General Conference - Fall 2010

[TroutBum]

Is it fair to say then that you believe some conference talks are incorrect or are incompatible in some sense with the totality of the views of God since they are are not all canonical?

If two conference talks contained conflicting messages (for the sake of argument we'll say they are from people of the same level, for example both seventies) how do you choose, or is it possible that you may disagree with both and have some third option?

I think where I'm trying to go is here: is it possible to be a) both a good Mormon and b) disagree with the church on this issue? Is there room for dissent without being evil or in sin?

I'm a good Mormon and I totally disagree with Packer. I'm infuriated by him, actually.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

This could easily be said of either side.

Who's lifestyle and sexuality are being critiqued here? Who's actively trying to deny people rights to marriage?

I think, this time, the LDS Church is not being victimized here. They've taken their stance, they need to live with the criticism as well.

 

[colton]

Who's actively trying to deny people rights to marriage?

"Deny people rights to marriage" assumes that such rights actually exist. Last time I checked, the Supreme Court has not said that homosexual unions have a right to be marriages. That decision will undoubtedly have to come from them. Until such time, my personal opinion is that homosexuals do *not* have a right to marriage. There is (clearly?) no absolute "right to marry anyone you want", because otherwise (for example) brother-sister marriages would not be forbidden like they currently are. And if states have a right to forbid such marriages, then it seems to me like states absolutely have a right to forbid homosexual marriages as well.

 

[YB85]

I'm a good Mormon

I stopped reading after that.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

"Deny people rights to marriage" assumes that such rights actually exist. Last time I checked, the Supreme Court has not said that homosexual unions have a right to be marriages. That decision will undoubtedly have to come from them. Until such time, my personal opinion is that homosexuals do *not* have a right to marriage. There is (clearly?) no absolute "right to marry anyone you want", because otherwise (for example) brother-sister marriages would not be forbidden like they currently are. And if states have a right to forbid such marriages, then it seems to me like states absolutely have a right to forbid homosexual marriages as well.

You know, they used the same argument to keep black people from marrying white people back in the day. Jus sayin.

 

[Archie Moses]

You can disagree with leaders, but the church teaches that you should support them. Even if you feel like what they are teaching is something contrary to your personal belief, we believe you still should support them. In fact, it's one of the questions that is asked to be able to have a temple recommend. "Do you support your leaders?" I've had leaders like bishops, stake presidents, etc that have said something crazy things and were crazy hard to support. I've learned that I'm not here to judge, no one is perfect. I should support them and help them with their callings. Maybe the Lord has something for them to learn. As for Packer, I think he tells things how they are. It's black or it's white and there is no gray. I think a lot of members can't hack this, so they justify. I for one believe he is an Apostle of Christ and he receives divine revelation. I know that the family is the focal point of the church and how important the mortal existence is. People get upset with what he says or with what the church says about marriage, but ultimately, it's nothing new. We believe that God says that homosexuality is a sin because it mocks the plan of salvation.

Prophets and apostles are called of god, but they are only ordinary men trying to follow God's plan too.

"The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible."

"The Presidency of the Church have to walk just as you walk. They have to take steps just as you take steps. They have to depend upon the revelations of God as they come to them. They cannot see the end from the beginning as the Lord does. They have their faith tested as you have your faith tested. . . . It is just as necessary that the Presidency and the Apostles should be tried as it is that you should be tried. It is as necessary that our faith should be called into exercise as that your faith should be called into exercise. We can see a certain distance in the light of the Spirit of God as it reveals to us His mind and His will, and we can take these steps with perfect security, knowing that they are the right steps to be taken. But as to what the result will be, that is for the God of Israel to control. That is the way in which the Church of God has always been led, and it will always be led in that way until He comes who is our King, our Lawgiver and our President, even Jesus Christ."

Here's a quote from Elder Packer himself.

"The prophets, as they walk and live among men, are common, ordinary men. Men called to apostolic positions are given a people to redeem. Theirs is the responsibility to lead those people in such a way that they win the battles of life and conquer the ordinary temptations and passions and challenges. And then, speaking figuratively, it is as though these prophets are tapped on the shoulder and reminded: "While you carry such responsibility to help others with their battles, you are not excused from your own challenges of life. You too will be subject to passions, temptations, challenges. Win those battles as best you can. Some people are somehow dissatisfied to find in the leading servants of the Lord such ordinary mortals. They are disappointed that there is not some obvious mystery about those men; it is almost as if they are looking for the strange and the occult. To me, however, it is a great testimony that the prophets anciently and the prophets today are called out from the ranks of the ordinary men. It should not lessen our faith, for example, to learn that Elijah was discouraged at times, even despondent. (See 1Kgs.19:4.) This calling forth of ordinary men for extraordinary purposes is as evident during the Savior's earthly mission as in former and later eras."

