This past week has seen a bit of a firestorm due to the comments of Elders Oaks and Ballard regarding transparency in their recent face-to-face event. Here is the relevant bit:
Ballard: It’s this idea that the church is hiding something, which we would have to say as two Apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning of time, there has been no attempt on the part in anyway, of the church leaders trying to hide anything from anybody.
Now we’ve had the Joseph Smith Papers. We didn’t have those where they are in our hands now. And so we’re learning more about the Prophet Joseph. It’s wonderful we are. There’s volumes of it. There’s so much in those books now on my book shelf. Maybe you’ve read them all [gestures toward Oaks], but I haven’t got there. I’m a slow reader.
So, just trust us wherever you are in the world, and you share this message with anyone else who raises the question about the Church not being transparent. We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth. We have to do that. That’s the Lord’s way.
Many people on Reddit, several blogs, and some podcasts have pointed to several instances of Church leaders doing the very thing Ballard claims didn’t occur: hiding things or being deceptive. I don’t want to dwell on those examples (there are good examples here, here, here, here, here, and, of course, Mary Ann’s excellent post today) other than to state that I agree with the sentiment that Church leaders have not been transparent about history, finance, and other facts relevant to many members of the Church. Often we dwell on a specific quote by a specific person or on some instance of evasion (as Ballard did with the First Vision accounts), but in this case it is important to step back and see a consistent trend of evasion, deception, prevarication, burying of damaging information, and “carefully worded denials” (e.g., Joseph on polygamy, post-Manifesto polygamy, Hoffman forgery of Joseph’s treasure digging, Poelman talk, sneaky use of ellipses in manuals, etc.). Taken in total, leaders have shown a willingness to hide damaging information until their hand is forced (by the Internet, for example), which erodes membership trust, so when Ballard says “just trust us,” it rings a bit hollow.
Some attribute the lack of transparency to maliciousness, but I beg to differ; I think leaders have had good, but misguided, intentions. An example of this is the statement by Elder Oaks to Linda Newell (one of the authors of Mormon Enigma) as recounted in her talk at the 1992 Pacific Northwest Sunstone Symposium called “The Biography of Emma Hale Smith”. She stated that, in a meeting with Elder Oaks regarding the book, he said to her:
My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything else may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors.
To me, that sounds like a ringing endorsement for hiding things, especially considering the efforts by Church leaders to limit the influence of the book’s two authors; however, it also reveals the reasoning behind such efforts: the good of the Kingdom. I don’t detect in that statement a power grab or maliciousness on the part of Elder Oaks, but rather an “ends justify the means” type of attitude. As a leader of the Church and one principally tasked with extending its influence, I can see why he might use such tactics. I don’t agree with it, but I can understand.
Despite my disagreement with Elder Ballard regarding past efforts at transparency, I think he is correct in two ways:
- The Church is making efforts to be more transparent, as witnessed by the Joseph Smith Papers, Gospel Topics Essays, and what I consider a pretty open environment to historical inquiry.
- Transparency, as far as one is able, is “the Lord’s way.”
It is the second item that I would like to highlight and discuss further, including some challenges the Church faces in doing this to a greater degree, for I believe it strikes at the heart of the erosion of trust in Church leadership’s authority.
Authority
Joseph Smith, in his famous King Follett Discourse, said the following:
The mind of man is as immortal as God himself…Is it logic to say that a spirit is immortal and yet has a beginning? Because if a spirit has a beginning, it will have an end. That is good logic…
The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and because he was greater, he saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself–that they might have one glory upon another and all the knowledge, power, and glory necessary to save the world of spirits. I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life that are given to me, you taste them, and I know you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life; I know it is good. And when I tell you of these things that were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and I rejoice more and more.
If we accept these teachings from Joseph Smith, particularly that we are immortal spirits, it means God did not create us, right? We already existed and God, wanting to provide for us the same privilege of advancing that he experienced, instituted a plan for us to do so. Indeed, I agree with Joseph that the teaching “tastes good”; however, it begs the question: If we were immortal, free agents, how did God obtain his authority over us?
As far as I am aware, there are principally two methods to obtain authority over a sovereign agent:
- Subdue the agent, taking authority by force and usurping their sovereignty.
- Have authority granted to you by the consent of the agent, through the voluntary exercising of their agency.
