Holy Ghost, it still suggests that they need to refer to a general authority to get the answer. By the end of the evening Elder Bednar had shown a human dimension that is sometimes stripped away in his normal public persona. He was not the strict, orthodox, fun-hating apostle that I had always thought he was (although his wife told of him making them all wear Sunday best to the beach whilst everyone else was in beach wear). There is something humanizing about seeing an apostle do an impression of the Cookie Monster to characterise the natural man.
In the end, what came through was that the apostles are simply normal people who don’t have all the magical answers or a special doorway to God; they are imperfect people just like us but with a role with of great responsibility.
Have you had a chance to sit in this type of forum with an apostle or other high-ranking leader? What would you ask an apostle given the chance?
Wheat & Tares 
I went to a Bednar Q&A in Reno but Elder Andersen was also there. There were a grand total of 0 insightful questions asked. Mostly it turned out to be a session where Elder Bednar had an opportunity to tell us all to talk to our Bishops and read the scriptures. The boring questions people think of to ask apostles just blew my mind.
Fascinating. Thanks!
I think that the commonality between the first and second category is that people are looking for ministry to EXPRESS Divine grace. The “celebrity” isn’t about fame; it’s hoping to be healed by touching the robe.
Interesting read. I saw Scott on the mission, I have the notes somewhere. It’s been too long to remember the subject matter.
I would ask why church doesn’t take a stronger stand on denouncing war with actions, not only words and how he feels the church and its members are doing in relation to the warning given by Christ in 3 Ne 16:10 in aggrandizing ourselves over other nations. Don’t know how that would be answered, but at this stage of my life and with the geopolitical conditions now these thoughts way heavily on my mind and heart.
I enjoyed this and glad to know Elder Bednar is a human. We had him at our Stake Conference as an AA70 and i liked him then, but less so now.
We had Pres. Hinckley at a Regional Leadership meeting a week before he became Prophet and the dumb questions that got asked on him made me sick. Not to mention the way some folks sucked up to him.
I did have dinner With Elder Paramore and his wife during a Stake Conference many years ago and found him and his wife to be charming folks. He was our Stake President’s Mission President and specifically asked to be assigned to our Stake that year.
Elder Holland was down here at Chapman University, and during the Q&A plenty of people had what I thought were kinda dumb questions, so I felt a need to ask a good one. I asked him what was the biggest lesson that he has learned since he became an apostle. His answer, to make it brief, was that being an apostle was not something he could take off or put on like clothing, but that it was something that weighs on him always, particularly since he knows how members think of the office. He then said that we all are apostles, with a little a, and being sent from God we can’t take our membership in the church off, either. I thought it was really awesome.
Nearly two years ago (my timeline is a little foggy as I was high on engagement excitement at the time) Bednar was in the Kansas area. I asked what he wished he knew before the day he got married. I guess the way I worded it translated into “what do you wish you knew about marriage” as the insight I was looking for was in regards to the specific day and he talked about how great of a blessing marriage was…
Looking back, it was a stupid question that I should have just asked my branch/stake president during an interview.
Oh, and he called a guy in the back a woman due to the long hair he was sporting. That guy asked if he had a testimony and firmly believed in everything he said. The answer given (yes) left a lasting mark with me.
Sorry I don’t have anything to add, but just want to say thanks for this post, Jake. I like how you categorized the questions (and agree with you and others that it seems silly what got/gets asked) and I love what you actually did ask.
Jake, thanks for the post. Fun read.
The longer I live the less I enjoy the worshipful attitude church members have for apostles. I understand it, but I also understand that he Lord is no respecter of persons.
Apostles are called by the Lord for many reasons. I think all that I have known, or known about, have been men of wisdom and accomplishment.
I’ve known a few of them before their call and have seen their human side.
I watched one of the current apostles get bent out of shape about something (years before his call). I thought he was out of line. Later, to his credit, he apologized.
I listen very closely to what they have to say. They are God’s special witnesses.
I think I’ll add this: all church members can be as close to the Lord as the apostles and the prophet. We certainly don’t have as big a responsibility, but in our sphere of influence we are entitled to receive the same kind and degree of guidance as they do. We can have the first and second comforter, just as they can. The main thing limiting any of us is our desires.
It seems from your experiences in similar settings that the ability to ask silly/dumb questions is a church wide problem. This is hardly surprising when you have a culture that for the most part discourages any form of questioning of doctrine/leaders/policies. The result of this is that when they get the opportunity to ask questions their ability ask thoughtful or decent questions is seriously restricted.
Interesting post. His description of his experience with the Q12 is very interesting. I am glad he shared this public because I get the impression that disagreement is not welcome in our ward meetings and that it is hard to get people to feel comfortable with it.
Great post…!
Elder Bednar’s response about the workings of the Q12 is exactly like Elder Ballard’s description in “Counseling with our Councils.”
I think dumb questions are really a human thing not just a “Mormon” thing. Someone once said, 5% of the people think, 15% think they think and 80% would rather die than think.
#10 Jake
I was born in the Church but after 23 years of inactivity I was converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and returned to the Church. I really think the Lord and the Leaders want us to ask questions of our faith, of doctrine, of the Gospel because asking questions is the only way to get answers, to learn. That is why I think Elder Bednar said there was no such thing as a bad question.
I used to tell my employees there are no dumb questions unless it is the question one has already asked before and gotten an answer and is asking it again….
I think the reason people ask softball questions is that they don’t want to make a spectacle of themselves in front of others and be seen as “edgy” by an apostle. Yet, I’m sure these guys are ready to answer whatever. I’m just not sure we would like the answer in all cases.
This post motivated me to familiarize myself a bit more with Elder Bednar and in this YouTube clip he seems to speak to a lot of themes under discussion here.
Hi Jake, Did Elder Bednar ask that those present not record or report on his remarks? I remember a report of Elder Oaks asking that his remarks not be recorded. I am wondering if they are now just going to assume that whatever they say spontaneously will be permanently recorded by attendees. It is quite a burden to speak freely knowing a slip or poorly thought out remark could cause lots of trouble for your cause and personal credibility.
I am wondering if they are now just going to assume that whatever they say spontaneously will be permanently recorded by attendees.
Sorry, probably not my place to respond, but since I was in the vicinity… The burden that #15 describes sounds like something that just maybe an Apostle of the Lord ought to be able to handle. Otherwise, Bednar would’ve brought a neuralyzer. He apparently didn’t. Deal with it.