I can name tons of examples from the scriptures that show either how prophets or apostles messed up some how, or sinned, or had their teachings changed. The only person who ever lived a "perfect" life was Christ. No prophet or apostle will ever be perfect, and because since the fall, they can't. We can't. Why was Lot the most righteous man when he was messing around with his daughter? How could David commit adultery and murder? Why did the Mosaic Law change? Why did Peter deny Christ? Why did Bruce R. McKonkie have to be corrected about the priesthood? The answer, to me, is simple. We don't know everything that god has planned for us and sometimes we miss understand things. However, we believe the heavens are open and that god continues to reveal things to us to help us along the way. So why do things change sometimes then? Sometimes we know, and sometimes we don't.

"Noah occasionally drank wine to the point of drunkenness and unconsciousness (Genesis 9:21, 23). Abraham acquiesced in his wife's mistreatment of his second wife (Genesis 16:6). Jacob "with subtlety" and deception obtained his brother's blessing from his blind father Isaac (Genesis 27:12, 35), and also hated his first wife Leah (Genesis 29:30-31). Moses at the least committed manslaughter prior to his call as a prophet (Exodus 2:12-14), and after that call occasionally exhibited doubt in God's word, fierce anger, and boastful arrogance (Exodus 4:10-14, 5:22-23, 32:19; Numbers 20:10-12). The Lord had to intervene directly to prevent Samuel from choosing the wrong man as king (1 Samuel 16:6-7). Daniel sought forgiveness for his sins while prophet (Daniel 9:20). Jonah resisted the commandment of God to him (Jonah 1:2-3, 4:1) James and John, as apostles, delighted in the thought of their opponents being destroyed (Luke 9:52-56) and pridefully sought to elevate themselves above the rest of God's children in the eternities (Mark 10:35-38). Peter was impudent, boastful, arrogant, and cowardly as an apostle during the life of Jesus (Matthew 16:21-23, 26:69-75; John 13:8-9, 18:10-11). Despite Christ's command to send the Gospel to all nations at His ascension (Matthew 27:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47), it required another specific revelation to Peter to persuade him that the Gospel should be taken to those who were not Jews (Acts 10-11), and even years after that revelation Peter continued to demonstrate his prejudice (Galatians 2:1,9,11-14). Nor did Peter hesitate to criticize the approach of his fellow apostle Paul in teaching the Gospel (2 Peter 3:15-16); Paul likewise boasted that he had publicly condemned Peter and "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Galatians 2:11-14). Moreover, conflicts between Barnabus and Paul resulted in the disruption of their mission (Acts 13:2, 15:36-39)."

https://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/priesthood/prophets/infallibility.html

This is a pretty good link that clarifies a lot of stuff. I didn't read everything on it, but I'm going to now.

It comes as a matter of surprise to many people that Church leaders do not always have the same understanding of all gospel principles. That surprise reflects the confidence the members have in their leaders and suggests that they almost expect the leaders to be infallible. It also suggests that they equate priesthood offices with knowledge. It would be comfortable to suppose that among our leaders there are no unanswered questions and that a perfect equality of understanding exists. Realizing that each of us is responsible for our own understanding and that no two people are at exactly the same place in that process is an important lesson. It is also important to realize that we cannot always lean on others. To walk by borrowed light is necessary for a time and a season, but at some point it is expected that we take our place as the source of light for others.

There is room in the Church for differences of understanding. On matters about which the revelations are plain, however, there ought to be a unity of thought and faith. We need not put question marks at the end of revealed pronouncements. We sustain the man who stands at the head of the Church as the living constitution of the Church. We follow the direction he points and accept his voice as final where doctrinal differences may exist. Such authority must rest with him if the Lord's house is to be a house of order and if we are to avoid being tossed about by every wind of doctrine. This is simply to say that there is but one head, and in this sense, one spokesman, for the Church.

