"Pride Cometh Before the Fall"

I've been trying to figure out how to write what I want to say for a long time. Stephanie's last blog about the Book of Mormon and gaddianton politics got me thinking. I just about put all of this in a response to Stephanie's post, but then I remembered, Hey, I'm a contributor to this blog, so If I have something to say, I might as well just do my own post. In talking with friends and co-workers, and on this site, I've come across a lot of alarming feelings about the USA. I'd like to take a second and take stock of what's going on. I say "we" speaking for the USA.

- We are on the eve of an unprecedented presidential election. The division is incredibly great, and the stakes are very high.
- We are actively involved in an unprovoked military action in the Middle East which has no solution, because it was jumped into without forethought.
- We have an economy that is, many would say, on the verge of collapse.
- We are almost completely dependant on fossil fuels and are paying astronomical prices for them.
- We are dealing with medical care that is ridiculously expensive and not up to par with much of the civilized world.
- We deal with a Media system that is much more interested in what a candidate's fashion sense than it is with the candidate's politics.
- We, as a people, are generally more unhealthy and overweight than the rest of the civilized world because of our diet/and exercise. - Diet-related illness is the chief killer in our country.
- We live in an age of apathy - where all of this stuff is happening, and people basically don't care, as long as it doesn't interrupt with "America's got Talent." or "Dancing With the Stars."
- Our Educational System is fundamentally flawed, and our education standards continue going down in respect to the rest of the world.
- Inner-city Life is intolerable.


I feel I've painted a clear, honest picture - at least how the situation of the US appears to me. But let me add one more.

- Despite all of the above mentioned points, many US citizens, I'd say most, still feel a sense of superiority over the rest of the world Morally, Militarily, Economically, Spiritually, and Culturally. We, as a country live in a state of indulgence, decadence, and degradence. We have built a false sense of security around us by the blanket of pride that we are all smothering in. Somehow we have gotten it into our heads that we are above the rest. That what we have is right, and what everyone else has is wrong. We are militarily enforcing pseudo-democracy onto a nation that isn't ready for it, and we've done this for years - We embrace an economic system that is based on personal acquisition. We are so far removed from actually depending on ourselves, and on God, that we have forgotten the basic tenants of being human - we've forgotten how to cook, how to make a fire, how to sew clothes - because our system assures us that this will all be available to us for next to no money. We have completely bought into the idea that, you can, indeed, buy anything in the world for money. And so our lives are squandered away in the pursuit of stuff.

I'd like to quote Helaman 4:11-12 which Stephanie quoted in her last post:

11)Now this great loss of the Nephites, and the great slaughter
which was among them, would not have happened had it not been for
their wickedness and their abomination which was among them; yea,
and it was among those also who professed to belong to the church
of God.
12) And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of
their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression
to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding
their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren
upon the cheek, making a mock of that which was sacred...

The verse goes on with more valid points, but I want to concentrate on what we are told first (usually with ancient text, the first thing in a list is the most important): Pride. And then he describes pride and what does he make of it? that it is "making a mock of that which is sacred." For more talk on pride, I'd like to point out C.S. Lewis' chapter on the subject in Mere Christianity (he calls it the essential vice and the utmost evil), and also Ezra T. Benson's 1989 talk on the subject (I can't remember what conference issue - I think Spring).

I use the term We, and Us, because I recognize quite clearly that I am just as prideful as the rest - that is, my life is concerned with myself - my needs, my wants. Not the needs of others. To quote Peter Pan, my unconscious motto has been, "oh the wonderfulness of Me." In defining pride, C.S.Lewis states, "Pride is essentially competitive. Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone."

The Book of Mormon was given to help us in our day. The first thing one learns about the Book of Mormon when studying it in Seminary is, "the pride cycle." The Mormon continually shows us the definition of pride, its cause, and its result. In Helaman 4:11-12, we see one example of the destruction of the Nephites because of Pride. I'd like to hit a few more examples:

Helaman 6:17
17)17 For behold, the Lord had blessed them so long with the riches
of the world that they had not been stirred up to anger, to wars,
nor to bloodshed; therefore they began to set their hearts upon
their riches; yea, they began to seek to get gain that they might
be lifted up one above another; therefore they began to commit
secret murders, and to rob and to plunder, that they might get
gain.

Remarkable how close to C.S. Lewis' definition this is. Contrast this with 4 Nephi 1:17:

17)There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanits, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ and heirs of the kingdom of God.

What is the difference? They were heirs of the Kingdom of God. The very Kingdom of God preached by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount - The same Kingdom of God that Enos would call Zion. the difference between the Kingdom of God in 4th Nephi, and the degraded Nephite society in Helaman 12 (and later in 4th Nephi) is "-ites." That is distinction, stratification, wealth, and pride.

The reason for this post wasn't to give a sermon, nor was it to elevate myself - I know I'm very guilty of pride - but it was to show the situation of the US, and beg the question what can be done? Anything? Nothing? I submit that it will never happen on a governmental level. Most countries in the world hate the US for its pride already. And its not going to get any better. But we as individuals can make changes to pull our pride down.

I might suggest one way of pulling down pride, at least on a political level. What if we altered our view point from, "how will this affect me" (a view that continues to make, "me" the most important piece of the equation.) to "how will this affect those who find themselves in circumstances less fortunate than me." I feel that if we altered our view fundamentally in that way, we'd develop compassion for others, and in the process, pull our pride down, just a bit.

What do you think? Can we pull our pride down? Can the US save face? Or, are we destined to fall like all other great world powers because we have placed ourselves squarely in the midst of the pride cycle?

66 comments:

The Faithful Dissident said...

Rick,

Thanks for this post. As a non-American, I feel that you were able to say some of the things that I want to say, but sort of feel like I can't, for fear of being labelled anti-American.

Let me just start off by saying that I love America. I've spent a lot of time there, I feel a close connection to it in many ways, and there are certain things that America and Americans do best, IMO.

That being said, although I feel a close connection to America in some regards, I also feel distanced from it. You may even be able to say that I resent America for certain things, the number one thing being the tone of superiority that I've heard from Americans all my life.

As a Canadian, I can admit that Canadians tend to suffer from an inferiority complex when it comes to America. Our population is just a fraction of yours, and we don't get the same media attention. But it runs much deeper than that. I think a lot of Canadians (and other nationalities for that matter) harbour a great deal of resentment (even hostility) towards America because of a lot of the rhetoric that comes from it. Please understand that I'm trying to put this as delicately and as respectfully as I can. I don't wish to offend or alienate you all, because I know that I'm really generalizing here. But, to be honest, many Americans haven't got a clue about their huge neighbour to the north, their huge neighbour to the south, or anything that goes on outside of your borders for that matter. Just watch any of the "world news" broadcasts (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc) and compare them to BBC or CNN international. You guys are living in a bubble.

I think that some Americans are starting to wake up. Once events occur abroad that have implications for your lives in the US, people start to take notice. Sadly, that's sometimes what it takes for them to take notice.

Norwegians also have close ties to the US, but at the same time harbour a lot of anti-American sentiment. This is based partially on politics, but it goes much deeper than that. All we hear from US politicians is that America is the best. Don't get me wrong, everybody thinks their country is "the best" and people should be proud of where they come from. I have no problem with that. But many Americans honestly, truly believe that they have the best of everything and that the rest of the world just sucks. And yet what do they know about the world? And sadly, who do I hear this attitude from more than anyone else? Mormons. It's ingrained in our theology (perhaps falsely) that America is God's chosen country, that He is leading it, and the rest of the world is just left up to Satan. Seriously, I have encountered this belief in certain Mormon discussions (not here on politicalds) and it just baffles me. Of course, the biggest one is democratic socialism. I understand that many Americans don't want democratic socialism and by no means do I think it should be forced on them if they don't want it. But many hear "the s-word" and they totally dismiss the idea that any country can have a modern, democratic, stable government that is, in some aspects (not all), superior to the American system -- if we are basing this on standard of living, poverty and crime rates, etc (or the points that Rick listen in his post). And sometimes I think it's hard for some Americans to believe that other nations do things better than they do (and vice versa).

I've run out of time here, but I guess I'm just trying to point out that yes, America is great. But I think that Americans are both ill-informed and plain wrong when they believe that everything in the US is better than outside of the US. (Remember Romney's speech where he said America is the greatest country in the history of the earth, or something along those lines.) And as for the Mormon perspective, I just don't know what to say. Has God forsaken the rest of the world in order to concentrate on the US? I think that notion is absurd.

I hope no one has taken what I've said the wrong way. Honestly, I'm not trying to bash America here. I'm just trying to point out some things from a perspective that I think is hard for you to get while being American in America.

Stephanie said...

My opinion is that if we don't humble ourselves, then the Lord will humble us, and we will fall. When I look around me, I see "reveling in wickedness" of all of the sorts spoken of in Helaman. I don't have much hope for the U.S, but I do have a lot of hope for members of the church in all countries. There is a verse in D&C that talks about the literal gathering of Zion 45:69. It says, "And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another". Granted, it could be talking about the exodus to Utah. Mormons were insulated against the Civil War, but I also wonder if it is talking about the very last days. It gives me a lot of hope. Actually, the whole Book of Mormon gives me hope because it repeatedly says that the righteous need not fear.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I agree with Stephanie.

And wickedness is not just rampant in the US. It's everywhere, as we all know. And it's not just in the wicked things that we see, like immorality and violence, but the things that we don't see.

I see pride as the greatest deterrent to people prospering in this world. I think about this every time I see poverty and disease in some of the poorest countries of the world. I believe that famine and poverty are man-made in the world today. Sure, we have natural disasters and catastrophes that can cause temporary hardships, but with the technology and communication that we have today, is there really any valid excuse for letting millions of people starve to death or die of treatable diseases? I really don't think so. The problem is a combination of greedy, proud, properous people who withhold their means, and corrupt leaders and governments that won't accept the aid (or abuse it and use it on themselves) that could benefit their people.

One of the things that saddens me most is to see the waste of food in the western world. It just boggles my mind that we can be throwing out piles of food every day (much of it meat), or that we have so much food that we actually eat ourselves to an early grave, while millions of people are needlessly starving to death at this very moment.

I've never been able to forget a certain photograph that I once saw. It's famous, so some of you have probably seen it. Taken in Sudan, the photographer was tortured by the things that he witnessed and committed suicide at a young age.

When I see this I wonder if there is anything else that can motivate people and governments to do more. It's like, if this isn't the catalyst to change, then what is?