I’m going to state that I don’t believe God obtained his authority through force or usurpation, so option #1 is off the table. Instead, I believe God obtained his authority through our consent; we consented to grant him authority over us as part of the process of obtaining the privilege of advancing like him. Having advanced to some point greater than us, he had the experience necessary to help us become like him, so we granted him the authority necessary to accomplish this task. We, as sovereign, immortal agents, exercised our agency and consented to his authority. I believe this is the Lord’s way.
Common Consent
Common consent, and its corollary, individual sovereignty/agency, is not only a governing principle of heaven (and the source of God’s authority over us), it is also enshrined as the governing principle of the Church. Doctrine and Covenants 26:2 states:
And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.
There is an excellent presentation on this topic that was given at the Sperry Symposium and is available at BYU’s website. According to the presentation:
The law of common consent in the modern dispensation was first revealed to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in Peter Whitmer’s home in June 1829. At that time, Joseph and Oliver were instructed to ordain each other to the office of elder and then to ordain others as it was made known unto them. Their ordination was deferred, however, until “such times as it should be practicable to have our brethren, who had been and who should be baptized, assembled together, when we must have their sanction to our thus proceeding to ordain each other, and have them decide by vote whether they were willing to accept us as spiritual teachers or not.”
The presentation also quotes Orson F. Whitney’s comments about the occasion:
What!—exclaims one. After these men had communed with heavenly beings and received from them commandments for their guidance; after receiving divine authority to preach the Gospel, administer its ordinances, and establish once more on earth the long absent Church of Christ! After all this must they go before the people and ask their consent to organize them and preside over them as a religious body? Yes, that was precisely the situation. Notwithstanding all those glorious manifestations, they were not yet fully qualified to hold the high positions unto which they had been divinely called. One element was lacking—the consent of the people. Until that consent was given, there could be no church with these people as its members and those men as its presiding authorities. The Great Ruler of all never did and never will foist upon any of his people, in branch, ward, stake or Church capacity, a presiding officer whom they are not willing to accept and hold.
The presentation then states:
Further instruction concerning ordinations and the “vote” of brethren was later revealed to Joseph Smith in early April 1830. Joseph was instructed to organize the Church and kingdom of God. Included in those specific instructions was the “law of common consent, “which reemphasized that “no person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church”(D&C 20:65–66).
Another interesting example of God respecting agency and consent is found in D&C 124 where, after specifying several people to fill various callings within the Church, the Lord says, in verse 144:
And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference;
Church leaders have taught that the United States Constitution is an inspired document, primarily because it enshrined into law individual freedom, agency, and sovereignty, in contrast to the previous situation where Americans were subject to the British monarch. Church governance followed a similar vein, enshrining individual agency as key to the governance of the Church. There would be no Divine Right of Kings in the Church; instead, Jesus would be our king and we would consent to those who would be in authority within the religious community.
Transparency
In order for consent to function properly, those providing their consent must have available to them all relevant information to aid them in making their decision. This is a key reason transparency is so integral to both the exercise of consent and the governance of the Church. How can one give one’s consent if material facts have been withheld from them – facts that may affect whether consent is given? For someone in authority to not be transparent is to abridge the agency of those over whom they wield authority, and to do so is most certainly not the Lord’s way.
Doctrine and Covenants Section 121 makes this abundantly clear. This section is a portion of a letter written by Joseph Smith as he languished in Liberty Jail. Joseph and those with him were incarcerated due to the unjust exercise of authority by civil authorities, so the righteous exercise of authority must have been a topic pressing on his mind. Verse 37 states:
That they [rights of the priesthood] may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
[Emphasis mine]
To violate the trust of those who consented to one’s authority, by covering one’s sins, is to forfeit that authority. To exercise control or compulsion over someone else is to forfeit one’s authority. Lest anyone think there is a righteous way to exercise control over the souls of the children of men, Joseph goes on in verses 41-42 to explain how one may wield authority righteously.
- Not by virtue of the priesthood: In other words, one cannot simply make an appeal to authority to influence others.
- Persuasion: We should seek to persuade others to our view. We cannot compel them or appeal to our authority.
- Long-Suffering: We should exercise patience and empathy.
- Gentleness: We should not be gruff, frightening, or intimidating.