It is not to be expected, however, that every General Authority will be the equal of every other General Authority in doctrinal understanding any more than it is to be expected that every bishop have the same understanding as every other bishop or every Sunday School teacher have the same understanding as every other Sunday School teacher. It is common to see people change and improve their views in the process of serving. We should all find ourselves giving better answers to questions and preaching better doctrine with the passing of years. That is true at all levels of the Church. It is also to be expected that the present generation can and will improve upon the preceding generation. Surely we are obligated to improve upon what we have been given. There is danger that some may use that idea as justification to liberalize their views and move further and further from the mainstream of faith and truth. That is a shabby counterfeit to be guarded against. The greater danger rests in our refusing to move forward, announcing that what we have received is sufficient and that nothing more can be added to it. Warning against such an attitude the Lord said: "From them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have" (2 Nephi 28:30).

Thus, in those instances when the views of one man reach beyond those of another, we ought to rejoice in the additional knowledge and in the realization that the process of spiritual growth is alive and well in the Church. To do so will require that we surrender our security blanket (or the notion that in this mortal world all are equal in understanding) and realize that learning the gospel is a process, not an office, and that each individual is responsible for what he or she chooses to believe and teach.

 

[colton]

Is it fair to say then that you believe some conference talks are incorrect or are incompatible in some sense with the totality of the views of God since they are are not all canonical?

If two conference talks contained conflicting messages (for the sake of argument we'll say they are from people of the same level, for example both seventies) how do you choose, or is it possible that you may disagree with both and have some third option?

I think where I'm trying to go is here: is it possible to be a) both a good Mormon and b) disagree with the church on this issue? Is there room for dissent without being evil or in sin?

And before I get blasted here by people who aren't colton (who I have a decent history with when it comes to discussing issues related to Mormonism, so I doubt he would take these questions from me the wrong way) I think it is extraordinarily difficult to cast me as an anti-Mormon. Please don't get defensive, I am truly asking in as respectful a manner as possible.

I absolutely believe that some conference talks in the past have been incorrect or incompatible with the views of God. I cited Elder Dunn's made up stories above as an example of that (although presumably the points of his stories still followed core LDS principles). As another example, the church "Gospel Principles" manual used to have a quote from conference by an apostle (if my memory holds; sorry that I forget the details) which said, "Fathers should prefer to have their daughters get murdered than let themselves be raped." That quote was found in the German version of that manual c. 1990, and presumably in some pre-1990 English version manuals as well. I recall distinctly because a fairly recent convert asked me then (I was a missionary) if that sentiment seemed right to me. Meanwhile, that quote has disappeared from the manual, presumably because current church leadership does not agree with it.

So, if a conference talk doesn't seem right to you, or if it conflicts with another talk, you choose by letting your own conscience (aka inspiration from the Holy Spirit) be your guide. As I said to the missionary in the story in my last post, when all is said and done you are responsible to God for the choices you make. So, do what you think is right and let the consequences follow.

(But, I would add, be very careful if your own inspiration takes you too far away from what church leaders are teaching. As I believe one of the speakers at conference said, there is such a thing as "inspiration" from the wrong source.)

Let me now address this specific question: "I think where I'm trying to go is here: is it possible to be a) both a good Mormon and b) disagree with the church on this issue? Is there room for dissent without being evil or in sin?"

As Trout said, sure you can be a "good Mormon" and disagree with church leaders. But I would say, only to a point. Taking Pres. Kimball as an example... when he said, "The Lord told me to remove the priesthood ban", to me that is clearly declaring the will of the Lord. "Good Mormons" sustain the president of the church as a prophet, and recognize him as the only person on the earth entitled to speak for the Lord. So if people disagreed with Pres. Kimball's change in policy back then, I would say that they had crossed a line and were no longer sustaining him as a prophet.

Would gay marriage be such a thing? Not necessarily, in my opinion. I could see a situation where a "good Mormon" might feel opposed to gay marriage on a personal level, but because of their overall world view of how the law should operate, might vote in favor of gay marriage. (Reference point: I recently had a Jewish research student who said that's the way he, and most of his congregation, view the gay marriage situation.) Actually, wasn't Steve Young's wife (I forget her name) in that exact situation? I don't think she was kicked out of the church, or anything like that, because she was actively against Prop 8.

(quick search) Yep, here it is:
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=32216
https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4686916

 

[colton]

You can disagree with leaders, but the church teaches that you should support them. Even if you feel like what they are teaching is something contrary to your personal belief, we believe you still should support them. In fact, it's one of the questions that is asked to be able to have a temple recommend. "Do you support your leaders?" I've had leaders like bishops, stake presidents, etc that have said something crazy things and were crazy hard to support. I've learned that I'm not here to judge, no one is perfect. I'm should support them and help them with their callings. Maybe the Lord has something for them to learn.