Stephanie said...

Oh, FD, that is haunting.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Stephanie - the righteous need not fear. But, who are the righteous? It would seem to me that the Savior demanded nothing less of us that not voluntarily give up all that seperates us from the poorest of the poor - - "Sell all that thou hast and give it to the poor." - - in order to enter the kingdom of heaven - thus to give up any and all social stratification. Thus we have effectively "abandoned the system." - When we have abandoned the things that tie us to the world and its wealth, then are we the righteous? So, If I have no debt, from buying a more expensive, extravegant home than I absolutely need, I suppose I need not fear intrest rates or lenders. If I have not invested in the market (to increase my wealth by doing nothing) then I suppose I need not fear its collapse. If I don't buy gasoline, I suppose I need not fear the results of skyrocketing prices. If I feed myself and my family healthy, home grown, vegitarian food, I need not fear the negative results that the wrong kinds of food can have on the body. I need not fear death in a war if I choose not to fight in wars. I need not fear a colapsing capitolistic economy if I choose to not support such an economy with my money.

No no one will ever do these things because they think its stylish and cool to do them - the only thing that will motivate one to adopt such a lifestyle is diminished pride, and the increase of charity that goes along with it. When you are living amongst the poor, you need not worry about an expensive home. When you are giving your excess money to charities, you don't have enough to play the market. When you avoid driving, meat, and the restraunt and fastfood industry due to a concious moral choice to protect the environment, and cause no harm to others, you will grow your will eat a diet of fresh fruits, vegetables and grains - or, ideally, grow your own. When you adopt pacifism ans a moral choice, you will not fight in wars. If you are giving away your excess money out of love for your fellow m an, you naturally won't be involved in the capitolistic economy much.

Such a person is, in my opinion, doing what he or she can to be among the righteous - and they truely don't have much need to fear.

But just because someone is a card carrying mormon who pays their 10% and goes to Church on sunday and prepares a lesson for their Elder's Quarum doesn't put them among the righteous. Just because someone follows the prophet in the "don'ts" doesn't mean they are in a morally safe place so when collapse and ruin does come, they will be safe. To truely be righteous, to truely belong in the Kingdom of God (which God spared from the pains of the flood of Noah) one must be willing to humble themselves and seek what is best for their fellow man above what seems best for themselves. How many of us have gotten there? I know I haven't. I'm sure many are trying to some extent.

But it seems to me that the vast majority of memebers of the Church see compliance to the temple reccomend questions as their ticket into the Zion's safe haven - as if magically we'll be safe because we pay our tithing. There is nothing magical about it. Tithing is a prepratory law that should precede giving away all that we have - becoming the poor, meek, seeker of (true)righteousness that is described in the Sermon on the Mount. The only "ticket" we have to becoming such a person is utter humility and charity. These are areas in which Memebers of the Church, particularly, are severely lacking. Instead of getting actively, emotionally involved in relief efforts, or NPOs or Charities, Memebers of the Church are currently passionite about California Proposition 8, and seeing to it that basic rights are witheld from people who are different than them.

Gandhi said, "If we are to be nonviolent, we must then not wish for anything on this earth which even the meanest or the lowest of human beings cannot have." - - Thus Gandhi did not eat meat, spun his own clothes, and left this life with a mere handful of personal belongings. True, we can't all be Gandhi - but I promise, that person is in the Kingdom of God, regardless of his religious belief - Because that person devoted his time talents, energies and everything that the Lord blessed him with to the building up of the Kingdom of God on the Earth - and to nothing else. And he had nothing to fear when his life was brutally ripped from him. because he knew the state of his soul.

For much of Utah and Salt Lake Vallies, and for many members of the church spread across the globe, we have along way to go before we can safely say we have nothing to fear.

Stephanie said...

Rick, I don't think I necessarily agree with your definition of righteous, but I also don't want to offer one of my own. I think the only person I can define righteousness for is myself (and try to teach it to my kids). And, for me, I feel that trying to follow the prophet in all things is what will keep me "safe". Not that bad things can't happen, but following the prophet is what gives me peace instead of fear.

Stephanie said...

the difference between the Kingdom of God in 4th Nephi, and the degraded Nephite society in Helaman 12 (and later in 4th Nephi) is "-ites." That is distinction, stratification, wealth, and pride.

I don't entirely agree with this statement. I think you are pointing out the symptom, not the cause. In 4 Nephi 2, it says that all the people were "converted unto the Lord". I think complete conversion is what caused the Nephites to have no contentions and to have all things in common (in fact, perhaps this is the way the BofM is telling us that they lived something like the United Order?)

Helaman 12 says:

2 Yea, and we may see at the very time when he doth prosper his people, yea, in the increase of their fields, their flocks and their herds, and in gold, and in silver, and in all manner of precious things of every kind and art; sparing their lives, and delivering them out of the hands of their enemies; softening the hearts of their enemies that they should not declare wars against them; yea, and in fine, doing all things for the welfare and happiness of his people; yea, then is the time that they do harden their hearts, and do forget the Lord their God, and do trample under their feet the Holy One —yea, and this because of their ease, and their exceedingly great prosperity . . .
5 Yea, how quick to be lifted up in pride; yea, how quick to boast, and do all manner of that which is iniquity; and how slow are they to remember the Lord their God, and to give ear unto his counsels, yea, how slow to cwalk in wisdom’s paths!
6 Behold, they do not desire that the Lord their God, who hath created them, should rule and reign over them; notwithstanding his great goodness and his mercy towards them, they do set at naught his counsels, and they will not that he should be their guide.


I think that gets at the cause. In Helaman 12, the Nephites hardened their hearts and turned away from God. They wouldn't listen to His counsel. I think that is what leads to pride which leads to the rest.

Stephanie said...

Plus, I can be righteous but not follow all the counsel of the prophet. I can be righteous but run up credit card debt and have no food storage. However, I can't assume that my "righteousness" will protect me from the consequences of not heeding the prophet's counsel to get out of debt and get food storage. So, I really feel that a big part of the "not fear" part is in doing all things the prophet asks.

Anonymous said...

certianly, Stephanie, they were completely converted when they had no "ites" among them - they were converted - And yes, 4th Nephi is quite clearly stating that they were living, not the united order (which is a practial means) but the Law of Consecration. And it seems quite clear, that when the people of Nephi were living the united order - that is their Zion (to the Early Saints of this Dispensation, living the United Order was living Zionistically). The Lord Prospered them financially - sure. But he prospered them as a whole financially, not individually - there was still no social stratification. It is when the very base, very human trait of PRIDE - that is the carnal desire to have MORE than one's neighbor (social stratification) came into play that they lost their precious Zion.

I feel that your interpretation of the Helaman 12 verses was incorrect.- people don't rebel and then get proud. (which is what it seems to me that you are saying) They get proud and that leads to rebellion. Why did Lucifer rebel and fall from heaven? Isaiah 14:13 says, "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" - That is, in the grand heavenly sense, Lucifer wanted to be above God - and any other rebellion that happens is a result of this verry same pride - one seeks to exalt one's position above another.

Read your highlighted portion of Helaman 12 again:

then is the time that they do harden their hearts, and do forget the Lord their God, and do trample under their feet the Holy One —yea, and this because of their ease, and their exceedingly great prosperity. . .
5 Yea, how quick to be lifted up in pride; yea, how quick to boast, and do all manner of that which is iniquity;

Why did they harden their hearts and forget the Lord and trample the Holy One? BECAUSE OF THEIR EASE AND THEIR EXCEEDINGLY GREAT PROSPERITY. YEA HOW QUICK TO BE LIFTED UP IN PRIDE.

Prosperity, Ease and being Lifted up in Pride are the stated cause, and rebellion is the result. Almost all the time in the Book of Mormon, it is the Church Memebers who are accused of Pride - so it is likely that they are not first stoning the prophets - instead, first they are prideful - and then they rebel. Pride = cause; rebellion (and all the details that go with it)= result.

I agree that the no fear part is in following the authority - I just think its safer to look to Jesus Christ as that authority. I take very seriously his statement that, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter in to the Kingdom of God." That's one example - Jesus was intent all throughout the Gospels on keeping the Church members poor - In fact, there is a strain of though in Biblical Studies which claims that all references to "the poor" in the NT are really references to the church - he wanted church to equal poor - either way, he didn't want them gaining wealth or power or political affluece - he wanted them to be poor and humble because he KNEW that wealth means pride, and the pride means rebellion from God. Charity and Humility will keep us from fear.

Stephanie said...

Okay, Rick, I agree that pride comes first, and then iniquity. But, I think that the pride itself is turning away from the Lord, and the resulting -ites is the symptom. I know your emphasis in this post is on pride as manifest by treatment of the poor. And I agree that this is the "most important" of the list - mainly because in Alma 34, it talks about crying unto the Lord for everything, including "your flocks" and continual welfare and then says

28 And now behold, my beloved brethren, I say unto you, do not suppose that this is all; for after ye have done all these things, if ye turn away the needy, and the naked, and visit not the sick and afflicted, and impart of your substance, if ye have, to those who stand in need—I say unto you, if ye do not any of these things, behold, your prayer is vain, and availeth you nothing, and ye are as hypocrites who do deny the faith.
29 Therefore, if ye do not remember to be charitable, ye are as dross, which the refiners do cast out, (it being of no worth) and is trodden under foot of men.


That tells me that, just like you said, I can be a "good" Mormon, but if I am not charitable, I am nothing.

But, I also don't think we should discount the rest of the list of sins.

I agree that the no fear part is in following the authority - I just think its safer to look to Jesus Christ as that authority.

So not the prophet?

The Faithful Dissident said...

"I agree that the no fear part is in following the authority - I just think its safer to look to Jesus Christ as that authority.

So not the prophet?"

This depends on whether the prophet = Jesus Christ for you. (I don't mean that the prophet is Christ's equal, but that everything he says to the Church is on behalf of Christ). I know that the majority of Mormons disagree with me, but I'm not sure that the prophet = Christ. It all depends on whether you believe there is room for misinterpretations and mistakes.

I think it's important to differentiate between "The Church" and "The Gospel." Just yesterday at church in Sunday School, the members were talking about how The Church is perfect, even if the members aren't. I actually disagree with the statement that the Church is perfect. I believe that the Gospel is perfect, but the Church is an organization being operated by human beings. Yes, it's leaders are entitled to and receive revelations, but they are still human. Is everything in history that's ever been done by Church leaders -- within the Church -- been done on behalf of Christ himself?