Elder Bednar talked about this recently in the Religious Educator. The response that he gave you about the weight of the apostleship and strong discussion in the quorum was essentially the same as you report it.
#12
I like to think that we are encouraged to question. It is my experience that for the most part (this was the first time I had heard anyone say that all questions are good) questions are encouraged as long as they aren’t too difficult or we/they already know the answer.
I agree that the Lord wants us to question as we can only learn and grow through it. It is just sad that for many the types of questions that are permitted to be asked are often limited.
Hawkgrrl, I think you are right that many went for easy questions to avoid be stigmatised as being edgy or controversial. Perhaps deep down really I asked it so that I would be seen as being ‘edgy’. It was interesting that after many said that they couldn’t believe that I would ask an Apostle those questions, but at the same time it was a question that they wanted to be asked and thought it was a good question.
Another factor is that it is quite intimidating standing in front of an Apostle and asking him a question. Especially in a room full of your peers.
Paul 2, (#15)
Elder Bednar did not request that it wasn’t recorded or that notes weren’t made. Either way I didn’t make recordings, nor do I know anyone who did, just a few notes of what was interesting from it. Surely, taking notes to aid understanding on what they say is to be expected from a general authority, especially an Apostle?
I agree with Chino though. That as an Apostle surely there role is to stand as a witness of Christ at all times and in all places. If this is the case then they should be happy for what they say spontaneously to be recorded and shared. If they are not prepared to take ownership of what they say and let it be shared then they shouldn’t say it. Yes, sometimes it will cause trouble, in which case they should just do what the rest of us do in such cases and clarify on what we meant later.
Thank you for this post. It reminds me of when I was on my mission when a visiting Church leader also caused people to travel for hours and queue up to shake his hand.
I contrast that with my current situation. I am friends with General Authorities, as are my family and my wife’s family. I have seen GAs as patients and operated on them. I have General Authorities in my ward. An apostle regularly visits the ward. People might say hi to them like any other member, but no one particularly fawns over them.
There are GAs I could ask any question, but I don’t. By the nature of their calling, they are going to give fairly bland answers. I think the church is cognizant of things prior leaders have said (like men living on the moon or man NEVER setting foot on the moon or the Adam-God theory or whatever) and tries to stay very generic.
Also, for what it’s worth, all of the GAs I know are very humble men. They are genuinely committed to making the Church a better place and its members better people. They quite literally would give ALL of their time, talents and everything for the Church. When I’ve seen them as patients, they have been more concerned about costs than any other patients I have seen, not that it costs them anything (they have a great insurance package) but because it will cost the Church something.
They have a hard job as members are inclined to take any off-hand comment they may make, opinion or not, and turn it into scripture. They travel a lot. They are gone from their families. I respect them, and I am REALLY glad that I am not in their shoes.
Nice post. I wish you’d asked him about homosexuality. I was in a question and answer meeting with Elder Dunn. He said he’d never “g-q’d” anyone in his life, didn’t hold formal family evenings and thought a lot of marriages would be happier if they had less children. He also, in response to a question a woman asked about when to tell her ten year old about sex, gave this reply that brought the house down “Sister, if you’ve waited till your child is ten, you’ve waited too long.”
I would ask to a question along a similar vein of the difference between emotion, desires and the spirit, but in a different context. Specifically, I would ask how to tell the difference between these things when determining what is truth. I have never heard a satisfactory answer to this question and until I do, I don’t think I will ever be able to accept Mormon epistemology or be able to say that I have a testimony.
The second thing that I would ask is how to tell the difference between culture, personal opinion, and doctrine in the church. I’ve never heard an answer to that that doesn’t completely fall apart logically when you really think about it.
Unfortunately, I suspect that getting deep into these questions would be near impossible in a public forum. It would take some significant one and one time, with opportunity for follow up questions. I’m afraid it would end up being much like the questions asked during presidential debates – with answers full of platitudes that don’t really address the core issues in a meaningful way.
Mike S, Thanks for that really insightful comment. It must be incredibly difficult to be in their shoes, being aware of the fact that people may turn their comments into scripture. I think its always good to hear about GA’s when they are not in the public gaze.
Aaron L, All of your points are questions that I also wanted to ask about as I have issues with Mormon epistemology and demarcation of what is scripture. But, like you, I realised that to meaningfully engage with them is not possible in such a large arena.
I remember a seminary class during my youth where we discussed why the church is the only true and living church on the face of the earth. One example that really struck me was the idea that other churches debate on their higher levels and vote on new church policy. The idea of voting about the Lord’s will was lampooned during this class because we all knew that our leaders had a direct line to God. While I realize that this idea of inspiration versus plurality was simply a product of an uninformed teacher, I am still uncomfortable with this. The message I seem to hear from the church is that the Lord’s inspiration makes the apostles and first presidency infallible (e.g. The prophet can never lead the church astray). I feel that I can safely say that this is not the case. How does one reconcile the statements concerning inspiration and infallibility with the statement that church leaders are imperfect and human?
“How does one reconcile the statements concerning inspiration and infallibility with the statement that church leaders are imperfect and human?”
There are not statements about infallibility, so there is nothing to reconcile about that. You will never hear a leader claim infallibility.
“How does one reconcile the statements concerning inspiration and infallibility with the statement that church leaders are imperfect and human?”
This statement is only true when taken in context of what other prophets have said on the subject (like Joseph Smith) where it is on the people in the church to receive revelation to know if what the prophet is saying is true or not. So, in reality, it is only the people of the church that can lead themselves astray by not rejecting false counsel.
#26/27 – While contemporary church leaders are wise enough not to claim infallibility (as is this age of science and reason it is easy to prove incorrect), some earlier church leaders like Brigham Young absolutely did.
Even though current leaders do not claim to be infallible, it is strongly implied just about everywhere you look that we are supposed to treat them and their council like they are. Seriously, almost nobody with a strong belief in the church would think it was OK for you to go against anything said by the prophet. If I were to say to the average believing church member that I prayed about what the prophet said about any given issue and got a different answer, they would say that I was in apostasy and that I needed to repent and pray again. Dissent just isn’t allowed.
This ultimately gets back to my question about distinguishing doctrine from policy and culture. I think the church purposefully blurs the lines so that people feel like they have do fall in line with everything, because if you don’t, you are perceived as going against the prophet and by association, going against God.