- Meekness: We should be humble, admitting that we do not know everything and remain open to the ideas of others.
- Love Unfeigned: Our love should not be fake or contingent on others agreeing with us. We should also communicate our love in words and deeds.
- Kindness: We should be respectful and considerate of others, emphasizing their importance.
- Pure Knowledge: We should be transparent with our facts, giving the whole story needed for others to adequately judge the validity of our authority. We should seek to understand and learn what is required to be effective leaders.
- Without Hypocrisy: We should not be hypocritical and should practice what we preach. Any standard we expect of others should be expected of us, for we are all equal before God.
- Without Guile: We should not be deceptive, shifty, duplicitous, or evasive. We should be fully transparent.
This standard is not an easy one to aspire to. It does not come naturally; however, it is critical in order to operate with the sanction of God. The standard, along with the principle of common consent, helps to avoid the rule of tyrannical leaders and respects the agency of those over who one has authority. To act in ways that violate their trust by hiding one’s misdeeds or mistakes, being deceptive, prevaricating, using weasel language, or burying information important to consent, regardless of the intent, is to usurp the agency of those over whom one has authority, placing yourself as their sovereign and is most definitely not the Lord’s way.
To be honest, I believe this is the source of a lot of the angst over transparency within the Church. People want to be respected and dealt with honestly. They want to be treated as equals before God. Frankly, they deserve it. Can you imagine if God had withheld information important to our decision to accept his plan? Do you think he was deceptive or do you think he was transparent, laying out all the facts so we could make an educated decision? You see, to hold authority over someone through deception is to subvert their agency. Indeed, it is to subvert the plan of God, which is why transparency, with no deception or evasion, is the Lord’s way.
What To Do?
How are we to move forward given that many believe Church leaders have not been transparent in the past? First off, I think Church leaders should provide a full, honest, apology devoid of “lawyer speak.” No excuses, and comments such as Elder Ballard’s, where he said, “…there has been no attempt on the part in anyway, of the church leaders trying to hide anything from anybody,” need to stop. It’s just not true and is itself deceptive. Stop blaming the membership in any way and just come clean.
We must also continue current efforts at transparency. We are moving in a much better direction on this front and the integration of much of the historical problems into the curriculum and CES program is an important improvement. We can do better (I think the essays are evasive in places and omit some important facts, for example) but I think the general environment is much-improved over the past. We should keep improving in this regard.
Financial transparency is a must. Members cannot adequately assess whether they approve of how Church leaders utilize the resources of the Church unless there is greater financial transparency. We need not discuss all aspects of the financial records in detail at General Conference, but in this modern age, providing audited financial records is simply table stakes. It protects leaders and respects Church members.
I think we need to re-emphasize and reinvigorate common consent within the Church. We need to stop with the pressure that one might lose one’s temple recommend if one chooses not to sustain the current leadership. The specter of losing one’s temple recommend is no small thing and a vote not to sustain leadership holds out the possibility of losing a recommend. There are perhaps better ways we may word that question that gets to the heart of why it is asked, such as, “How do you support the mission of the Church?” Either way, the pressure exerted by fear of losing one’s temple recommend does not allow the free exercise of one’s agency through consent. This needs to stop.
We also need to change the culture regarding dissent. It shouldn’t be a stigma to vote opposed to something or someone. I’m not sure how to do this other than to have leaders explicitly state this in General Conference several times and take measures to ensure dissenting voices are adequately heard. Of course, as mentioned earlier, removing the possibility of a lost temple recommend will help in this regard.
The consent of free agents is the source of authority in God’s kingdom. Transparency by those in authority is critical to informing that consent, so any attempt at deception or evasion is an attempt to usurp the agency of those over whom one has authority, thus usurping the plan of God. This is why transparency is truly the Lord’s way.
What are your thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
“In order for consent to function properly, those providing their consent must have available to them all relevant information to aid them in making their decision. ”
This is the problem. Who gets to decide what information is relevant? How can they be sure? So many of the proclamations that the Church “lied” or “hid things” just comes down to less information than the person thought they “should have known”. We assume that historians/leaders/teachers/parents know everything, then get upset when they tell us something new that breaks what we thought we knew.