Stephanie said...

I go back to seminary mastery D&C 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

FD and Rick, I'm not criticizing you or finding fault (or pointing out a mote when I have beams), but some of your comment reminds me of the part in Helaman 4:12 where it says denying the spirit of prophecy and revelation. I just can't feel comfortable agreeing that President Monson "might be wrong" on some of the guidance he gives to the church in his capacity as prophet. So, I am one of those typical Mormons for whom prophet = Christ.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I respect your belief, Stephanie, as you hopefully respect mine. And while I can't really think of anything that President Monson has said that seems un-Christlike, unfortunately I can't say the same for some of the others throughout our history. I'm not saying that they weren't God's prophets on the earth, but I can't say that I believe that everything they said/taught/did as prophet was on Christ's behalf. I was discussing this in another forum and the subject of the prophet Jonah came up. Some describe Jonah as a racist because of his hatred towards the Ninevites, and yet we still accept that he was God's chosen prophet.

There are some very questionable (some would say even despicable) things that have been taught by prophets in our history as a Church, and although I understand that things were different in other times and that the Lord sometimes works in strange ways, there are just certain things that feel wrong to me. If I have to accept them all as God's/Christ's personal words to us, then God is perhaps not who I think He is. The only way it makes sense to me is that there must be room for human error, such as misinterpretation or personal opinions or understanding getting mixed in with divine revelation. I realize that I could be the one who is wrong here and I accept that possibility. I do, however, consider myself to be someone who is open-minded and willing to submit to the Lord when I feel the Spirit. For certain teachings from certain prophets, it just doesn't feel like it's all 100% from God. At least not for me.

I guess that's just what makes me a "faithful dissident." :) (Though some would probably suggest that "faithless dissident" is more appropriate. :)

Stephanie said...

Yes, FD, I do respect your belief. I won't really disagree with the past, but I feel that, going forward, the prophet won't lead us astray, so I want to inhale every word (as spoken in conference, the Ensign, and even letters sent out to be read in sacrament meeting - all the situations I feel that the prophet is acting on the "Lord's errand").

Stephanie said...

I respect that you may disagree with me on that.

Anonymous said...

F.D., Stephanie--doesn't the Church make a distinction between the president speaking as the prophet and speaking as a human being? I was under the impression that the prophet actually speaks as the prophet (rather like the Pope speaking ex cathedra) only rarely, as with the 1978 priesthood declaration. And IIRC, when the prophet's words constitute revelation, they generally wind up in D&C. In other cases, as I understand it, the prophet's words might be considered to carry great weight but are nonetheless the words of a fallible human being, with the result that disagreement does not amount to apostasy. Or do I have this wrong?

--David

Stephanie said...

I don't know about "officially" but I have always been taught that general conference talks and the Ensign are considered "scripture", and I treat them that way.

Anonymous said...

Its a sticky situation, isn't it, Stephanie. Here's how I see it- The prophet is the prophet for the Church - he is a figure head, and he is a person - he is NOT Jesus. He won't "lead us astray" by any means, but to say that his voice = the voice of God is a dangerous ground - because that means that one has just exhonerated oneself from having to seek their own individual relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost and thereby find out what Christ says to the individual. What Christ was CONSTANTLY saying to individuals through his life had nothing to do with proposition 8, or blacks and the priesthood, or Proclaimations to the World, or relief efforts in Sierra Leon. Those are things that concern a world-wide Church. -

Many of the things the prophet says, such as the modern interpretation of the Word of Wisdom - act to establish boundries of who is in and who is out - having really nothing to do with "the gospel" - because every organization needs a physical barrier to keep in those who are in and out those who are out - that is the nature of an organization. The Church, unfortunately, is a very human organization. Christ, on the other hand, in his very personal ministries both in the Holy Land and in the Americas was concerned not with establishing boundries, but with erradicating them. With carving out a level playing field, where everyone had the same chances, and no one saw themselves as better than anyone else - but all were "sons and daughters of God." In Christ's ministry, concern for the poor became of prime importance - as did erradication of wealth. But most important of all was unconditional love - and making decisions in your life that facilitated that love. So he worked on an individual basis, whereas the leadership of the Church is set up on a hiarchical basis - so the "leaders" are very far removed from the lay. That is why sometimes the teachings of the Prophets can clash with the teachings of Jesus Christ in his ministry. The teachings of Christ are manifest to the soul, though - because they are of a personal revelation, and we have access to personal revelation - so, for me, following the teachings of Jesus Christ and following the Holy Ghost are of primary importance - then following the council of the prophet. So many members of the Church leave Jesus out of it, and just say, follow the prophet and you'll be fine. Well, the Prophet isn't able to council you to give up all your money and give it to the poor - He's quite incapable of doing that - but that is JUST what Christ councils the individual, and what, if the individual listens to the Holy Ghost, will be manifest to the individual - or at least an interpretation of it which will put the individual conscious right with God.

This is why I really like Mike's approach to Calfironia Proposition 8, for example - The prophet said one thing - do all that you can to see that proposition 8 passes - that, obviously is call from the leadership of an organization. But the Holy Ghost told Mike that individually, it felt wrong - so the most that Mike could do was sit on the sidelines shaking his head - so, in a sense, he was following the Prophet - in another, he was not - but he was following the Holy Ghost and, to the best of his understanding, Jesus Christ. To just blanketly state, I'll follow the prophet come hell or high water, and If I feel something else, I must be out of line. Well, "I" am a person, and "I" am the only person who is given the authority of recieving revelation for "myself." Therefore, I am bound to do what the spirit tells me.

For my own example, I wish the prophet would say things like, "Stop investing in the market," "if you have any excess at all, donate it to relief efforts," "Don't participate in consumerism", "Don't eat meat," etc. But, this is not the job of a leader - so, I am satisfied with the spiritual revelation I've recieved through my personal relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost - that comes first.

By the way - no, I don't think there is an official position on that (prohet speaking as a man, vs prophet speaking as a prophet)- I could be wrong.

Stephanie said...

Yeah, but to say that the prophet's voice does not equal God's voice is dangerous ground, too, because then you risk not hearing something the Lord wants you to (particularly when the Lord himself told us, "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same"). Some revelation comes individually and some revelation comes through the prophet. I don't think either can be mutually exclusive. I personally don't feel that the Holy Ghost will contradict the counsel of the prophet, but to each his own.

Aileena said...

wow. This is a sensitive subject. First off-let me say good job Rick for addressing something that is definately rampant in the United States, but it is in many places in the world (if not all) and has been for centuries. Greed and Pride. Its just so much easier to concern ourselves with our personal being than that of all human beings. There is much we can do, and although it can never even parallel what Christ did and others in this world who have helped all their fellow men, we can still do alot.

Anonymous said...

Sensitive subject indeed. Go back to Rick's words:

"[T]o say that [the president's] voice = the voice of God is a dangerous ground - because that means that one has just exonerated oneself from having to seek their own individual relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost and thereby find out what Christ says to the individual."

In other words, that makes the Church president the functional equivalent of the Pope. It creates an intermediate class (a human being said to speak for God with God's authority) between Christ and the believer. In doing so it absolutely repudiates Protestantism. It bears out the old cliche about the LDS Church being the "Catholic Church of the West." It makes the LDS Church itself into what Joseph Smith, using the bigoted language of his own time, called the Great and Abominable Church, the Whore of All the Earth, which Protestants hated so much in part because of its "popery."

But hey, if it's any consolation, the LDS Church is not the only (formerly) Protestant church to head down this authoritarian road. The Southern Baptist Convention is headed that way as well. And the SBC has far less reason to do so. Given Smith's claim to be a revelator, papal authoritarianism was always implicit in Mormon history and theology. But the Baptists sprang from quite different roots; what distinguished them early on was the idea of the "priesthood of the believer," the idea that God spoke most authoritatively to the individual, not to a prophet.

--David

Anonymous said...

Rick you concentrate so much on the poor, which is fine, but what defines poor? I am poor compared to milliionaires. Most of the "poor" in the USA have 2 TV's, AC, cable, computers etc. Are we talking absolutely nothing to eat, nowhere to live poor?

I absolutely think that we need to help the poor....become self reliant, so that they too can become productive members of society and help other poor people in return. Part of the problem in America is that people are poor because of poor choices. I know most don't have the great upbringing that I did, but again, to just throw money at the poor because that's what Jesus said to do isn't what I think He was implying. The church is quite persistent on teaching self reliance, but I know you may have a hard time accepting that principal because it was implemented by a mere Prophet. In your post you said that we should ask ourselves what is best for those less fortunate than I. I think that helping the poor is essential but I also like to think of the parable of the talents. Shouldn't we improve rather than stay idle?

Another point, Is it really that bad to be rich if one is humble and doesn't pride themselves in being rich. Think of how much more money capitolist rich people can give back to the poor compared to you or I. Because they prosper, many more poor people will reap the benefits. I know MOST rich people don't give as much as they should, but what about those that do, I think they will get to heaven just as soon as you or I.

one last thing, if you so readily accept the Word of Wisdom as important council, being that it was again, brought forth by a prophet, why do you have such a hard time accepting council on abortion and gay marriage?

The Faithful Dissident said...

Stephanie,

Like you, I have often heard that talks from General Conference are at par with scripture. (Can't say that I've heard the same about the Ensign -- except for maybe the monthly message from The First Presidency -- but it doesn't surprise me.)

I have to admit, I don't treat the Ensign or General Conference as scripture. Don't get me wrong, I think that both are great and that reading either will help bring people closer to God and get them on the right track. I think, though, that scripture is scripture and that there is far less "doctrine" than most Mormons believe. I've researched a bit about it and I still find it confusing, the Adam-God doctrine from Brigham Young being an excellent example. He proclaimed it to be doctrine, later prophets declared it to be false doctrine. But according to one source, the problem was not in the doctrine itself, but the interpretation of it. That's what the "false" part was all about.

"Yeah, but to say that the prophet's voice does not equal God's voice is dangerous ground, too, because then you risk not hearing something the Lord wants you to."

I agree that there is the danger of people just dismissing everything the prophet says, or picking and choosing what they are going to accept or reject, without giving any thought to it or praying for confirmation. It's wrong to think that because the prophet can make mistakes, anything he says is just crap. That would be the approach of most outside of the Church. However, God created us all as individuals, born into different circumstances, with different challenges and opportunities. He also gave us a conscience and the ability to reason. And I believe there is a reason for that. Doesn't mean we don't need some advice and guidance along the way, but what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander. If it were, we wouldn't be so different.

