The scriptures are full of the problems that people run into because of “the traditions of the fathers” — mistakes made in the past and passed along and taken for fact that mislead the children and the children’s children.
We’ve had some of those in our own time. What is fascinating is the times when church leaders recognized that.
For example, Joseph Fielding Smith was asked about a point of doctrine. He gave a clear answer.
But.
He was wrong. Even better, he did some research after answering the question and wrote back to the person he had given the answer to in order to let them know he was wrong.
I have always assumed that because it was what I was taught, and it made sense, but you don’t have to believe it to be in good standing, because it is not definitely stated in the scriptures. And I have received no revelation on the matter.
From Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball as published by Deseret Book included a CD-rom with a pdf copy of a longer draft. This quotation comes from chapter 20, p5, footnote 12 of that draft.
That caught my attention. He took the time to check his answer after he gave it and then to write back and correct himself. And to point out that it was only his opinion, but that he had received no revelation on the matter. Others have written on the power of tradition.
I’m more interested in the times we examine our presuppositions and the times we do not. I’ve touched on that before, but I’m going to do it again. I’m going to start with three scriptures.
Next:
10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.
(you’ve probably heard that five times already this week).
Finally (from Acts 15:23-29):
From the apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, greetings! 24Since we have heard that some have gone out from among us with no orders from us and have confused you, upsetting your minds by what they said, 25we have unanimously decided to choose men to send to you along with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul, 26who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas who will tell you these things themselves in person. 28For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: 29that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell.
I’ve seen a lot recently about how “well Christ didn’t say that” or “the entire law is done away with in Christ” or “my anger is righteous anger.” I had someone close to me who for a long time used to say “well, of course you are supposed to forgive people, but that person was in the wrong, and they wronged me, so the rule doesn’t apply here.” (Really. Used to drive me crazy. They’ve gotten over it after about forty years). Offense will always come.
(often intentionally, but not always)
So what do we make of what Christ actually said. Did he say we should leave part of the law undone?
That we should rise up in righteous fury and stone the sinners, especially those caught in the very act?
What did he say?
… 
At whom should we be offended?
Should we try not to give offense.
Good questions.
The answers may seem obvious, especially from how I’ve framed them. But if they are obvious, perhaps they aren’t the right answers so much as they are tradition. Regardless, if you think I’m right, you are probably wrong (since I’m probably wrong).
So, when you set aside tradition, and you set aside your preconceptions and your offenses, what does Christ say to you now?
How is that different, if at all, from what you thought he was saying to you when you started reading this post?
When you post comments, start with the assumption that I’m wrong. I think that will help you in adding to the conversation.
Ok, I’ve read it twice, and I’m still not sure what you’re trying to say. Admittedly, I kept getting distracted by the pics, wondering if they were meant to comment on the text or be part of the text, but that’s why we re-read. Can anyone elucidate?
Do agnostics apoligize or get offended?
Also baffled.
We can follow God or we can follow man. We can follow Prophets or prophets or blind guides or even charlatans but how can we relialably know the difference? And if we have to power to discern the difference don’t we also have the power to follow God directly without all these middlemen telling us what to do?
Safety is found in following God by walking in the spirit, safety is not found in the detail of the law or a legalist’s interpretation of the law.
I have to admit, like others here, I am confused by the point of the post. In addition, what was the point of doctrine Joseph Fielding Smith was mistaken on?
Blacks and the priesthood is where he was wrong.
He became a big supporter of Genesis group and paved the way for Kimball.
He also paved the way for dissent.
The point of the essay is to challenge certainty.
We have too much in every direction.
We wouldn’t need the iron rod if certainty was easy.
And it would be something else than the word of God leading to the love of God that is in Christ if certainty was as wide as we think it is.
But I didn’t want to be too certain as I was looking for thought uncontrolled by my conclusions which may well be wrong.
So, whom should we condemn? At whom should we take offense? Should we listen to those on Moses Seat? Should we follow Christ regardless?
What application do we make?
I found that more interesting than the original direction I was going to go on analyzing a tradition and where it varies from the context and meaning of the text.
Should we Christ regardless?
Absolutely!
Should we follow Christ regardless?
Absolutely!
Given a choice between standing with Moses, Joshua, Caleb, and others the one side, or Dathan, Abiram, Kohar, and others on the other side, I think I will choose the former. I think the Savior would approve of my choice.
Mmmm. If all I have to do is follow the brethren and not the Savior, that makes my life a lot easier. They are good people, really good people, and enough of a bar for me. On the other hand, really following that Jesus guy is pretty tricky. I mean, if we really took what he said seriously, we’d probably have to be kinda radical environmentalists, living the golden rule as it applies to resources. Speaking of resources, again that golden rule thing gets tricky, especially paired with the crazy idea about your wealth and the eye of a needle and the kingdom of God. I mean, the brethren have a great checklist for getting into heaven- it’s rather like a temple recommend interview. Jesus on the other hand says that isn’t even about whether or not I’ve been able to perform miracles in his name . . . the bar is even higher. Sheesh! I’ll take the brethren any day. Traditions are comfortable things to settle into, and if it is good for others,especially leaders, it’s good enough for me.
(Just kidding.)
Traditions can be good or bad. The problem is when they interfere with charity/pure love of Christ. In the first scripture Christ is pointing out that there is much good to be found in the scriptures as to how we act and think towards God and others. The Pharisees were good on the outward actions but missed the boat on inner application. The OT also has prophets rebuking people for thinking that going through the motions of worship was acceptable without adhering to the spirit of mercy (taking care of needy, etc.).
Our belief in saving ordinances puts importance on works and rightful authorization to perform those works (necessitating the middle men that Howard referred to). Those works are meaningless, however, without that charity or true love of Christ that scriptural figures advocate. Hence the necessity of sticking close to the Spirit to better align our inner thoughts and feelings with God (what Howard pointed out).
“Righteous” traditions encourage people to conform to outer devotional practices. If they start getting in the way of developing charity, though, we are no better than OT Israelites or NT Pharisees. Being able to tell when my certainty on an issue is derived from tradition/bias to the detriment of following the Spirit is a skill I’m still working to develop.