Thanks, Archie, I tried to figure out how to say something like that as well, but couldn't. I agree completely.

"Supporting your leaders" means to me that (for example) when a bishop says something in church that isn't quite right (happened Sunday before last!), I either let it slide or else talk to the bishop privately about it. What I *shouldn't* do is complain to everyone else in the ward and their dog about how misinformed our bishop is.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

Were there any talks on food storage this time around? I've always thought the emphasis on that was genius, and surely there was a lot of people that have probably benefited that over the past 3 or 4 years, but I think we are getting even closer to the point when that advice is going to look even smarter unfortunately.

 

[sirkickyass]

Would gay marriage be such a thing? Not necessarily, in my opinion. I could see a situation where a "good Mormon" might feel opposed to gay marriage on a personal level, but because of their overall world view of how the law should operate, might vote in favor of gay marriage. (Reference point: I recently had a Jewish research student who said that's the way he, and most of his congregation, view the gay marriage situation.) Actually, wasn't Steve Young's wife (I forget her name) in that exact situation? I don't think she was kicked out of the church, or anything like that, because she was actively against Prop 8.

(quick search) Yep, here it is:
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=32216
https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4686916

Colton, it appears that the church isn't totally consistent on that issue however.

Here's an example of a particular mormon in Nebraska who was threatened with excommunication for actively opposing Proposition 8.

https://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/st...nication-from-LDS/6Cvu_py9FEOIv-LmCuK8pA.cspx

Looking through his personal website, it appears that the church delayed his disciplinary hearing and then ultimately acted as if he had never been informed they planned to excommunicate him after his case received some publicity.

His position seems somewhat reasonable to me, relying on passages of the Doctrine and Covenants.

One letter he wrote states:

Further, passage of Proposition 8 would deny marriage rights for gay and lesbian members of other faiths who perform gay marriages, such as Unitarians and Episcopalians, and others.


"We do not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied." D&C 134:9

Colton, I'd be curious to know how you reconcile Prop 8-like activities with D&C 134:9.

That certainly seems to be the kind of basis of personal disagreement that you discussed previously.

Fundamentally I'm somewhat concerned about what I perceive as a radicalization of some church members on this issue and I think Packer's talk may be a symptom of this trend. Since they've been forced to defend the actions of the church on this point so publicly I wonder how much real room for dissent their is socially to say that the church did the wrong thing in this instance. In doing some quick research, several members or ex-members charge that they were disciplined or threatened by church leadership (usually at lower levels such as stake presidents) for being publicly against the church on this issue. As someone who's sort of in a constant flirtation with the idea of some level of casual church membership I'm wary of the kind of culture that seems on the verge of occasionally making this a de facto purity test.

 

[Archie Moses]

"We do not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied." D&C 134:9

Kinda of ironic what the following scripture D&C 134:10 says, isn't it?

 

[sirkickyass]

"Supporting your leaders" means to me that (for example) when a bishop says something in church that isn't quite right (happened Sunday before last!), I either let it slide or else talk to the bishop privately about it. What I *shouldn't* do is complain to everyone else in the ward and their dog about how misinformed our bishop is.

But where do you stand on something a little closer to the issue here: Can members be allowed to participate in political activities that go against the religious views of the church's leadership?

Stated another way: Would it go too far to publicly campaign against a church position when the church has participated in a political affair?

 

[Archie Moses]

But where do you stand on something a little closer to the issue here: Can members be allowed to participate in political activities that go against the religious views of the church's leadership?

Kicky, the answer to the question is, no, they can not. It's actually another temple interview question.

6. Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?

 

[sirkickyass]

Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?

Sounds a lot like "Are you now or have you ever been ..."

Given that, is it fair to say that there is functionally a political litmus test to being in the church? Or is it ok to believe something different as long as you never talk about it, effectively putting you in political exile?

This may explain the odd John Birch Society splintering and semi-LDS takeover that I've been curious about for some time.

 

[TroutBum]

I stopped reading after that.

What is this filth? I am the Rapture, dammit.

 

[Bronco70]

I think, this time, the LDS Church is not being victimized here. They've taken their stance, they need to live with the criticism as well.

I don't disagree with any of this.

But you are essentially saying one side has a right to a voice, and the other doesn't (presumably because it is a big, bad, mean church that you don't agree with.)

 

[Bronco70]

...is it fair to say that there is functionally a political litmus test to being in the church? Or is it ok to believe something different as long as you never talk about it, effectively putting you in political exile?