As far as what is "official doctrine," here is an excellent article by FAIR (The Foundation for Apologetic and Information Research) regarding prophet infalliability and just what constitutes "official doctrine." (So, in response to David's comment, no, the LDS prophet is not infalliable like the Catholic pope. But I admit that I don't think many Mormons know the difference.) Take particular notice of the very last paragraph. While it clears up some confusion, it also raises the question of who's right when two people pray about something and get different confirmations.

Matt, what counsel on abortion are you referring to? I can't recall any of us having trouble accepting the Church's counsel in regards to what constitutes an acceptable abortion. What some of us do have trouble accepting is the Republican call for a total ban on abortion, even in cases deemed acceptable by the Church.

Stephanie said...

That is a really helpful article, FD. Thanks for sharing it.

Matt, I feel the same way. I deal with a lot of these issues on a personal basis. The question I have struggled to answer is: how do charity and self-reliance relate? How do I balance the covenant I have made to consecrate with the guidance others have been given to become self-reliant (particularly when they aren't doing it)? The answer I have received is that I am always commanded to give - I just need to use wisdom in the giving so that it helps others to become self-reliant instead of just enabling.

Stephanie said...

Which is why I prefer lower taxes so I can give more to the church's welfare program (based on the principles of self-reliance) rather than to the government. I feel that my dollar goes a lot further in helping people when the church is spending it.

Anonymous said...

F.D. writes, "I have often heard that talks from General Conference are at par with scripture."

You have often heard?! Am I the only one who finds it odd that there should be so little clarity on such a fundamental point?

Given the importance of salvation through obedience to God's commands, shouldn't it be absolutely clear just which of the president's words express God's will and which are merely his considered opinion?

Does defying the Church by supporting gay marriage constitute disobedience to God's will, or not?

--David

The Faithful Dissident said...

"You have often heard?! Am I the only one who finds it odd that there should be so little clarity on such a fundamental point?"

I agree with you, David. There is a problem with clarity and people relying totally on what they've "heard." It can be very confusing.

"Does defying the Church by supporting gay marriage constitute disobedience to God's will, or not?"

Depends on who you ask. I would say no because we haven't been "commanded" to vote against gay marriage. Yes, we've been asked and encouraged to vote against it, and to many Mormons that equates being commanded, but I think it's hard to know "God's will" in most things. I think that's where personal revelation comes into play. Still, though, like I said before, sometimes different people get different answers, even if they're equally faithful and sincere. So I hate using the term "God's will" for anything that I do or say.

Anonymous said...

I am not talking about the poor alone, Matt. In my refering to the poor, I also refer to the concept of no stratification. That is the poor and the rich get on the same level - and everyone lives without social classes or distinctions. Obviously, this is nice and idealistic, but, as history has shown us, not likely to be a possiblilty - at least on a large scale. However, that doesn't let the rich off the hook. The reason that this won't be possible in this life is because the world is overrun by greed. Greed and Pride are a disease that can only be overcome by the individual - thus all of us should be willing to do what the savior said, "sell all that we own and give it to the poor" - - practically, whatever isn't necessary for the sustaining of our families (our judgement call) we give away - of our own free will and choice - don't throw it at poor people - give it to relief funds - in or out of the church - give it to NPOs or other organizations dedicated to relieving the poor, increasing educational standards, community clean up projects, Toys for Tots, etc. Help the poor be raised to the level that they can help themselves. There is LOTS we can do, Matt, and sitting back and saying, "well, the better figure out how to be self sufficient - they should work hard, I did, and thats how I got where I am..." - that isn't helping anyone.

On your second point, Matt - I don't think it's bad to have a large income. I do think it is absolutely bad to be rich. Bcecause as soon as you are "rich" that means you've kept more than you should have. We should all have "sufficient for our needs" and, according to the scriptures and the gospel, not a scrap more. Any more is asking for trouble. At least that is what our sacred places have taught me.

Next Matt point - On the Word of Wisdom..dang, I could write a book about my feelings on it. Suffice it to say, I do feel that the Word of Wisdom, as It came through Joseph Smith was exactly what it claimed to be..a word of wisdom given for the weakest of the saints. It's wonderful council to help people achieve healthy bodies and peaceful minds. I accept the Church's official position on Abortion AND Gay Marriage. I've always sayd that the Church has every right to make its own standards of "who's in and who's out" - - I think that EVERYTIME the church makes those standards, it is damaging to many people, but, as i've said before, the Church is an organization with every right to do that. It doesn't mean that I, as a member of said church, have to feel that it is right and wonderful in my personal life. And, to be honest, I hold the word of God as given in the scriptures to a higher level than political hubbaloo that comes out not as an official decleration, but a letter to wards in California. For Abortion, see FD's response.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I was reading in the news this morning about Prop 8 and how much money the various churches have raised for the cause. Our church has raised 6.4 million so far. For more details, you can read this article.

Rick's comments about poverty got me thinking about something that we tried to do back in my home ward several years ago. Our family was sponsoring a couple of kids through World Vision Canada and we thought that we could sponsor a child as a ward (something that many churches and organizations like to do) or just as RS. Because it only cost $30 per month, if enough willing people had contributed $1, we could have done it no problem. Perhaps we could have even sponsored several children. We knew that the Church has strict rules about asking for money, which is a good thing. It wouldn't be appropriate for people to solicit money at every meeting, but we felt this was for a good, charitable cause. So we asked the bishop. Unfortunately, we weren't allowed to present this idea to RS and nothing ever became of it. What I found to be ironic, however, was that there was never any problem in asking for money for RS activities or selling baked goods for the YW fundraisers. Some members would even sell cheese or other items for school fundraisers with each other after sacrament meeting.

6.4 million is a lot of money. I'm not saying that giving it to Prop 8 is a "bad" cause. I don't know whether it is or isn't. But I have to say, I have my doubts about Mormons being so eager to donate millions of dollars to charity, such as World Vision, Habitat for Humanity or Amnesty International. If they are, then what's stopping us?

Tanya Leigh said...

Wow. Steph, I love you!

Stephanie said...

Thanks, tanya(etc.) - I have a fan! :)

Stephanie said...

I heard this quote on Sunday I wanted to share. It is from Bruce R. McConkie's talk in April Conference 1980 The Coming Tests and Trials and Glory:

We see evil forces everywhere uniting to destroy the family, to ridicule morality and decency, to glorify all that is lewd and base. We see wars and plagues and pestilence. Nations rise and fall. Blood and carnage and death are everywhere. Gadianton robbers fill the judgment seats in many nations. An evil power seeks to overthrow the freedom of all nations and countries. Satan reigns in the hearts of men; it is the great day of his power.

But amid it all, the work of the Lord rolls on. The gospel is preached and the witness is born. The elect of God forsake the traditions of their fathers and the ways of the world. The kingdom grows and prospers, for the Lord is with his people.

Amid it all, there are revelations and visions and prophecies. There are gifts and signs and miracles. There is a rich outpouring of the Holy Spirit of God.

Amid it all believing souls are born again, their souls are sanctified by the power of the Spirit, and they prepare themselves to dwell with God and Christ and holy beings in the eternal kingdom.

Is it any wonder that we both rejoice and tremble at what lies ahead?

Truly the world is and will be in commotion, but the Zion of God will be unmoved. The wicked and ungodly shall be swept from the Church, and the little stone will continue to grow until it fills the whole earth.

The way ahead is dark and dreary and dreadful. There will yet be martyrs; the doors in Carthage shall again enclose the innocent. We have not been promised that the trials and evils of the world will entirely pass us by.

If we, as a people, keep the commandments of God; if we take the side of the Church on all issues, both religious and political; if we take the Holy Spirit for our guide; if we give heed to the words of the apostles and prophets who minister among us—then, from an eternal standpoint, all things will work together for our good.

The Faithful Dissident said...

"If we, as a people, keep the commandments of God; if we take the side of the Church on all issues, both religious and political;"

Hmmm.... and what side would that be? Last I heard, the Church doesn't "take sides" on political issues. Well, not "officially."

"if we take the Holy Spirit for our guide;"

The problem with this is that we don't know what the Holy Spirit says to anyone but ourselves. The Spirit can only be a guide for us as individuals. And sometimes our individual answers and confirmations seem to vary.

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, it's good that you're quoting the new-and-improved Bruce McConkie of 1980. It was in 1979 that the sanitized version of his Mormon Doctrine was published, the one without the earlier versions' blatant racism and anti-Catholicism. It truly is instructive to get a copy of (say) the 1958 edition of MD, lay it alongside the 1979 edition, and compare the entries on "Church of the Devil," "Negroes," and the like. On the one hand, it's good that McConkie and the Church managed to develop the right position on these issues. On the other hand, it seems odd, given that they had so much guidance from God and all, that their morality should ripen so much more slowly than that of so many of the godless. But ripen it did, and if we can see the acceptance of such previous pariahs as Catholics and black people, why not, some day, gay people as well? I predict a revelation validating gay marriage by, let's see--how long will it take for some tolerant young Mormon boy to reach the age of 80 and ascend to the first presidency?--the year 2068. Because indeed, the work of the Lord rolls on.

How about some of you others out there--do you see the Church eventually accepting gay marriage? Not actually performing gay marriages, but accepting them as OK when performed elsewhere?

--David

Stephanie said...

I don't. I think The Family Proclamation was written as a pronouncement to the world of where the church stands, and I don't see it being revised.

The Faithful Dissident said...

David,

I wouldn't bet money on it, but the thought has crossed my mind. Some GA's said prior to 1978 that blacks would "never" get the priesthood in this life. And if I remember correctly, one of those who said that was none other than Bruce R. McConkie.

The book "Mormon Doctrine" has always bothered me. My parents had a copy and I used to read it as a kid. A lot of things seemed strange to me, whether it was the chapter on blacks, that Mormons should not have a deck of cards in their home (which we did - yikes!), or the fact that hot soup was bad for the belly, or something along those lines. As a soup-lover, I'm just glad that it's not a part of the Word of Wisdom. :)

But besides some of the strange writings, the thing I like least about BRM's book is that it proclaims itself to be something that it is not: Mormon Doctrine. I doubt he would have been able to get that book published under that name today, so I wonder why it's still circulating among Mormons to this day, many of whom believe it to be "Mormon Doctrine."

Stephanie said...