Absolute transparency is impossible, as it requires all parties to have knowledge of the same information. Do you really believe that people would have agreed to come down to Earth if they had complete knowledge of what would happen to them there? If common consent is withheld until everyone knows precisely all the information and knows every possibility, a vote would never be held.
Frank, while I understand your point, I think your case is overblown. Clearly the church has known about seer stones for more than a century. That information came out only in the last few years. The Tanners have tried to bring this to light since the 1960s. Why so long to acknowledge seer stones? Did church leaders just learn this with the CES Letter?
MH – the seer stones were part of the lore that “everybody knew”. I’m sure someone has already compiled the list of times it was referenced, just like the multiple first vision references. Those who fought the Tanners were among those who were uninformed/misinformed and not trusting them as a source. It’s wholly possible some leaders did learn it with the recent releases. Despite the quote of the prophet being able to speak pertaining to anything, the office don’t confer knowledge automatically.
There is no amount of knowledge that will insulate you from the possibility of learning just one more thing upending your boat. That’s the whole reason we’re told to build on the rock.
Amen and amen bro.Cody, seems to me we have seen the gospel through the lens of our own culture, a culture of force and domination. We rarely engage radical free agency, particularly as parents. I’m suggesting as parents we start to engage with this level of agency.
Long, slow and continous clapping. Very, very well done, Cody. I wholeheartedly agree with your narrative. Beautifully done! Oh, how I wish the leaders of “The Church” would listen to the members. My biggest fear is that the prevailing sentiment at the COB is one verbalized by Boyd K. Packer – “I’ve come here to teach – not to be taught”! Kinda, sorta turns one off. Thanks again.
Frank, once again I think you’re minimizing this. Early Church leaders all knew the Masonic origins of the endowment. Then suddenly church leaders began to say that there was no masonry in the Endowment ceremony. Now church leaders are grudgingly acknowledging the masonic connections. Ed Decker’s “Godmakers” got church leaders to take out the penalties. Reed Smoot hearings got church leaders to remove some of the oaths about avenging the blood of the prophets.
Church leaders went after Juanita Brooks and Michael Quinn and Margaret Toscano and Valeen Tippets Avery and Linda Newell and Abraham Gileadi and Lester Bush. These people are seen as heros now, yet were excommunicated, disfellowshipped, or (at best) marginalized. Their works are must-reads now, and many are quoted in the Gospel Topics essays. Church leaders tried to limit their influence. This looks like suppression, and it is. Marginalizing these people didn’t need to happen.
I get why church leaders de-emphasized things like this, but over the decades the church leaders made their bed and now have to sleep in it. You throwing up your hands in the air as if “Who gets to decide what information is relevant? How can they be sure?” seems like a bit of a smoke screen. Surely leaders can do better than they have with regards to how they treated people like Lester Bush. I think you can agree with that. It’s not as complicated as it seems like you’re making it out to be. Church leaders were wrong to marginalize these people.
Frank, I think your question is important and is part of the problem we have, where Church leaders have decided that certain details weren’t relevant and shouldn’t be shared, whether it was important history, financial reports, doctrinal changes, or changes to ordinances. Church leaders have a long history of filtering this stuff in various ways. With that said, the important point is that one in authority shouldn’t make the decision of what details are important – that decision should be made by those who grant the authority. If they deem some data to be superfluous, then it need not be provided in the future. There is, however, information that a reasonable person would consider material to consent and, in the case of the Church, much of that information was withheld, buried, etc.
We have an obligation to share information with people who are making critical life decisions, affecting generations, based upon the claims of the Church. They are also among the membership who provide their consent for Church leaders to continue in their roles. They deserve to be treated like adults and equals in the kingdom of God.
My guess is that, in your employment, you are sometimes faced with unpleasant information that must be reported to superiors. If you hide or obfuscate that information, you would be jeopardizing your job. Your employment is contingent upon trust, so if there is any question as to whether something is material or not, I would bet you err on the side of caution and provide that information to those who expect it (management). We should expect the same honesty of our Church leaders.
MH – your comment of “over the decades the church leaders made their bed and now have to sleep in it.” makes me have some sympathy as many of the corners that the Q15 are painted into are ones that the paint was applied by previous leaders and the Q15 seem to (at least now) have an unwritten rule that you don’t talk bad about and certainly NEVER throw a fellow apostle under the bus (except maybe Brigham Young on the race issue)
I wholly disagree with your assessment of a “consistent trend of evasion, deception, prevarication, burying of damaging information, and ‘carefully worded denials.'”. I think it is both unfair and untruthful.