If our church leaders are not infallibility, how does one go about disagreeing with them? What is the proper way to say that having more than 2 earrings for women of OK, and that the prophet was wrong? Or any other item. How do I do it without getting branded an apostate?
Even when they are wrong, they NEVER admit it. Take for example when they shortened missions to 18 months for men. I had just returned form my own mission, and I knew that would never work. I even said so in an open church meeting. So, about 2 years latter, they changed it back to 2 years. Did they come out and say “oops we sure blew that, so we are changing it back to 2 years”. Nope, all they did was change the rules back without any explanation. It is practices like this that cause the regular member to believe in infallibility.
I find the infallibility statements really interesting. We often say we knew that they are men and that they make mistakes but no one actually believes this in practice.
“So, in reality, it is only the people of the church that can lead themselves astray by not rejecting false counsel.”
The problem is that it is difficult to even conceed that they are possible of false counsel. How can someone reject something that fundamentally they don’t think is possible? Most people I knew if asked to give an example of when they (the leadership) have said something false will respond with ‘the prophet will never lead us astray’.
The problem I have with ‘the prophet will never lead us astray’ position is that it undermines the agency of the president of the church. It essentially minimises him to being God’s puppet who can’t think or do what he feels. I like to think that God wants all his children to chose for themselves and not act under compulsion from him and that includes his leadership. I hope that God does let them make mistakes and let them chose to do things how they think is best. If they are going to make a serious mistake I’m sure he’ll stop them but for the most part I think he trusts them enough to do as they please.
Aaron L,
We had an interesting fireside tonight where they equated general conference with scripture. It really blurred the doctrine, opinion, culture lines. Its useful to keep the boundaries flexible as if you later are shown to be wrong you simply dismiss it as them speaking as men rather then as the prophet and its possible as its so ambigious between them. But until proven wrong its treated as the word of the Lord to label those who dissent or disagree as apostates. Its a great strategy for later damage limitation. More importantly, I think the association between following the prophet and following God is dangerous as it essentialy equates the prophet as God.
I totally agree Jake. As the saying goes, the church leaders want to have their cake and eat it too. Either much of what they say is just opinion and policy which we are not obligated to follow, or they need to stick by their guns and defend everything that has been said with authority from the pulpit, including all the crazy things from the early church leaders. Obviously, the latter is not possible. The former is the only other logical option – unless they can somehow pull a rabbit out of a hat and give a clear way to differentiate doctrine and policy/opinion that doesn’t logically fall apart – something that up until now they have been unable and/or unwilling to do.
I was actually thinking along the lines of what Jeff said, in which case, maybe we should change this old bit of false doctrine: “‘the prophet will never lead us astray’” to say “the spirit will never let the prophet lead us astray.”
I haven’t listened to all of GC yet, but I can’t really think of anything that I have heard that would lead someone astray. I disagreed with something BKP said that youth of today believe that the world might be coming to an end soon. That is how people felt going into WW2 (and for so many it did end), but I don’t believe that most of our young people have any of that sort of feeling at all. They feel immortal. They feel secure enough to protest war. They don’t fear their own demise. But that still was just a stray comment, not counsel.
As Joseph Smith said that when we “blindly and tamely” follow a someone who holds the priesthood we are no more than a slave.
see page 594 paragraph 4
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/MStar&CISOPTR=37879&CISOSHOW=37806
And that when rely on the prophet and don’t do our own do diligence for knowledge of God we darken our minds.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vLgUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=joseph+smith+THAT+THEY+WERE+DEPENDING+ON+THE+PROPHET,+HENCE+WERE+DARKENED+IN+THEIR+MINDS,+in+consequence+of+neglecting+the+duties+devolving+upon+themselves,+envious+towards+the+innocent,+while+they+afflict+the+virtuous+with+their+shafts+of+envy.&source=bl&ots=X0GbGeQe4E&sig=kcl40wSZh8Vj0lPS0zcHsLAtNu4&hl=en&ei=TMGLSs_jLY_wsQO_hOmzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=darkened&f=false
First of all, in order for a Church Leader to lead someone “astray,” it would have to be something that is an eternally affecting issue or one that might disqualify someone from actively participating in the Church.
Mission length is not an eternal principle, but a practice. So it might change from time to time like the recent changes for Senior missionaries.
Earrings also do not effecting eternal salvation. While it might eeffect EFY attendance (Which is dumb), it does not keep a Sister out of the Temple, there is no effect on your eternal salvation and they will not hold a disciplinary council over it, even if the Sister (or Brother for that matter) has a dozen earrings.
So while there are all these complaints about infallibility and not being lead astray, it would have to be something pretty darn important to qualify, IMHO.
#35,
So treating the Word of Wisdom as a commandment would be the only major questionable action because it can cause someone to not be baptized or go to the temple? I forget which apostle talked about it be a policy and the presidency being able to use it as a policy to screen people out of the temple.
Jon – I think that’s a stretch, though, because it’s in the control of the member (or prospective member). Drinking coffee is optional in life. As is attending the temple.
hawkgrrrl,
But being baptized is mandatory (and I thought going to the temple was too). Placing an unnecessary burden, or stumbling block in the way of it seems over the top. I don’t know, I’m just putting it out there for discussion. It seems wrong to me to put unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of something as salvation.
Also, it seems most people take the “a prophet cannot lead astray” statement for anything, even beyond what is necessary for salvation.
My other questionable fallacy question is Hinckley’s Iraq war speech along with the saying that it doesn’t matter if you go to war, as long as your government says you should it is OK. This seems wrong to me also. Especially when the scriptures say differently (D&C 98) as for going to war when you shouldn’t the BoM is full of references to this calling it “thirst after blood” among other things, and Mormon gives us stern warnings about this and gives us his example of not being in the military when the military is taking unrighteous actions.
Hawk,
“Drinking coffee is optional in life. As is attending the temple.
If you consider attending the Temple as optional, then I guess everything is optional. But if you consider the Temple a part of the saving ordinances like baptism, it is not optional.
However, drinking coffee remains optional, but in context to the WoW, it is not optional.
I highly doubt a modern Apostle would say that the WoW is policy…..