Rick, back to -ites being a symptom or a cause, I found this in my scripture reading today: At the beginning of 3 Nephi 6, everyone goes back to their own lands after conquering the Gadianton robbers. They were all righteous.

5 And now there was nothing in all the land to hinder the people from prospering continually, except they should fall into transgression.

But then in verse 10, some were lifted up to pride and boastings because of their great riches. In verse 12, they were distinguished by ranks according to their wealth and chances for learning. In verse 14, there was inequality in all the land. Verse 15 holds the key to why all of this happened:

15 Now the cause of this iniquity of the people was this—Satan had great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner of iniquity, and to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world.

Anonymous said...

But here's the thing, Stephanie: Satan is necessary. Without his continual temptation, agency means nothing.

Of course, Satan is mistakenly treated by many as an actual personage, which mistake leads to all kinds of mischief. In fact "Satan" is merely a name that refers to a function, namely the function of temptation.

--David

Anonymous said...

ugh...Mckonkie and Mormon Doctrine. What a headache. He went to David O McKay and asked to get it published, and McKay freaked - "no!" never - there is nothing more dangerous - was basically his response - then When McKay died, and McKonkie's father-in-law became the President (Joseph Fielding Smith) The book was published forthwith. urgh. I grumble. McKonkie and JFS are not my two favorite mormons in the world.

No, David, I don't think so. I'd like to think so, but the Temple is too set up around heterosexual union to make room for homosexual union on a doctrinal level. Basically, homosexuality would never work with LDS Temple Theology, so I don't think it'll happen. But who knows.

Steph - were you agreeing with me, then? Cause I'm still seeing that Pride and Stratification is the cause.

The Faithful Dissident said...

What puzzles me is why he didn't get excommunicated for it. Others have been excommunicated for writing material that challenges Mormon doctrine, let alone claims to be Mormon doctrine.

Stephanie said...

No, Rick, I am disagreeing. Satan is the cause of people getting puffed up with pride. They have to let him in first (even if it just a tiny bit) in order to feel prideful.

It is actually possible to become wealthy and stay wealthy without being prideful. Alma 62:

48 And the people of Nephi began to prosper again in the land, and began to multiply and to wax exceedingly strong again in the land. And they began to grow exceedingly rich.
49 But notwithstanding their riches, or their strength, or their prosperity, they were not lifted up in the pride of their eyes; neither were they slow to remember the Lord their God; but they did humble themselves exceedingly before him.
50 Yea, they did remember how great things the Lord had done for them, that he had delivered them from death, and from bonds, and from prisons, and from all manner of afflictions, and he had delivered them out of the hands of their enemies.
51 And they did pray unto the Lord their God continually, insomuch that the Lord did bless them, according to his word, so that they did wax strong and prosper in the land.


That is how the Nephites were right before Helaman 1 when the people split over electing a Chief Judge. Helaman 3:1 says there were no contentions except for a little pride.

I just don't think it is possible to have pride without Satan. The stratifications are a symptom of Satan's influence, just like murders, adultery, etc. are a symptom of Satan's influence. It is a sign of wickedness.

However, in a wicked, stratified society (like ours), I don't think that all the righteous people are necessarily the poor and the wicked are the rich. Within the framework of a wicked society, there are righteous people at all levels. What they do with what they have is what determines whether they are prideful or not, IMO.

So, my overall point (after reading your post) is that yes - we are a wicked society, and our collective treatment of the poor and our division into classes is a symptom or evidence of that. The cause of the wickedness is Satan. I don't think that the cause is our economic or political system, and I don't think that changing our economical or political system will change the outcome, particularly since the trend is toward shunning God and morality in all forms. You asked if we can pull our pride down. I think that as long as we continue to reject God and His commandments, no, I don't think so.

And, David, I think the opposite is true. I think most people mistakenly assume Satan is a function when in reality he is an actual personage - a son of God who rebelled and is angry he lost his first estate and is doing all he can to convince others to give up their second estate. Given what I see throughout the whole world, I would say he is doing pretty darn well.

Anonymous said...

Well ah yes, steph - the Nephites did get wealthy (that is have a good economy) but they did it TOGETHER - it didn't say that "some of the Nephites began to be exceedingly prosperous" it says "the Nephites...." - all of them - its when the start putting some above the others that the downfall comes. Hey, I know lots of nice rich folk. Really good people - but they are still elevated above their fellow man by money and social position - and for that, they are at fault.

Satan - does it really matter if he's a person or if he's a principal? I happen to feel that Satan is a principal - not an independant ego-personality - I feel MUCH of the OT is allegorical - and reflective of the way God taught the Hebrews - through parables - well enough - but my mother swears that I'm going to hell for not recognizing the individuality of Satan. who cares, as long as we recognize the influence of evil?

The reason that McKonkie didn't get ex-ed is because he was the son-in-law of the prophet, seer and revelator - and, consequently, his golden boy. So, instead of putting MD where it belongs, the LDS people elevated it to an almost scriptural position. I had a SS Teacher in Provo who would NOT complete a lesson without quoting McKonkie. Unfortunate. You'd think that Joseph Smith, or maybe Jesus would be the one we couldn't finish a lesson without quoting, but...no, this dear sister had her weekly McKonkie quote. True story.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I rememer when I was in high school and my best friend was a Baptist, we were comparing and discussing our respective religions and exchanged some literature. Silly me, I took MD from the bookshelf, without being real familiar with it, because I assumed it was official doctrine. Luckily, my friend didn't have enough room in his backpack for MD, so he never read it. After I read it myself, I was very relieved about that. He would have thought I was a hypocrite for playing "go fish" or eating hot soup. :)

Stephanie said...

Rick, I really don't get where you are going with this. What is your solution? Socialism so that the political and economic structure enforces equality? People who are rich giving everything away so that they are poor like everyone else? Since you can't "force" that, what do you propose as a solution?

The separation into classes is a sign of wickedness - you can't fix the separation into classes without fixing wickedness. How do you propose to fix the wickedness?

Anonymous said...

I propose, Stephanie, that, If LDS members would read their scriptures, and really try to get what Christ was telling them, then they would see how impossible it is for the Rich to enter the kingdom of heaven when there are still poor out there. And then I would propose that those Saints would do all they could to alieviate that problem - the problem of social stratification and poverty. The problem of the Rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I propose that in order to truely be a disciple of Christ, one can't hang on to multi-million dollar homes, eat at the nicest restraunts, or do so many other things that seperate them. They need to give it up and have what is sufficient for their needs. I propose that we as latter-day saints can't continue seeking the American Dream - that is having more stuff than the next guy - and continue to call ourselves saints. It is abundantly clear (scraped upon in this thread so far) that the Lord requires we do all we can to raise the status of the poor. And instead, MANY wealthy latter-day saints I know are doing all they can to...ensure that homosexual Marriage fails. My point, is where are our priorities as a people? If we want evil to go away, lets work to kill it where it starts - and that is at the point where rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Obviously we can't solve it as a nation - stuff happens, and Rick's little fictional political proposition isn't going to do squat - I do believe that socialized medicine (and working to getting that enacted in our country)can do alot. What I can do, is urge Latter-day Saints to monitarily give all they can to eradicating classes - however they see fit.

I just think that we are a very proud people (LDS) with mixed up priorities. If we were really, from an unbiased point of view, looking at the BOM and the Teachings of Christ in the NT, we would see that the aquisition of wealth, with the intent to keep it, is the cause of all this wickedness we're so fond of complaining about. If we did our part by giving freely of ALL that we have (as we covenant - Building up of KOG and establishing Zion ((no poor among them))) then at least the saints would be in the right place. Right now, though,even though we claim a moral high ground, we (as a people) have yet to really possess it.

Stephanie said...

Rick, while I agree that pride is a sin, I find it curious that you seem to fixate on this one sin and justify other sins (acting on homosexual tendencies, for example). In fact, you seem to be saying that donating money to support prop 8 when you are wealthy is a "sin". Does that mean that only poor people are allowed to support prop 8? Or is just supporting prop 8 itself a "sin"? If I have $10 and choose to give it to support prop 8 instead of giving it to fast offerings, does that make me a "sinner"? Does that make the prophet a sinner because he asked us to do all we can to support prop 8? This all seems a little more like "the gospel of Rick" than just the gospel.

If we want evil to go away, lets work to kill it where it starts - and that is at the point where rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I agree - let's kill it where it starts - SATAN. How do you do that? Preach the gospel. Share the truth so that people can let it work in their own lives and have their hearts changed so that they humble themselves enough to listen to the Lord's guidance for them.

This reminds me of Mosiah 5:2

And they all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.

You say If we were really, from an unbiased point of view, looking at the BOM and the Teachings of Christ in the NT, we would see that the aquisition of wealth, with the intent to keep it, is the cause of all this wickedness we're so fond of complaining about.

We're just going in circles because you seem adamant that "being wealthy" and prideful is the source of all evil, and I am adamant that Satan's influence is the source of all evil and that pride and hoarding wealth are one symptom of that. I don't see how fixating on one sin while excusing for others is all that productive. Alma 45:16 says:

And he said: Thus saith the Lord God—Cursed shall be the land, yea, this land, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, unto destruction, which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe; and as I have said so shall it be; for this is the cursing and the blessing of God upon the land, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

You seem to mock "all this wickedness we're so fond of complaining about". Why are you so unconcerned about "all this wickedness"? Why just pride? I am guessing because you think pride is the cause, but I just don't agree.

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, Rick, it's not that being rich is sinful, or that income inequality is the root of all evil. It's that, if we can trust the NT, Jesus said so many things like this:

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth.... For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matthew 6:19).

Jesus was a radical. The LDS Church has long been comfortably bourgeois. Its early communism and its handcart days are long behind it. It's taken the original message of dropping everything right now and living from day-to-day in anticipation of the imminent end and replaced it with a message compatible with retirement accounts and 30-year mortgages. Anyone (Mormon or otherwise) who is saving for their retirement, or who considers their home an investment for the future, has already hopelessly abandoned Christ. Which is fine--just don't insult Jesus by justifying it all with his name. Do like me, and admit that, however much you might admire the guy, you're not about to actually follow him. I sincerely believe that despite my atheism I have more respect for Jesus than those who pretend to believe in him.

--David

Anonymous said...

"We're just going in circles because you seem adamant that "being wealthy" and prideful is the source of all evil"

-1 Timothy 6:10 - - "For the Love of Money is the Root of all evil."
Yes, stephanie, that's exactly what I'm saying. As soon as someone seeks his own intrest above the intrest of others, he's started down the wrong road.