Pardon me if I am interjecting w/o welcome, but I have always felt that, ultimately, I am accountable only to God. I am not in 100% agreement, all the time, with all church leadership. But should I be required to forfeit all the spiritual benefits of being affiliated with the church because of this? I'm pretty sure it isn't that cut and dry. I'm also pretty sure that God expects us to think for ourselves, and knows that there will be some dissension. Unfortunately, there are people who need their hand held every step of the way, so we have a system that accommodates them.

If I were only receiving from the church, and not contributing to it, I may feel that "all-or-nothing" was reasonable. But since I contribute a significant amount of time and money, I feel like I deserve some latitude, within reason.

Regarding members who may have been on the chopping block for being on the wrong side of prop 8, that would be a clear failure of the local leadership. I have heard, several times, and in an official setting, that the church does not wish to control my political leanings. Obviously, they encouraged support of prop 8 - but this is different than mandating it, IMO.

This all was probably worthless, as far as answering your question, but I wanted to get it off my chest anyway.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I don't disagree with any of this.

But you are essentially saying one side has a right to a voice, and the other doesn't (presumably because it is a big, bad, mean church that you don't agree with.)

I did no such thing, the LDS Church made it's stance clear with Packer's remarks and they have every right to do so. If you agree with what I said above, that the LDS Church is not being victimized, than why are you trying to play the victim claiming I'm trying to somehow remove your right to a voice?

Newsflash, it's the LDS Church that is actively trying to limit the actions of homosexuals. What did they ever do to the LDS church?

 

[colton]

Colton, it appears that the church isn't totally consistent on that issue however.

Here's an example of a particular mormon in Nebraska who was threatened with excommunication for actively opposing Proposition 8.

https://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/st...nication-from-LDS/6Cvu_py9FEOIv-LmCuK8pA.cspx

Looking through his personal website, it appears that the church delayed his disciplinary hearing and then ultimately acted as if he had never been informed they planned to excommunicate him after his case received some publicity.

Or perhaps that an authority higher than his stake president decided the stake president had been overstepping his authority.

His position seems somewhat reasonable to me, relying on passages of the Doctrine and Covenants.

I dunno... his political position may have some merits, but calling church leaders "bigots" doesn't seem like a very reasonable way to proceed for someone that is trying to not be excommunicated.

Colton, I'd be curious to know how you reconcile Prop 8-like activities with D&C 134:9.

That certainly seems to be the kind of basis of personal disagreement that you discussed previously.

I think it's answered by D&C 134:1, "We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society." In other words, we have a responsibility to pass good laws (v. 1), but we shouldn't penalize people for not belonging to the church (v. 9). Seems consistent to me. Nowhere does that imply that we shouldn't use our own morals (religiously-founded or otherwise) to decide on what good laws are.

Fundamentally I'm somewhat concerned about what I perceive as a radicalization of some church members on this issue and I think Packer's talk may be a symptom of this trend. Since they've been forced to defend the actions of the church on this point so publicly I wonder how much real room for dissent their is socially to say that the church did the wrong thing in this instance. In doing some quick research, several members or ex-members charge that they were disciplined or threatened by church leadership (usually at lower levels such as stake presidents) for being publicly against the church on this issue. As someone who's sort of in a constant flirtation with the idea of some level of casual church membership I'm wary of the kind of culture that seems on the verge of occasionally making this a de facto purity test.

I agree that it's good to be concerned about that. And I could see how some (local) church leaders might feel that an LDS member supporting gay marriage efforts had crossed the line to where they are no longer sustaining (global) church leadership. But from my perspective, such a litmus test hasn't been implemented yet.

 

[colton]

But where do you stand on something a little closer to the issue here: Can members be allowed to participate in political activities that go against the religious views of the church's leadership?

Stated another way: Would it go too far to publicly campaign against a church position when the church has participated in a political affair?

It wouldn't surprise me that in a situation where the church has taken an official stand (and these are few and far between), members in opposition to that stand might well be asked to take a low profile.

For example, I understand (from my wife) that back 20-30 years ago, when the state lottery in Idaho was coming into existence, the church saw it as a moral issue (just like Prop 8) and said, "You shouldn't vote for the lottery". If a member had actively campaigned *for* the state lottery instead, I guess it wouldn't surprise me if the member were asked to take a lower profile. On the other hand, I've never heard of any situation where a member was excommunicated just for having an opinion, or even for voting for an issue. It would take active campaigning for something where the church has taken an official stand to the contrary.