As far as I have been able to tell it is policy. When it was first instituted as policy an apostle said it was, in either this paper or the other one I’ll link to:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:n6NrtHafmlAJ:https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_68.pdf+history+of+word+of+wisdom+became+commandment&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESij45EBw4o8MX8guBcVmwvwOaUrV8AcEDsl1F3hUNJwqI2VNbi9Bk7a44B2aHk6Ge-WdyyrZjabLYX5469UmFeUHqau8jzjudsjJWcgfFdf9mrM3ET0As3fXsvHAYdBxHNbGwvw&sig=AHIEtbSPzWY47IE-XrU_2JJTZi5mLlW-YA&pli=1
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:_tW373qMjz0J:https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf+Thomas+G.+Alexander,+%22The+Word+of+Wisdom:+From+Principle+to+Requirement%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjai1Fx7GTYNBaTzqhxUcxIahp7V6YtnBMFFdWVDutSBLfQO1lHD5h9gqXv9csRG6QPAYg0bWE47XSEFI0OEzPawZ8uQQ-gi_8Ul3Ru0NAtF0wlH2n-CwnFTyCKgQjtYNAaaEq6&sig=AHIEtbTxUTYDX6sKXIdyDc2eBm5WnH5mCg
Well, let me put it another way. Making coffee a barrier to temple entrance is perhaps building hedges about the law, but it’s not an insurmountable hedge. It’s not skin color or sexual orientation or height.
And my point was, why have a hedge when no hedge is needed?
I think there are people in leadership who feel that hedges are like hurdles that make members stronger by giving them obstacles to overcome – they increase self-discipline.
I tend to think that hedges about the law trivialize the law. But you’ll note I’m not in church leadership. Nobody asked my opinion.
I think that’s why people need to understand, especially those struggling with the WoW, that it is just a policy so that they realize that it isn’t something to feel guilty about and it’s not something that should keep them away from church (at least that is one reason some give, it might not be a true reason though).
I don’t think all the leadership understand that it is just a hedge either. Like my bishop recently said that it was a commandment to obey that list of the WoW. That’s what made me question it and look it up, because I didn’t think it was a commandment and from the history it doesn’t appear to be so either.
So is a commandment something that had to originate 1000 years ago to be in force.
If the Lord gives a new commandment, is it not a commandment?
I guess I am not seeing the logic that the WoW is not a commadment because it wasn’t always in force.
Jeff,
How do you know that it is a commandment from the Lord? I have yet to see a scripture from the standard works that says ‘thou shalt not drink tea and coffee. Thus saith the Lord.’
I think the point is that we don’t have any scriptural justification for making it a commandment. It was a policy first that has since then been interpreted by others as being a commandment.
“It was a policy first that has since then been interpreted by others as being a commandment.”
Seriously? Interpreted by “others?” I think the “others” was a Prophet?
I suppose one can say the that about the Ten commandments as well. It was given by “others” as well. Not directly by the Lord. Did you ever hear a recording? or see a video? The Bible is pretty old, it could have all been made up.
Where does that end?
I for one do believe that even the ten commandments were indeed given by “others” and made up my men, but that is neither here or there.
The word of wisdom perfectly illustrates the dilemma, hence, why I would ask the question about differentiating doctrine from policy.
Prophets have said so many things that are demonstrably untrue that I can’t just buy into the idea that something is doctrinal just because the prophet says so. Even if I believed that they were prophets, everything they said would still be suspect.
How am I supposed to have faith the what somebody says is always correct (doctrinal, eternal truth, whatever) when it is so easy to show that that isn’t the case?
To answer your question Jeff, for me has ended in atheism. My beliefs will probably continue to evolve as I am perfectly willing to accept that I may be wrong, but for now, that is where I am at. Turns out, atheism isn’t such a bad place to be.
I think there is a huge difference between the word of wisdom and the ten commandments. Firstly, the ten commandments at least says that it is God explicitly saying that it is his commandments. The Word of wisdom God says it is ‘a principle with a promise.’ No where in the standard works does it say it is anything stronger then that.
The idea that it is a commandment comes from people interpreting what is in the standard works. Yes, they might be prophets but that is no guarentee that it is a commandment that actually comes from God. The rules in the missionary white handbook are approved by prophets, would you say they are commandments?
Actually I reacall somewhere reading that the WoW was submitted for a sustaining vote at a long-ago General Conference, whre it was asked to be accepted as a commandment and as a token of our faith, love and devotion to God.
The fact that conformity to the WoW is required for Baptism and Temple attendance is evidence that it is considered a commandment. Don’t forget the sealing power of the Priesthood – to bind on earth and in heaven. The membership has been duly bound to this practice.
Jake,
“I think there is a huge difference between the word of wisdom and the ten commandments. Firstly, the ten commandments at least says that it is God explicitly saying that it is his commandments. ”
Actually, no. There is a book in which was written that “God said.” There is no actual evidence that He did. It usually always comes down to the same thing. Either our leaders are inspired or they are not. Either the WoW is now a commandment or it is not. You get to choose.
Aaron L,
“To answer your question Jeff, for me has ended in atheism. ”
Well, that is certainly one way to deal with it….
Obviously no one read the two articles I listed that goes through the history and debunks Neal’s claims.
Jeff, I never made the claim that it wasn’t a commandment because it wasn’t given 1000s of years ago, but it is true, commandments have two parts, eternally principled commandments (that even God has to adhere to, some call them natural law, etc) and covenant commandments which were made to God or someone else (like when we covenanted to come to earth and to repent and be baptized). The saints during Brigham’s time did covenant to keep the WoW (the WoW, btw, states at the very beginning that it is not a commandment), making it a commandment to them. Then several years later people were trying to get BY to get the saints that hadn’t made that covenant to make it also, BY refused because he saw all those that covenanted to keep the WoW as a commandment falter, which is serious if you make a covenant with God to do something. So 40+ years (or so) later President Grant interpreted said covenant as a commandment to the saints, but it was never such. Neither did Grant, et. al., seek for a revelation to make this a commandment. Making it a commandment would require a revelation from God, or would require people to covenant to obey it as a commandment.
One aspect that you can tell that it isn’t a commandment is by seeing if you’ll get in trouble for drinking light barley beer, which is in the WoW, but all alcohol has been banned (going beyond the WoW). Also, not all of it is required to be kept (although Joseph Fielding Smith – I believe – was pushing to ban meet also).