"I find it curious that you seem to fixate on this one sin and justify other sins (acting on homosexual tendencies, for example). In fact, you seem to be saying that donating money to support prop 8 when you are wealthy is a "sin". Does that mean that only poor people are allowed to support prop 8? Or is just supporting prop 8 itself a "sin"? If I have $10 and choose to give it to support prop 8 instead of giving it to fast offerings, does that make me a "sinner"? Does that make the prophet a sinner because he asked us to do all we can to support prop 8?"

Come on, now, Stephanie - when have I ever justified other sins here? I've never come out and said, "everyone should be homosexual - its wonderful...." I've simply said that I believe that the Government has no right or cause to regulate such an issue. I used prop 8 as an example, because everyone gets their panties in a tizzie about this one issue, which really isn't the ROOT of the problem - while they ignore and justify the real ROOT of the problme - - the love of money. So, isn't there something better we could be doing with our money? Like something philanthropical? - and No, It doesn't make the Prohet a sinner (Geeze, how many times do we haev to go over the prophet and prop 8) it simply means that I see it differently than him.

You know what, I see that this arguement isn't going anywhere - in fact, as ussually is the case with discussions with you, you polarize more the farther the discussion goes along - so I'm not going to discuss it more. I'd suggest reading C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" - at least the chapter on Pride. Also, Hugh Nibley's, "Approaching Zion." and Tolstoy's, "The Kingdom of God is Within You," and "Confessions."

David, while I appreciate your sentiments, I disagree that Christ's call to poverty was in anticipation of the end times. I think, rather, that it was a very radical call for people to build up the kindgom of god on the earth.

Stephanie said...

Well, David, using your criteria, that would mean that the whole LDS church has abandoned Christ.

Rick, the ironic thing is that I completely agree with your primary point of view (we as a nation and as a church are swimming in pride), and I also self-reflect on my personal pride. In fact, I agree with probably 90% of your post and comments on its thread. I particularly agree with this statement you make: I do think it is absolutely bad to be rich. Bcecause as soon as you are "rich" that means you've kept more than you should have. We should all have "sufficient for our needs" and, according to the scriptures and the gospel, not a scrap more. Any more is asking for trouble. At least that is what our sacred places have taught me.

But, the thing is that YOU can't define that for anyone else - just for you because you don't know the needs of everyone else, and that is what I feel you are doing when you make statements like these:

1. the only thing that will motivate one to adopt such a lifestyle [not investing in the stock market, not using gas, being a vegetarian] is diminished pride, and the increase of charity that goes along with it. That's your opinion. To equate investing in the stock market and buying gas to pride, and eating home-grown vegetarian food to not being prideful is your opinion. They may be wise decisions in certain circumstances (and make you feel more humble), but to say that anyone who makes a different choice is prideful is just wrong, IMO.

2. You said, Instead of getting actively, emotionally involved in relief efforts, or NPOs or Charities, members of the church are currently passionate about California Proposition 8, and seeing to it that basic rights are withheld from people who are different than them. You are equating supporting prop 8 to being prideful and saying these members aren't doing "enough" for charity. I disagree.

3. You said, For my own example, I wish the prophet would say things like, "Stop investing in the market," "if you have any excess at all, donate it to relief efforts," "Don't participate in consumerism", "Don't eat meat," etc. But, this is not the job of a leader - so, I am satisfied with the spiritual revelation I've recieved through my personal relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost - that comes first. That's fine. That's great. But, your personal revelation is just that: YOUR personal revelation - not a call to repentance for the rest of the church.

So, if getting into the details of what you define as prideful makes me "polarizing", fine. I agree with what I agree with, and I disagree with what I disagree with. But, when I embrace 90% of what you say, I still want to be clear that I don't embrace the other 10%.

On a conciliatory note, Elder D. Todd Christofferson gave an awesome talk today in the afternoon session of conference that sounded a lot like your general sentiments. He spoke about building Zion and focused a lot on how we must be equal in our temporal things. He said that as we pursue the cause of Zion, we need to prayerfully consider whether we are doing all we need to do. He said we should be content with minimal needs and "Let us look after one another the very best we can". At the end, he said "Babylon is falling. Come to Zion".

It was very powerful and caused me to self-reflect. Am I doing enough? What do I need to change? I accept his call to repentance to pray on whether I am doing enough and what I need to do more.

It reminded me a lot of what you might say if you were giving a general conference talk. :) So, if you didn't hear it, I would encourage you to look it up. I bet you'll enjoy it.

Anonymous said...

argghh!!! yeah, I was in church in Seoul this morning - I'll catch up with conference next weekend (that's how they work it in Asia, for some reason). Anyways, Cool that D. Todd said those things.

Steph, you're absolutely right - at this time it is up to everyone to evelaute their lives, to pray, to reflect, and to see what they can do without. That is as much as anyone can ask. I don't want policy to decide that for me - I'm not, no matter what some of you must think, a communist - a social democrate, yeah. Communist, no. Its the process of becoming a thoughtful, developed human being that will bring each person to the point where they can reflect on their social standing, and reflect on the haves and have-nots. I just wish more people at large were actively trying to become well developed human beings. I know you are, from what you've said, and I applaude all you and your family does, and how very thoughtful and refelctive you are about that sort of thing. You have my high regard :)

The Faithful Dissident said...

Going back to Prop 8 and the subject of members donating money to the cause, I got thinking about this more after watching Bill Bennett on CNN this morning. He had a panel of people talking about politics, morals, and the state of America. One of the panel members said something that struck a chord with me. To paraphrase what he said, it was something along the lines of that one of the greatest travesties of religious institutions in America has been their failure to react to the immoral behaviours that we have seen in America recently, namely the violation of the Geneva Convention, waterboarding, and other torture methods used by Americans on prisoners. Understandably, although something like the matter of torture used on suspected terrorists is a moral issue to some, it’s more political to others.

This made me think about the role of our own church in matters such as this. My first thought is that our church is not as guilty as the others because most other churches are more politically involved than ours, which claims to be politically neutral. For those churches who seem to preach more politics than religion from their pulpits, I would expect more involvement and reaction from them than from our church leaders. I think our church is smart to not get involved in politics and therefore should not be expected to take an official stand on every political issue.

But here’s the problem. Our church does sometimes get involved in politics. The justification for this is always that it only gets involved when it’s a moral issue at hand. This has been the justification all along for Prop 8. I can accept that the Church views it as purely a moral issue and I can thereby accept its involvement in the matter. However, if the Church wants to get involved in only selected “moral” issues, going as far as to get members to donate money and time to the cause, then it’s opening a can of worms by doing so. Why? Because there are countless “moral” issues that are, IMO, just as pertinent and pressing as gay marriage, and some of them can be influenced by the way that we vote, depending on the platforms and priorities of each political party. What has the Church said about torture of prisoners? Have they encouraged us to donate to Amnesty International? OK, so maybe torturing suspected terrorists in prisons is too political an issue in the eyes of some. Fine. But what about the AIDS epidemic in Africa, where 15 million children have no parents? 15 million!!! And growing every day!! Too political to get more involved? What about homelessness in America and around the world? Too political to get more involved? What about sex slaves being brought from eastern Europe and Africa? Too political to get more involved?

My point is that if the Church wants to tell members explicitly to get involved in one issue (such as Prop 8) that it deems to be a very important moral issue, then that’s fine with me. But it can’t have its cake and eat it too. If it gets involved in one, then it has to get involved in others. By not doing so, the Church only strengthens the accusations of its critics that it’s far from politically neutral and has a hidden agenda. By ignoring other arguably bigger moral issues and focusing on just one or a select few (which also just happen to be politically polarizing issues), the Church appears to be failing in the role as “moral leader,” which is something that most expect from a worldwide church.

Any one of the issues I mentioned above are, IMO, some typical examples of moral issues that affect a lot of people (perhaps even more than gay marriage would) and that the Church could help further the cause of, like it’s doing with Prop 8, by encouraging its members to give more freely of their time and means. In some ways, I think that those churches who get “too political” are actually doing a better job of getting people passionately involved in moral causes than ours is.

It sounds that the promotion of Prop 8 in CA has gotten members there involved, engaged, and passionate about a moral issue that it believes to be important. They’ve even managed to raise millions of dollars. But sadly, I can’t think of any other recent moral issues regarding poverty or humanity that the Church has gotten so involved in, to the point that it’s gotten members to react as enthusiastically as they have for Prop 8. Can you?

Maybe I’ll eat my words after this General Conference. I hope I do.

Anonymous said...

Writes Stephanie: "David, using your criteria, that would mean that the whole LDS church has abandoned Christ."

Well, of course it has. And they're not my criteria. They're Christ's.

Both these points should be obvious to anyone who can read the New Testament.

Rick, re your disagreement "that Christ's call to poverty was in anticipation of the end times": First, it's only in the context of an imminent end that the call to poverty (as well as the call to renounce earthly concerns generally) makes any kind of sense (theological or practical). Second, the gospels have Jesus himself saying the end will come before the current generation passes away. The only way to continue believing in the guy after that prophecy failed was to start re-interpreting it to mean something else. Thus began the long march of the Christian churches away from the plainly articulated words of Christ. (As I said above, "Of course the Church has abandoned Christ"--all churches have. Unless they've opted simply to disband, they've had no choice.

re your claim that Jesus's words amounted to "a very radical call for people to build up the kindgom of god on the earth," well, you're right. But that doesn't change the fact that the only way to engage in such building would be to honestly answer that call, not to re-interpret it in a way that accommodates it to our own worldly desires. (Which of course is part of the function of the Book of Mormon: to adjust the gospel to a new age and place, Joseph Smith's America.) And if you're saving for retirement or for your kids' college education or whatever, you're not answering that call. You're not getting that it's a radical call. You're answering the call of this world and ignoring Jesus.

Here's what's happened, Rick. The radical meaning of Christ's words are plain enough. But ever since the disciples' generation passed away without Jesus returning on clouds of glory to end the one dispensation and usher in the next, it's a.) been impossible to believe in Jesus as God and b.) been impossible to use the radical idea of renouncing the world as the foundation of any truly Christian church. How can a church keep its membership if it honestly teaches the renunciation of the world? It can't. Instead it tells its members they can have it both ways, that they can (and even should) remain mired in the world and still be genuine followers of Christ. (I won't go into the issue of the meaning of the word "Christian," which is basically up for grabs. Instead of saying you can't have a 401K and be a Christian, I'll just say that if you really "get" the gospel and decide to genuinely follow it, you'd cash in your retirement and give the money to the poor.)