Cody – “With that said, the important point is that one in authority shouldn’t make the decision of what details are important – that decision should be made by those who grant the authority”
Unfortunately, this is where we diverge – on who grants that authority. Despite your excellent example, Common Consent wasn’t the standard of the Church. Sometimes it happened, most often it did not.
Frank, it seems to have been the rule rather than the exception. Isn’t it what we should shoot for, or do you advocate just ignoring the scriptural requirement for it?
Abs a bloomin lootley, to the original post. An example might be the proclamation on the family. Never asked for consent, but accepted as scripture by most members. Also good members know its anti gay marriage, but it doesn’t mention gay marriage (plausible deniability). Plausible deniability is close to dishonesty. Not of God.
Hopefully we would not do it this way now?
Cody – scripture isn’t set in stone, nor should it be. We ignore a lot of scriptural “requirements”, using them however we like to nudge others toward our thinking. Jesus got a lot of flak for not doing things how they’d been set in scripture.
Common Consent isn’t a rule or exception; it’s a guideline to be used whenever the spirit dictates to help being be more invested in their decisions.
From Elder Oaks 1971 talk “Strive for excellence”
Most of all, live so that you can be guided and taught by the Spirit in all your activities, including all your efforts to learn and gain an education: honor your parents; be true to the teachings of the Church; be clean and faithful in all things; and be loyal to the leaders of the Church.
Later on in the same talk as he is bearing his testimony.
I have seen the gospel work good in the lives of others. I have observed miraculous things. But these signs follow them that believe. I know that the gospel is true because my Father in heaven has answered my prayers and borne witness to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. I am devoted to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am loyal to the chosen servants of the Lord, whom I sustain with all my heart.
This talk was given when he was 39 years old. 13 years later he was made an apostle. He is a man of his word. He is very loyal to those men that preceded him as apostles.
In our ward, we have 7 families that I know of that have a close family member who has left the church in the last couple years because of a faith crisis. I do not know all of the people personally that have left, but at least 3 have left over historical problems. I am quite sure that this quote of Elder Ballard “there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody” will come up in the next 6 months in GD or from the pulpit in a talk or testimony in my ward. If one were to disagree with this in class they would be blatantly calling an apostle a liar. I do not think that Elder Ballard made a misstep or a miscalculation. The majority of members when they hear this will disregard any loud member in the ward claiming to have found some stuff that doesn’t quite match up. I do not believe they want consent. I think they want loyalty.
Zach: “If one were to disagree with this in class they would be blatantly calling an apostle a liar. I do not think that Elder Ballard made a misstep or a miscalculation.” Not sure where you’re going with this. There are many ways to disagree or suggest alternatives to literal understanding of generalizations, though there are some vocal members who seem to be unable to figure them out and others who can’t bear to hear them without jumping to conclusions about lying.
Yes, it seems some want [unquestioning] loyalty, but sometimes don’t seem to understand how to get it. One way not to get it is to issue pronouncements on the use of words that are prescriptive, limiting (and therefore misleading), without acknowledging variations in both meaning and connotation. (Oaks, Bednar, Nelson, etc.)
Another way not to get it is giving mixed or internally contradictory messages, followed with instruction like:
“So, just trust us…” M. Russell Ballard, https://www.lds.org/church/news/apostles-answer-questions-about-standards-doubts-during-ysa-face-to-face?lang=eng
Trust is not that simple and not entirely in the conscious control of those from whom it is desired or expected.
On occasion, at least, I do better trusting a different apostle (and acknowledging mistake, exaggeration, over-generalization and other human behaviors and rhetorical devices on the part of Church leaders as well as myself):
“Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop; an apostle, or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place, they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him. Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men.” George Q. Cannon, “Need For Personal Testimonies,” (15 February 1891), Collected Discourses 2:178. See Millennial Star 53:658–659, 673–675.
Happy Hubby,
While Oaks wasn’t around for people like Juanita Brooks and Lester Bush, he was certainly around for Toscano, Quinn, Tippetts, and Gileadi. So he has his share of culpability in the bedmaking too. I believe he was the one not enamored with Avery’s “Mormon Enigma.”