It doesn’t matter if the current apostles say it’s a commandment it or not, it is what the spirit tells you. From what I understand it isn’t. Am I going to stop obeying the restricted substances list? No, unless, of course, I need some black tea make my stomach better (as a medicine that is), but I don’t see that happening. I eat coffee ice cream when it is given to me, will I go to hell for that? Christ said “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” (Matt. 15:11) I believe Christ.
Look at the ban on blacks, people would make up all types of nonsense to construe it as a commandment, but President McKay referred to it as a policy, it was never a commandment.
The prophets and apostles are not perfect men, neither should we expect them to be. I will support them in their decisions – even if I disagree with them, unless it would cause me to sin.
Fallacy of false choices. There are more choices to it than that, as I have described in my above post.
Jeff, you should take a course in logic. It’s good stuff, it is really helpful to me in figuring out where my false logic lies and where others do too.
Jon
So my memory was right – it WAS acepted as a commandment at some point. Whether it is officially a “commandment” or a “policy”, the net effect is the same. So what’s the difference?
This is bringing up recollections of that “strain at a gnat” scripture.
Neal,
Did you read what I wrote? I said that a select few saints covenanted with God to keep it at a commandment, only they were bound to it, no one else in the church was bound to it and when the opportunity came to have other saints covenant to keep it as a commandment Brigham Young said no way! Read those two papers. Policy and commandments are very different. Commandments send you to hell, policy keeps you from being baptized or going to the temple but doesn’t send you to hell, nor does it keep you from going to the celestial kingdom. Huge difference.
“Either our leaders are inspired or they are not. Either the WoW is now a commandment or it is not. You get to choose.”
I like this statement as it seems to say I get to chose if our leaders are inspired. I may get a ‘inspired’ and ‘not inspired’ stamp now so I can go through conference and stamp certain things as inspired or not.
Jon,
I did read your words, and I think you’re wrong. I think we’re accountable to follow the Brethren when they give us righteous counsel (which I think this is), and I think that CAN keep you out of the Celestial Kingdom. If a ‘policy’ is so important you cannot be baptized or attend the Temple without obeying it, then I think that’s sign for all of us to sit up and take notice. If I ignore all the recent counsel from Prohpets and Apostles that we has been given on this subject (and it is voluminous), then I mock God in so doing. The Prophets TODAY say it is a requirement for worthiness, regardless of what was said previously. We are to follow the LIVING Prophets first and foremost.
Jake – I even do that within an individual talk!
As to the WoW, look, it wasn’t given by way of commandment, but it is certainly being used that way now, with or without a revelation stating it is one. So, if that’s the case, you can take your cookies and go home or you can suck it up and be in the church. Those are the choices. Backsliding on it isn’t as big a deal as people make of it, but backsliding is different than just not wanting to do it without a “thus sayeth the Lord.” There isn’t a “thus sayeth the Lord.” As far as I can tell this one is a commandment given by men. If baptism isn’t a saving ordinance, then it doesn’t matter anyway. If it is, it’s not that hard to comply or to make a good faith effort to comply.
Neal,
The blacks be damned then.
I have to disagree with that sentiment. We are not to follow the prophets, we are to follow God first and foremost. God speaks to us through the spirit. God also speaks to us through prophets, but he gives us the spirit to know if those words are true or not. That is what Joseph Smith said and I agree with that sentiment. It is not part of the program that the apostles be infallible.
“If I ignore all the recent counsel from Prohpets and Apostles that we has been given on this subject (and it is voluminous), then I mock God in so doing.”
Well I don’t know anyone who follows ALL of the counsel from our leaders, I guess that means we are all mocking God in some way. If you are right about it being a commandment then why is it only followed selectively? I see plenty of members eating meat in summer, and eating it far from sparingly at an all you can eat buffet, I guess they are mocking God. I assume that you only eat meat in times of famine, and winter as that is part of the Word of Wisdom and that also must be a requirement of worthiness if we are going to follow the ‘it is a commandment’ line of reasoning.
Tell that to people that starting smoking in their early teens, very difficult for some and it keeps them from going to church, and I’m sure, from some getting baptized.
“If baptism isn’t a saving ordinance, then it doesn’t matter anyway. If it is, it’s not that hard to comply or to make a good faith effort to comply.”
Plus its only a requirement to get a reccommend or pass an interview. Its not a covenant to follow it eternally. Once you have that magical slip of paper, or have been baptised then their is no reason why you can’t backslide on it. Its not on the list of things you need to confess to a bishop so its all kosher.
“Tell that to people that starting smoking in their early teens, very difficult for some”
I actually met a guy on my mission who was a chain smoker from being a teenager and told me that he had a revelation from God that it was okay to smoke as if he stopped his lungs couldn’t cope with the withdrawa and attended church faithfullyl. I can’t vouch for the validity of his revelation but its interesting none the less.
Never said a word about infallability.
And the Spirit is telling you the WoW is something you don’t need to follow? That we don’t need to worry about Temple recommends because, after all, they ask questions about this WoW thing? That all the talks and words the Prophets and Apostles have said about this subject are just a bunch of bunk? What is your point? I think you’re just arguing to argue.
Good comments, Hawkgrrrl.
Neal, see comment 53 and 40, read those, and see you can give a logical counterpoint to my points. Otherwise there is not discussion but just throwing mud back and forth, I have thought about this quite a bit and see the WoW as a parallel to keeping the blacks out of the gospel, as such, the WoW keeps the smokers, etc out of the church when it doesn’t need to happen, it’s Pharisaical.
Also, do you not refute that the blacks should be damned? That is where your logic takes you.
Jon,
“Neither did Grant, et. al., seek for a revelation to make this a commandment. ‘
And you know this how?
Jake,
“I like this statement as it seems to say I get to chose if our leaders are inspired.’
Yes, you do. For, you, you do.
“The Prophets TODAY say it is a requirement for worthiness, regardless of what was said previously. We are to follow the LIVING Prophets first and foremost.”
That’s what matters. Like it or not.
Jeff,
Because if there was a revelation received then it would be produced before the church to vote on. It never happened. Read the two papers I posted and you’ll have a clearer view. It is a pretty major thing to require something that was never required before.
I haven’t done the research but there are two papers where people have done the research and they found nothing that says otherwise. I don’t know how to easily get the transcripts of General Conference pre 1942, if you do, I’ll start reading through them.