All I want is that people take Jesus's radical call seriously and then either fish or cut bait. (In my own case, I took Jesus's words seriously, thought them over, and finally said to myself, "Nice ideas, but no thanks." And, as a result, I do not call myself a Christian.)

Look at it this way. Neither you nor Stephanie believe in the radical and impractical doctrines of the Heaven's Gate religion, right? You don't believe that the Mother Ship was hidden behind the comet, nor that those poor deluded folks down in San Diego were resurrected and got taken up into the ship when they killed themselves. Now imagine that, having decided not to believe such things, someone asks you, "Are you a Heaven's Gater?" Would you answer "Yes I am!"? Of course not. Yet you insist you believe in the NT words of Jesus even though you don't.

And why do you tell the truth about your rejection of the radical call of Heaven's Gate but not about your rejection of Jesus? Because a.) you were inculcated in that lie when you were too young to know better and to resist, and now the synapses in your brain simply fail to register the conflict, and b.) because in a largely Christian culture you benefit from the "Christian" name brand. (Think of the alienation from family and friends you will suffer, and the opportunities you will lose, if you openly repudiate Christianity.)

The ways of resisting this simple truth are ingenious and endless and, as cognitive science suggests, have very deep roots in the structure of the brain, but that's really all there is to it.

--David

P.S. It might help to get out more, intellectually speaking. It's an interesting historical coincidence that Joseph Smith published The Book of Abraham just a year before Soren Kierkegaard published Fear and Trembling. Re-read Genesis 22. Then, if you haven't already, read the opening sections of F&T and compare Kierkegaard's response to Abraham with Joseph Smith's. Kierkegaard gets that there's something radical and disturbing going on. Smith, by contrast, sees in Abraham an opportunity to justify his ideas about his new church's priesthood--which is to say, to increase his own power and authority. (Not to mention the way the B of A lends scriptural authority to the 19th century's Hamitic theory of black inferiority.) Kierkegaard's is a genuine, non-worldly response, Smith's a self-serving worldly response. Kierkegaard is left astonished and bewildered; Smith is left justified and empowered. But Kierkegaard, unlike Smith, left no church behind him.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephanie said...

Rick, here are a couple more conference talks I bet you will like: L. Tom Perry on living a simple life (eat according to the word of wisdom, wear simple and modest clothing, etc.), Henry B. Eyring on having our hearts knit together in unity (he said that pride is the great enemy of unity), and Robert D. Hales on discussing differences (I have a lot to learn on that one). Keith B. McMullin also spoke on providing for others in the Lord's way.

Anon David - there is even a talk for you! Gerald Causse spoke on gaining knowledge.

Anonymous said...

oh FD, you have a way with words - this is exactly what I was trying to say. (well, pretty close.) Thank you.

David - please take the time to read this whole post, as I wrote it for you:) The concept you are referring to is the concept of the Failed Parousia - one which I'm very familiar with, and one that I think explains a lot about Christianity. And you are absolutely right in the way that you explained it. When the Parousia (second coming) failed to happen, it caused a lot of stir - you had Christians all over doing all sorts of Crazy things - adopting radical forms of Gnosticism, Deism, Doecetism, and even Pauline Christianity (gasp!) as a way to reinterpret the doctrine of Jesus. Whereas those simple followers of Christ- those who had given up everything they had and were expecting the coming destruction - just kind of scratched their heads and faded into the wood work (Nazarenes/James-Christians). And from that crisis came Pauline and Petrine Christianities, Valentinian Gnosticism, Oreginism, and all the other sects of the first 300 years. I have the history, thanks

Here's the truth: Jesus' doctrine did, in fact, anticipate the end of the world. The world at that time was all about Empires and wars and upheaval and strife - and his was a pacifistic doctrine of turning the other cheek. He believed that if his followers really lived the doctrine that he taught - and if the missionaries (i.e. the apostles) really spread that word, then it would usher in a new age (the end of the old world and the beginning of the new one) - one in which people would practically be able to live non-violently - as a brotherhood- not as Christians, but as loving human beings. What most of his followers (including, IMO, Peter and Paul) misunderstood was that he wasn't just reinterpreting the Jewish doctrine, but he was reinterpreting the role of the Messiah. His revolution wasn't going to be a violent and bloody end to evil. It was going to be a peaceful, pacifistic end. This end could only be achieved if people were honestly willing to live his doctrine (give all you have to the poor, turn the other cheek, etc.) Christianity(besides the Nazarenes) failed to live this, doctrine. SO three things happened. 1) No Kingdom of God was ushered in. 2) Christianity didn't fade away like the Nazarenes - instead it became a world power. 3) No Christian sect on the face of the globe had the right to actually claim the right to Christ's doctrine. (: all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof. JSH 1:19")

So, through the intervening 2000 years, different people have seen the error of Christianity. People like Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa (many monastics, actually), Leo Tolstoy (READ "the Kingdom of God is Within You," "the Gospel in Brief," and "Confessions and Other Religious Writings.") and Joseph Smith. Who tried to start a form of communal living and property distribution, who tried to pull away from the established government, and who brought forth (you can say "wrote," David, I don't care) a book that told the story of a people who's main struggle was following this very teaching of Christ - that is the abandonment of worldly wealth. What most of these people grasped, is that Christ's Doctrine wasn't meant to be lived on a world-wide level - its impossible really, for Christ's Church to be that big. But it CAN INDEED BE LIVED ON AN INDVIDUAL LEVEL, AND, IF THE CHURCH IS IN THE RIGHT, IT CAN AID THE INDIVIDUAL TO LIVE IN THAT WAY.

Therein lays the point behind this particular blog. That this church, laying claim to rejecting the false doctrines of the others, needs to really be what it claims, and aid the individual to establish the Kingdom of God within themselves - to become Zion People.

David, this point of view, as I hope you can see, is not one that was crammed down my throat as a child. It is not one that I've settled on in an attempt to not be alienated by my family or community. It is not the "easy" POV for someone who was raised Mormon to adopt. The fact of the matter is, you have no idea of my standing in this or any other church. You have no idea of my individual struggle, or of the pain and heartache its taken to arrive where I am. You have no Idea who I am, and to pompously claim, "you were inculcated in that lie when you were too young to know better and to resist, and now the synapses in your brain simply fail to register the conflict, and b.) because in a largely Christian culture you benefit from the "Christian" name brand. (Think of the alienation from family and friends you will suffer, and the opportunities you will lose, if you openly repudiate Christianity.)" Is almost to brash for me to want to think about. The fact of the matter is you have no idea.

There is nothing that irritates me more than atheists (be it you or Bill Maher) to claim that they are smart, educated human beings and are thus able to see past the lies of religion in general, and that anyone who still has any sort of faith in god or religion, or even dogmatic doctrine (I don't have too much faith in that, but some do) are obviously below them and almost sub-human.

I have done my fair share of soul searching and reading, and learning and growing and honest seeking for truth to arrive where I am. I've spent countless hours pouring over Gnostic texts, the early Church Fathers, Manichean and Mandean Literature, reading the Humanists and Materialsts, second guessing Nietzsche, reading Emerson, Thoreau, Gandhi, and Marx, trying to figure out Freud, and Jung, reading the Upanishads, and Buddhist texts, thinking about the different accounts of the First Vision, pondering the production of the Book of Abraham, and reading the Journal of Discourses (to name a few). And having arrived at the place I am on my journey, I can honestly say that I believe in Jesus and his Doctrine, I believe in God, I believe in Joseph Smith as an inspired prophet, and I believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired "scriptural" literature - and I'm trying to live what I've come to believe. And who are you to say that where I've arrived is any way inferior to where you've arrived? To say that my understanding of truth is simply the effect of my synapses not firing correctly due to childhood indoctrination? I am glad you are at Peace being atheist - I often (more often than anyone else on this blog) agree with your points and criticism. But allow people believe what they believe - and stop telling them that they have been brainwashed - if you are as fair and open-minded as you wish you were. "I disagree with you." That is fair. "Not the way I see it." Okay. But it is not okay to be condescending to the reality that people exist in. Because even if you disagree, it is their reality. It is possible to be smart and thinking and well read and to "get out" enough (intellectually speaking) and still believe in something beyond yourself.

Anonymous said...

Rick, I read your entire post and I thank you for taking my words so seriously. I'm willing to continue the discussion.

You ask me, "who are you to say that where I've arrived is any way inferior to where you've arrived?"

There are such thing as demonstrable truths. If two sane, intelligent people add two and two, and they check their work again and again, and one comes up with four and the other comes up with five, then one conclusion is indeed inferior to the other. To say at this point merely that one "disagrees" strikes me as pretty lame. The question to ask is not, "Gee, can it really be true that in this guy's reality 2+2=5?" The question is rather "Is this guy living in reality at all? How can a sane, intelligent person do the math and not only come to such an obviously wrong conclusion but defend it so stoutly in the face of so much evidence to the contrary?" That is, the question shifts from the original claim to the state of the individual who persistently reaches the false conclusion. And the only answers I can think of have to do with childhood indoctrination, extreme emotional distress, synapses, limbic systems, and the like. (Unlike the Church, which has a quite different answer to the question of how I can be sane and intelligent yet reject LDS doctrine. The Church says I'm deluded by the most evil being in the universe. Gee, that's not insulting.... But see below.)

Many religious claims are not fuzzy, untestable claims about "believ[ing] in something beyond yourself." They're testable historical claims. Certainly claims about the Mormon scriptures fall into the latter category, and several such claims are demonstrably false. And on those false claims hangs much of the Church's authority. And you yourself said that the Church can aid individuals live a Christlike life "if the Church is in the right." But the Church is not in the right. The Church is wrong, and not just on incidentals, either. The Church's own claims to authority are based on demonstrable falsehoods--on things so obviously false that one searches for explanations about how people could possibly believe them.

Why do you think the Heaven's Gaters believed what they did? Because their beliefs were true? Because they had emotional needs not being met by a materialistic society? Or what?

Finally, I don't understand why it's okay for your church to state plainly that the beliefs of others are false ("laying claim to rejecting the false doctrines of the others"), but not for me to do the same. The Church never engages in any sort of mushy ecumenism, nor do I. The Church says it is right and others are wrong, and tries to explain why; I do the same thing. The only difference is that the evidence is on my side and my arguments are better.