There is no amount of knowledge that will insulate you from the possibility of learning just one more thing upending your boat. That’s the whole reason we’re told to build on the rock.
So in other words, “if you value anything more than unconditional loyalty to Mormonism as it is presently constituted — be it love, kindness, family, conscience, or integrity — you will eventually be asked to sacrifice that for the sake of the Gospel.”
Also, “boats are permanent structures one builds on a rock.”
Jewelfox – nope. The Rock is the Gospel of Christ, not the Church. I am sorry for the mixed metaphor.
No matter what house you’ve built, to whatever extent and with whatever strength, it only takes the right thing to bring it crashing down to the foundation. In buildings, this can happen when an earthquake hits the same resonance as a structure. See also “For Want of a Nail”. No one is safe from this, not even those with “unconditional loyalty to Mormonism” (which I would dispute anyone, even the Prophet) has.
For another example, the idea that we used “common consent” to vote to come to earth is absurd. We could not have been completely informed of everything that could possibly happen to us in this life. We would have had to decide if we trusted God, then deciding to follow Them. Does anyone really think that if people had known they would suffer a lifetime of abuse and misery (or even causing such to others), that they would have chosen this way?
Frank, if we didn’t consent to God’s authority and plan, how did he get his authority over us (considering that, as Joseph said, we were immortal, free agents)?
You’re also arguing that we would have had to be “informed of everything that could possibly happen to us in this life.” I didn’t make that assertion. I think I could have made an informed decision understanding the concepts and overall big picture. Kind of like I do with most decisions in my life.
Cody – plenty of people feel they made an informed decision when they joined the Church, not knowing all the information. At some point, some piece of information throws off what they thought they knew, and they decide to no longer be part of the Church. Does that make their original decision uninformed? Who gets to decide how much information is “enough”?
Joseph didn’t say we were free agents. He said God took intelligences and made spirits. The intelligences always existed, but were made into something else that was given agency.
nope. The Rock is the Gospel of Christ, not the Church. I am sorry for the mixed metaphor.
That’s what I meant, when I said “Mormonism” and “the Gospel.”
No matter what house you’ve built, to whatever extent and with whatever strength, it only takes the right thing to bring it crashing down to the foundation. In buildings, this can happen when an earthquake hits the same resonance as a structure. See also “For Want of a Nail”. No one is safe from this
I thought no one will ever be tempted beyond what they can bear?
Regardless, all the things I listed are things people have been asked to give up in the name of the Gospel. Actually, whatever you value about the Gospel, someone’s already been asked to give up, such as priesthood responsibility and service (women), exaltation (black people pre-1978), or an eternal family with someone you love erotically and romantically (LGB people).
For me in particular to convert back to Mormonism right now, I would have to give up my spouse and discontinue medically necessary treatment. Without which I’m at dramatically increased risk of suicide, self-harm, employment and housing discrimination, and other negative outcomes. Even worse, I’d have to be okay with other people suffering for a similar lack of care, and with splitting up their own families.
That’s what I meant when I said the Gospel of Christ as defined by Mormonism asks you to give up love and kindness. To borrow a phrase, through it you stand to gain worlds without end, but at the cost of your soul.
Furthermore, I think you are constructing a straw person who wants to know everything before agreeing to anything. And I think you are doing that because it is easier to argue with this imaginary person, then to tell someone 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball should have been prepared to lose her virginity to the Prophet because the Gospel could ask that of her.
I once spoke up during an Adult Sunday School lesson on “the Abrahamic Test,” and asked people “wait a minute … he’s obeying because of God’s promise, right? That his seed would outnumber the stars in the sky? So he’s committing an act of ritual human sacrifice in order to gain power?
“What if President Monson got up at General Conference, and said that he’d killed his firstborn son because God asked him to? Would we really all be okay with that?”
Nobody said a word.
Afterwards, my mother argued with me about it, and my father called me on the phone and very politely told me that I shouldn’t contradict the teacher ever again.
A few years later, right before Christmas, they cut me off when I came out publicly as transgender.
Frank- many or if not most of the churches followers come as adolescents who’s parents are active members. Are those members uninformed? Do these adolescents dare ask for the information when it might be perceived as doubt (which is a sin as Oaks had mentioned in the Face to Face)?