What good is it to know that the apostles are fallible men if you refuse to ever acknowledge any thing that is not true? That is like saying, they are fallible men, but there is no instance where they have ever made a mistake and done something contrary to the ideas of men. Even Joseph Smith admitted to receiving revelations from himself, not from God.
Jake,
Do any of us keep all of the commandments perfectly? – probably not. Are we trying to? That’s the question. If we’re honest in the interview we can discuss how we’re doing with the Priesthood leader and he can help us determine if we are indeed worthy, or how we can become worthy. And TR interviews are for us to declare our own worthiness, not to be judged by the Priesthood leader, unless there are issues we are not living up to, but that determination is left up to us. We state our compliance or non-complinace in front of someone representing the Lord. Its the honor system.
Neal,
I think the point is not that we’re (at least I am not) trying to justify not adhering to the WOW but that it has been made into something bigger then it actually is. It is an example of how things get endowed with greater power then they actually should have. That people make a mountain out of a molehill.
“TR interviews are for us to declare our own worthiness, not to be judged by the Priesthood leader”
If that is actually the case then why do we even need to go declare to a leader that this is the case? If it really was just about us declaring our worthiness surely just turning up at the temple would be enough, as if I turn up then its a declaration that I think that I am worthy enough to go to the temple. The fact is that TR interviews really are about being judged if we are worthy by a bishop or stake president.
Jon,
You’re living in the past. The present says blacks can hold the Priesthood, and that we need to keep the Word of Wisdom. If you think the Brethren are not following the Lord on these issues, or that they are lying to us when they give us counsel, then you have a much larger problem than the WoW. And no one is saying they are infallible.
#69,
“We are to follow the LIVING Prophets first and foremost.”
We are to follow Christ first and foremost. That is what truly matters.
Jake,
No, TR interviews are for us to decalare before a witness representing the Lord that we are worthy. That happens twice – once on the Ward level and once on the Stake level (the law of witnesses).
If we need help becoming worthy, then the Priesthood leader acts as an inspired judge and counsels us as to what we need to do to get our lives in order.
Ditto.
“Tell that to people that starting smoking in their early teens, very difficult for some and it keeps them from going to church, and I’m sure, from some getting baptized.” Well, I did tell that to lots of people when I was on my mission, and even the die hard chain smokers really worked to give it up, some with success, others with backsliding. But is anyone really arguing FOR smoking? You don’t need a revelation from God to know that it will kill you. C. Everett Cooper got that revelation years ago.
Neal,
You missed the point entirely. My point is that the policy of keeping the blacks from holding the priesthood was wrong and will not keep them from going to the celestial kingdom, neither will drinking a cup of coffee keep someone from going to the celestial kingdom, to say otherwise is to say that all those blacks that couldn’t go to the temple are damned.
I think the brethren are not following the Lord on this issue, as we saw the quote from Christ himself and as we read from D&C.
Here it is again:
– Jesus
-Revelation received by Joseph Smith
A true story about Joseph Smith. Joseph told some brothers to go sell the copy right of the BoM in Canada so they could get it printed. Joseph said they would be able to sell it. They tried and didn’t. So, they asked Joseph what was going on. Joseph said you there are three things of inspiration, from God, from self, from satan. He received this revelation or inspiration from himself and so it was not true. Likewise we can see that the WoW is not a commandment because it goes against the WoW itself and Christ’s teachings. These are revelations of man.
hawkgrrrl,
I’m arguing that some that doesn’t have eternal significance is being placed in front of things that do have eternal significance.
“No, TR interviews are for us to decalare before a witness representing the Lord that we are worthy.”
There I was thinking that God is omniscient and knows everything and if I declare my worthiness to him in private that he registers and knows that but apparently that isn’t enough he has to have someone to represent him for it to be valid. IS God not capable of knowing it himself why does he need a witness to make sure I declare my worthiness? I think the whole idea of it being a declaration to God of worthiness collapses by the fact it has the bishop there (who is also called a judge in israel). I have no problem with the church imposing a need for ecclesiastical endorsement to worship at the temple through leaders judging our worthiness. I may think it an unneccesary process (do we really need approval to worship?) but don’t try and re-brand leaders judging our worthiness as something its not.
Jon, let’s assume you’re right. Then God will sort that out.
Meantime, what’s the problem with a good faith effort to give up smoking (which is all that is required)? WoW is obviously not just about health. It’s also about sacrifice. Will smoking keep you out of the CK? Not specifically, but if you are a person who lacks basic self-mastery, in what way are you prepared for the CK and eventual godhood? Before someone says it, I’ll agree up front that we should (under that logic) keep out the fatties too or at least make them drop 30 pounds before baptism or something similar. All I’m saying is either way it’s a moot point.
WoW is a proxy for something else, an aspect of character. If it’s a bad proxy, God will clearly have to allow for that, just like letting the well-intentioned cannibals into the CK because they sinned in ignorance.
You have to give up smoking, not just try.
Yes, I would prefer that people not smoke but I don’t think you understand how difficult it is for someone that has started smoking when they are in their teenage years.
Maybe, there could be something that you could do to prompt people to stop smoking, but it doesn’t make sense to place eternal salvation as the stick and the carrot especially when the scriptures point otherwise, it is becoming Pharisaical to do such a thing, i.e., worshiping the laws and rules more than focusing on that which is truly important. That would be like requiring someone to where a white shirt to church in order to be baptized, totally uncalled for. There are other measurements that are truly good measurements. Like living a chaste life, not lying, not stealing, but just because someone decides to have a cup of tea a bit out there.
Jake,
I’ve given dozens of TR interviews. There is no ‘judging’ involved in a TR interview unless you do not give the required answer to one of the questions. Then the Judge in Israel stuff kicks in, and then only if you’re the Bishop. A counselor must immediately refer you to the Bishop if there is an issue.
The same principle is true at Tithing Settlement. You declare your status as full or part or non tithe payer. The only time judgement is involved is if you don’t show up. Or if you have questions or doubts which you need to discuss. Then the Bishop has to make a determination as to your status.
Jon, I think since you have such a bead on the whole WoW thing you should march right up to Church Headquaters and let all those slacker General Authorities know they’ve got it all wrong, and that you’re there to set the record straight. Be sure to have a Latte in your hand when you do it.
Neal,
So much for critical thinking. As Joseph Smith said, the mind will become darkened. If you have no interest in learning or debating, it would have been nice if you wouldn’t have engaged.