As you stated about what Joseph said pertaining to intelligences having free agency, This is spoken about in Abraham;
Abraham 3: 22-28
22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.
27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.
28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.
Also,
Alma 24:14
14 And the great God has had mercy on us, and made these things known unto us that we might not perish; yea, and he has made these things known unto us beforehand, because he loveth our souls as well as he loveth our children; therefore, in his mercy he doth visit us by his angels, that the plan of salvation might be made known unto us as well as unto future generations.
The church and the scriptures teach us that we were spirits with free agency:
Lds.org:
You are a participant in Heavenly Father’s
plan, and your eternal experience can be divided into three main parts: premortal life, mortal life, and life after death. As you come to understand the plan, you find answers to questions asked by so many about the premortal life.
Premortal Life
Before you were born on the earth, you lived in the presence of your Heavenly Father as one of His spirit children. In this premortal existence, you attended a council with Heavenly Father’s other spirit children. At that council, Heavenly Father presented His great plan of happiness.
Throughout your premortal life, you developed your identity and increased your spiritual capabilities. Blessed with the gift of agency, you made important decisions, such as the decision to follow Heavenly Father’s plan. These decisions affected your life then and now. You grew in intelligence and learned to love the truth, and you prepared to come to the earth, where you could continue to progress.
So the idea that we used common consent to allow ourselves to come to earth is not absurd. It’s what the church teaches.
I’m so sorry your parents cut you off. That is something no parent should do as they did.
Christopher – You’ve missed by point, by quite a lot.
Pre-pre-existence – intelligences, no agency, then made into spirits (made, not asked if they wanted it), -then- pre-existence/choosing to follow God or not.
Common Consent is everyone agreeing to do something before moving forward. By that alone the vote to come to Earth fails, as 1/3 disagreed.
Technically, Frank, Joseph didn’t say intelligences were made into spirits. Later GAs asserted this. Joseph said no such thing. In fact, if you re-read the King Follett Discourse, Joseph uses the two terms interchangeably. Perhaps I’ll have to write a post on this topic. Thanks!
Some Latter-day Saints believe that, prior to being born as spirits, individuals existed eternally as intelligences or (self-aware) individual entities whom God gave spirit bodies. The word intelligences, as used here, however, comes from the Book of Abraham, and refers to spirit children of God.
The term Intelligence, as used here, is singular. Some Latter-day Saints, therefore, refer to spirit beings as “organized intelligence.” On this topic, Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, wrote:
Abraham used the name intelligences to apply to the spirit children of the Eternal Father. The intelligence or spirit element became intelligences AFTER the spirits were born as individual entities (see Mormon Doctrine, p. 387).
The Doctrine and Covenants sheds further light on the creation of spirit beings:
All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man… (see D&C 93:30-31).
In other words, God placed truth and intelligence, which is co-eternal with God, in a sphere in order for that truth and intelligence to become independent, to have agency, to act for itself, to become a spirit being. Otherwise, there would have been no existence: there would have been no individual identity or consciousness.
Wow, sorry for interrupting your very important discussion about how many angels agreed to stand on the head of a pin.
I want to correct Christopher, though. I was eight years old when I made a solemn covenant to be Mormon forever, which is a few years shy of adolescent. I think most kids born in the church make this “decision” of eternal importance then.
Obviously they’re all just whiners if they discover some child rape or massacres a few decades later. Look, God explained it to you in the preexistence! You agreed to this, so shut up~!
Jewel, I am a GD teacher, and I would have countered that Abraham was going to sacrifice his son because God said so. Abraham had covenants to be obedient to God, have faith in God, follow God. The blessings follow.
It is very wrong that your family cut you off. I do not hesitate to say that. My kids are still kids, but I have decided that we will accept them as they are.
BUT. You know Jewel, if God said I needed to I would. And someone would say I was wrong. I don’t know. It is heartbreaking.
Star – if you confided in me that you felt God had told you to actually do this, I would immediately report this to the authorities. I guess I trust that people (even myself) can have mental health issues and this crosses a line of morality that I can’t accept. I would rather stand before God and answer why I failed to take one of God’s promptings than have to stand before God and answer why I killed my own child because of mental issues I was having. I can’t handle a God that would require that level of sacrifice with the risks involved.