Jake,
Thanks for thinking to ask a question about homosexuality.
I had the opportunity to attend an Elder Bednar Q&A abroad and when I found out it was a Q&A immediately wrote out what I wanted to ask (thinking I could “pass it forward”) about homosexuality. Unfortunately, questions had to be asked aloud, and I didn’t want to “out” myself in front of hundreds of my peers in the organization I was relying on for my social network for my time in the area.
Please, if anyone has the opportunity at one of these things and a modicum of concern, ask something about homosexuality–anything. Depending on the size of the audience, you will provide a spark of hope for at least a few people in the audience secretly stewing in uncertainty and varying degrees of misery.
And, even if the actual answer isn’t that helpful, it can only help to openly address the matter with a general authority in public–as often as possible.
Jon,
If you bother to read Section 89, you will find that it was given AS A REVELATION! Coupled with the fact that the Church has voted to accept the Doctrine and Covenants as THE WORD OF THE LORD, it is indeed both a revelation and the Word of the Lord. If you bother to do the reading instead of posting links, you will find that it was discussed by every prophet after Joseph and FULLY put in force by Heber J Grant. Why not before that, I do not know? I have not found that answer yet.
Jeff, I don’t deny that it was given as a revelation nor do I say it is not the word of the Lord.
I do read and that is why I put links so that you can read too, but you have refused to even look at them. I even summarized the articles for you but you refuse to even consider the implications of the summaries of the articles. I showed why it was changed to a “commandment” by Grant but you refuse to even acknowledge it. The answers are in those two articles, why don’t you read?
You say you don’t believe the apostles to be infallible but when you it comes to something that shows they are fallible you go back and say the apostles are infallible, as if all their decisions are always 100% correct.
You and Neal both prove the point that of the old joke:
The Catholics belief is that the pope is infallible but they don’t believe it. The Mormons believe the apostles and prophets are fallible but they don’t believe it.
Ok, Jon, I read your links and tehy seem to show an inconsistent approach to the WoW until Jospeh F. Smith. At which time, he decided, as the Prophet, to fully enforce the WoW as commandment. this was again re-enforcved by Heber J. Grant, when he became Presdient of the Church and it hs been that way ever since.
If you want to see it as a policy, fine, do so. It is still a requirement to enter the Temple to observe the WoW.
Now, since you are the logic machine, tell me how you get from a discussion on the WoW to:
“You say you don’t believe the apostles to be infallible but when you it comes to something that shows they are fallible you go back and say the apostles are infallible, as if all their decisions are always 100% correct.”
That is quite a leap considering I’ve written many posts over the last three years that have diagreed with decisions that were made by Church leaders. And, of course, it is wrong on the shear face of it, let alone illogical.
I’ll guess you’ll have to re-take the class, Captain.
And that’s my point exactly, it’s not the prophet’s position to decide what is commandments and what isn’t, that is God’s position. There is no covenant to obey the WoW as a commandment. This is common to all organizations where the leaders go beyond the mark and create something out of nothing when there is no reason to create that something. Now they can make policy, which is fine, but why try and bar people from heaven, like the Pharisees, when there is no reason to?
My point about the infallibility, is that it seems you and Neal are saying, “hey, whatever the prophet says goes,” for this one point. I don’t know why you think you need to appease to authority to show your point, because if you believe that prophets are fallible then you can’t just say, “Well, the prophet said so, therefore it must be.” You have to have a stronger argument than that.
Jon,
“And that’s my point exactly, it’s not the prophet’s position to decide what is commandments and what isn’t, that is God’s position.”
I guess you and just differ given the fact the “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, abut he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”
How else wold we find out what is or is not the Will of the Lord. The Section was given to the PROPHET Joseph Smith and re-affirmed by later Prophets.
You don’t want to follow it, don’t.
I am willing to consider anything said by the Prophet as worthy of my consideration and use. But, not infallible.
I must, put it to my own test.
Once again, I never said it wasn’t a true principle and good to live by, neither did I say that I don’t want to live by it. I do want to live by it, but under current rules you can’t live by it because you can’t drink barley beer anymore, if you want to go to the temple or be baptized that is.
God does tell his will to the prophets and then they state what that will is, but no prophet has stated that God told him that the WoW is a commandment, just the opposite in fact, Jesus said it isn’t (what goes in does not defile a man, but that which goes out) and Joseph Smith said that Christ said it wasn’t a commandment but advice. Grant said that Brigham Young said it was a commandment, far from saying that it came from God.
I put it to the test and I believe it to be a true principal, I just don’t believe it to be a commandment.
Once again, your arguments are, “The prophet said it, therefore it is true.” You have not looked at my arguments and addressed them to say they are not true because of some fallacious thought.
You use ad hominen attacks, but no real solid arguments to disprove my points.
NJon,
“I do want to live by it, but under current rules you can’t live by it because you can’t drink barley beer anymore, if you want to go to the temple or be baptized that is.”
Where does it say anything about barley beer? it does say barley for mild drink, but beer? Perhaps a Postum-like drink, non-alcoholic? Strong drink is interpreted as having alcohol, I guess you can make “beer” without alcohol like Apple Beer, Root Beer, etc.
So what is stopping you?
They’ve said it is the “Word of the Lord.” How much more commandment do you need?
I’ll just ignore the other items since you are just as guilty.
“I’ll just ignore the other items since you are just as guilty.”
Ad hominen attack, once again, has no baring on the argument at hand.
I’ve already covered this, once again:
It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
Look, it’s become obvious to me that you are not interested in a discussion. I’ve presented my points, I’ve discussed why I disagree with your points. If you don’t want to show why my points are incorrect and actually discuss why the WoW is or is not a commandment then the discussion is pretty much over. Let me know when you are really interested in civil, logical discussion.
Just throw in “WoW’ and watch the threadjack! Never has a group of beverages (and/or plants or chemicals) caused such great dissension….
With that degree of emotional immaturity how can we expect GAs like Elder Bednar to really delve into some “meaty” issues?
Frankly, it’s almost as bad as having to deal with a car salesman – they stick to a script for a reason..their job is to move the iron and nothing else! So it is, albeit for a far higher motive, that the GAs “stick to the script” when public speaking. They’ll take the Lord’s work even more seriously than making a sale…and I’ve seen some good closers.
“Let me know when you are really interested in civil, logical discussion.”
Yeah, I guess I am not interested in just agreeing with you….
Sorry for the threadjack. It really did veer off.
Just for the record, I never said that. I gave good points of argument. You ignored them. You gave two different arguments, they didn’t hold water and you just used ad hominens since you couldn’t come up with a good argument.
Jon,
“Just for the record, I never said that. I gave good points of argument. You ignored them. You gave two different arguments, they didn’t hold water and you just used ad hominens since you couldn’t come up with a good argument.”
This is not exactly a good way to have a discussion where you insist that your arguments are great while they other person’s are not.
If I thought that, I would have agreed. And I don’t.
What I did agree with was that there was, based on reading conference talks in the late 1800’s, some mixed messages given about the observance of the WoW. However, it was made clear by President Joseph F. Smith and again by Heber J. Grant.
You are free to put your own spin on what the D&C section says, whether you think it is to be enforced as a commandment or not, that is fine.
But the fact remains that it is now. And the Prophets and Presidents of the Church have declared it so.
If you want to believe that is a mistake, that is also fine.
I am OK with both observing the WoW and that declaration. If you think that means that I think that the leaders of the Church are infallible, you can think that as well.
I don’t.
If you make an argument that the prophets are fallible then you can’t just use the supposition that what the prophets say is true beyond doubt. That is the argument you are using. You yourself say you don’t believe that so I don’t know why you use that argument since, according to you you don’t believe that. Unless, sometimes you decide to believe it and sometimes not, whenever it is convenient, I suppose.
I didn’t put any spin on what D&C says, it is very clear, it says, the WoW is not a commandment. If you say that the WoW says that it is a commandment then you are putting the spin on it. In plain English it says, “not by commandment or constraint,” it doesn’t get any clearer than that, no spin on my part.
Once again, appeal to authority which you yourself say isn’t always right, so you have to go beyond that and prove your point, which you haven’t.
It doesn’t matter if you are OK with it or if I am OK with it. What we are disputing is if it is a commandment or not.
“Unless, sometimes you decide to believe it and sometimes not, whenever it is convenient, I suppose.’
I think that is called “faith.” And yes, it’s a choice.
“What we are disputing is if it is a commandment or not.’
I am not.
Ah, now we’re getting down to brass tacks.
You pull the faith card there is no argument that can be made to show the validity of my claim. So apparently sometimes you don’t have faith in the prophets about something they’ve said is a commandment and other times you do. So really there is nothing I can write that will convince you otherwise and you are unwilling to make an argument against my claim that it isn’t, only that “the prophet said so therefore you must believe.” Which is against what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught.
You don’t even believe the WoW to be a commandment, you only believe that abstaining from “tobacco, coffee, tea, and all alcoholic beverages” to be a commandment, otherwise, why would you go to the temple without repenting to the bishop about eating meat (I assume you are not a vegetarian)?
This is a bold face lie. If that were true then you wouldn’t be engaging me.
Jon,
“You pull the faith card there is no argument that can be made to show the validity of my claim.”
I pull the faith card because it is on that premise that I accept the WoW. Again, I must reiterate, if your argument was so persuasive to me, I would accept it. I certain accepted your argument that there were mixed messages sent during BY’s time.
“only that “the prophet said so therefore you must believe.” Which is against what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught.’
How do you know this, Jon? I choose to believe. I’ve told you that multiple times, But you cannot seem to accept that. I do not know how to make it any clearer to you.
“This is a bold face lie. If that were true then you wouldn’t be engaging me.’
Huh? Are you also a mind reader?
It doesn’t matter what your intentions are, what matters is what you are actually doing. I understand your sophistry.
“I understand your sophistry.”
In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days,…
It’s probably just this…. I am conspiring to follow the WoW.
Jake,
Having been in attendance at the Reading Fireside, with respect it is my opinion that by some distance yours was the dumbest question asked. Possibly with the exception of the guy who asked about evil spirits. That was very random.
Allow me to explain why I feel this way.
While I agree that some of the people shared some quite personal things that perhaps weren’t appropriate to the setting you could feel that these were real issues that these people were struggling with and they obviously felt like asking Elder Bednar could help them with these struggles. While this may have not been the perfect way to address these issues, you could feel the reality of their need and the sincerity of their desire. These were souls trying to follow Christ in difficult circumstances seeking help.
Your question just reeked of I want to be the guy who asks the apostle a challenging or “slightly controversial” question.
I don’t know what the answer to (paraphrased – your mumbling, unstructured delivery of it wasn’t nearly this clear) “As the members of the church worship you so hard how do you not get bigheaded?” helps anyone in the room. I think about 95% of the YSA there could have told you the answer he would give before it came out his mouth.
Whilst I respect your right to take that opportunity to ask whatever you wish for whatever reason you wish, it’s a little rich to see you criticising the questions of others after what you contributed to the meeting.
You are not nearly as clever as you think you are.
Thank you Bethany for you comments. In light of your reasons why you think that my question was the dumbest one asked, I can only take that as a compliment. If the other questions in your eyes were very clever then I will happily take the title of dumbest. Its a bit like if someone was to say that the spice girls were the best band in the world. On that standard of quality I would rather be the worst band in the world then in the same league as the spice girls.
As to your point about how the answer not being important to members. I think it is very important. I would explain but evidently you didn’t read the post and came just to point out how stupid I really am in my questioning as if you had you would have understood why I thought the answer he gave is important. So instead just go back up and read the post. In essence its that unthinking people need to stop worshipping our leaders and taking every utterance from them as scripture. And that its okay to disagree about things.
95% of the room could have told me what goes on in behind the doors of the apostles meetings? That in essence means that 95% of the room were prophets and could foresee the future and see into rooms that only the apostles can see into. Why do we even need apostles when so many according to you have the gift of prophecy and can see into their private meetings?
Thank you for the title of dumbest question. 🙂
Can you show me a real Lamanite? There must be a reason the church no longer has lamanite missions. Is it because there is no such thing as a lamanite?
When Elder Bednar came to Hawaii he also opened up the meeting to questions from the audience. My question was to inquire of Him what it is like being “a special witness of Jesus Christ”. I would love to hear an apostle or Prophet other than Joseph Smith tell of having seen the Savior face to face. How awesome would that be to hear what it is like to look into the most beautiful eyes of all creation? 🙂