Well, that and the fact that I'm on the whole much more polite about it. At least I think so. I think Mormons have been misled by emotional need, familial investment, childhood indoctrination, and the like. The LDS Church, by contrast, believes I am a dupe of Satan, an unwitting footsoldier of the forces of absolute evil. That's pretty extreme. It's terribly hostile and insulting. And it's not just incidental. It's integral to the Church's (to your Church's) entire worldview, part of its raison d'etre.

You ask that I "stop telling [people] that they have been brainwashed," and you say I should do
so if I am to be "as fair and open-minded" as I wish myself to be. But that's not what being fair and open-minded is about. Being fair is about not disadvantaging people on the basis of irrelevant criteria. It's fair for, say, a Catholic school to only hire Catholic professors. It's not fair for a cafe owner to hang a sign saying "Non-Catholics need not apply." And being open-minded is about honestly weighing the evidence and honestly evaluating the arguments. It's not about weighing evidence and evaluating arguments and then refusing to come to conclusions or refusing to state one's conclusions because people's feelings might get hurt.

Of course, it can be very impolite to harp on those conclusions in an inappropriate setting. It would be impolite to show up at work and say, "Good morning, Jack. I've been thinking about it and have come to the conclusion that you're only a Mormon because you were brainwashed as a child. What's on the agenda for our meeting with the accounting department?" Or even, "Mornin', Abe. You probably don't know it, but you're working for the most evil personage in the universe. The meeting isn't with accounting, it's marketing."

But there's nothing inappropriate or unfair or closed-minded about the arguments I've made in this blog--even my arguments about indoctrination and the like. This blog is the very place where it's appropriate to say things of the sort I say. If not here, where? (BTW, I notice you've never said that I'm an unwitting footsoldier in Satan's army. Is that because you don't believe it to be true, or because you think it would be impolite to say it? If you do believe it to be true, feel free to say it. If you don't believe it to be true, then why are you still in the Church?)

Anyway, the Church believes things about me that are far more despicable than anything I've ever said about Mormons. It just doesn't say those things out loud. I'm not going to fret over it; I'm going to argue against it. And I'll do so more openly than the Church.

--David

Stephanie said...

Anon David, in all sincerity, why do you want to hang out on this blog?

Anonymous said...

David, You're not as evil as you think. You are here on earth so you did at one time believe in God and Jesus, you just forgot:)

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, I hang out here for pretty much the same reason others do. I learn a lot, I can test my arguments, I can enjoy the give and take of debate, etc.

Matt, given that I'm white, I must have sided with God in the war in heaven, too. But it looks like I'm flunking my probation. ;-)

--David

Stephanie said...

But, Anon David, if anytime you disagree (or find the other side "wrong", you can reduce the argument to "Well, you think 2+2=5" or "it must be childhood indoctrination, extreme emotional distress, synapses, limbic systems, and the like", what exactly is the point?

Anonymous said...

Fair argument, David - however, someone's personal bleiefs, and dogmatic doctrine are, quite often (and at least in my case) two different things. I can believe in the foundational truths that I told you - God, Jesus, JS, and LDS scripture - and not ascribe to everything else. I don't buy the arguement that everything that was ever said by JS or BY or anyone else for that matter, is a universal godly truth - but I can still believe in their prophethood. By the same token, I can believe that Buddha was a prophet, Zarathustra, and pseudo-Enoch (all of which I do) and recongnize their biases and inconsistancies as well - it boils down to the falability of humanity.

The fact of the matter is, that I wasn't asking, "who are you to say the church's conclusions are wrong." You are just fine to say that - shout it from the roof-tops - "the Mormon Churches conclusion's and dogma are wrong!" I don't care - what I don't like you to say is, "Rick, your personal conclusions are wrong - for this reason and that reason and that reason." Because, in all actuality, you have no idea what my personal conclusions entail. Really, you don't!

By doing that - assuming you know someone's personal beliefs and conclusions, you've done many other athiests do - that is to reduce all those with faith to thoughtless drones - well, that is quite unfair and untrue.

If you'd like to talk about my personal beliefs, I'd love to run them by you in an individual forum - my email address is rvt_hanimal@hotmail.com - we could have a point-by-point discussion, if you'd like - I would love it. That that setting (which I'm entirely serious about) would be the appropriate one for you to say, "Rick, I've herd you out, and your 2+2 equals 5, and I think you're wrong." Then I'd say, "Well, David, thank you for hearing me out, and I appreciate it Sorry you view things differently than I do." But to attack my individual belief in a public forum is not right. But seriously, I'm cool with you disagreeing with the church's position here. Just not the individual's.

so, about 2+2=5 - it is possible that there are factors in this equation (that is no where near as simple as the above equation) that you just might not be aware of. That might not register to you. Maybe the equation has an extra +1 in there, but you haven't seen it. Because we aren't talking about demonstratable truths - we are talking about faith, and belief - totally different than empirical truth. Joseph's prophet-hood, the production of the scriptures, Jesus' doctrine, the development of Christianity - they are not emirical truths - they are totally up for interpretation. For instance, what is meant by the word prophet? Is my definition the same as Stephanie's? what is meant by Scripture? What is meant by Truth? What is meant by Atonement, or Savior, or Salvation, or Exaltation? Can anyone define each of these so that they ring true for everyone, or does each person have to feel it out for themselves? Do you see what I mean?

Its more like sports teams. I might love the Suns, and no matter what, i might maintain that all other sports teams suck, and the Suns are the best, and I might even feel that they are endowed with extra power from on High. But I am able to maintain a normal life and go about that life in peaceful coexistance. I might think that your love for the Lakers is wrong, but It doesn't change the fact that I can carry on a conversation in an intelligent and rational way. Now when it comes right down to it, The suns might not be that good to the rest of the world - the rest of the world might think they are the worst team in the NBA - they might have a crappy record and a crappy coach - but if I love them, then its not going to change. I love em. I see something int he Suns that you don't, and they will continue to be my team through the good times and the bad. its not, "sir, this team has the worst record in the NBA - therefore, you are wrong in your evaluation of them - you really should recant it." - - because there is obviously a peice of the equation that you are missing - I see their long term five-year plan - I know that they'll come back on top, cause they always do. Whatever. silly example, but I hope it got my point across - I think, by the way, its cool that you hang out here - just not when you make assumptions about my personal beliefs (which, I maintain, you don't know.)

Anonymous said...

You go Rick! Amen.

The Faithful Dissident said...

While I agree fully with what Rick has said, I also want to express empathy and even understanding for what David is talking about.

David, I personally don't like the fact that most Mormons say they are 100% beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-sure about being the ONLY true Church with the FULLNESS of the Gospel, often at the expense of other truths in the world. Many Mormons are so used to hearing and saying it, that they fail to see how it tends to build a huge wall between us and the rest of the world.

But here's the thing. Matters of faith can't always be summed up in the same way as we reach the conclusion that 2+2=4 and not 5. While I think that certain ASPECTS of a faith CAN be debunked by using rational logic (i.e. that the earth is 6000 years old, or that the sun revolves around the earth), FAITH in itself can't be disproved by logical thinking. If it were so, then atheists would be successful in drawing people like me away from their respective faiths. In fact, they would be successful in drawing away absolutely everyone who believes in truth and logic. I love logic and I have on many occasions used logic to argue against some of the aspects of my own religion that I either believe are false or misinterpreted.

The problem is that atheists haven't found a way to expose or disprove faith through logic and rational thinking. Yes, you can disprove certain aspects of faith, like the example of people believing that the sun revolves around the earth. (Galileo, as we know, did this and was tried for heresy by the Catholic Church.) But if faith itself could be disproved in the same way as you can disprove the reasons for faith given by human beings, I would be on your side and agree with you 100%.

Like Rick, I take issue with non-believers who assume that believers are naive, brainwashed, or use their faith as a crutch. Don't get my wrong, I think that there are many who fit that description. However, there are some very smart, well-read, enlightened people in this world who still have a very strong faith. I don't think it's because they fail to see that their religions are sometimes wrong. In my case, I can't deny certain personal experiences, messages, and "revelations," if you will, that I've had in my life. As a logical person, I see that my Church has made mistakes. Sometimes big ones. As a logical person, I see that leaders of the Church have sometimes taught false truths. And yet, as a logical person, I see that those personal experiences of which I speak are not just coincidental or a figment of my imagination. It's something that transcends logic, reason, and intelligence. If you haven't experienced it yourself, then I can't expect you to fully understand what I'm talking about. But, as a rational, logical person, I would be surprised and a bit disappointed if you could expect to disprove my faith (not the teachings of my Church, but my faith in God) by logic alone.

Not all religious folk are like the Heaven's Gate following. I think that many of us are fairly intelligent, logical, open-minded people who like to probe and ask questions. Some accept things easier than others and if you want to use that as a means of judging their willingness to accept truths such as 1+1=2, then that's fine. But I could challenge you to give me the proof that I need to know 100% that the experiences and miracles I've witnessed in my life are all completely the result of an earthly logic and not some otherworldly power. It simply cannot be done and that's why I can't deny what I believe. I can deny some of the teachings of my RELIGION or other religions, but I cannot deny my FAITH. If I could, I would 100% be on your side.

So while being raised in a believing home could put someone at a disadvantage over someone raised by logical-thinking atheists, it goes both ways. While those raised by religious parents MAY be less-exposed to logical truths and therefore close-minded to science and rationale, those raised by atheists are also at a disadvantage because it's very difficult for them to experience faith or the influence of God in their lives. In both of these scenarios, what they have in one area, they are lacking in the other. My personal view is that children are best-served when they are exposed to the best that the world has to offer in terms of philosophy, logic, etc -- but never at the expense of allowing the possibility of the seed of faith being cultivated. This actually reminds me of Barack Obama, who was raised by atheists who yet exposed him to different religions and encouraged open-mindedness. It could have gone either way and he found himself believing in God, even though his doubts and questions remained. I think most would consider him an intelligent, well-read man who can think for himself and so his story is fascinating. (Right now I'm reading "The Faith of Barack Obama" by Stephen Mansfield.)

Faith defies logic, and therefore I believe that God exists, even if the human reasoning behind believing in Him is based on false information. And, as history has shown, sometimes it is.

So while 2+2 will always equal 4 on earth, we might be surprised to find out someday that to God it equals 5.

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, you write "if anytime you disagree (or find the other side 'wrong', you can reduce the argument to 'Well, you think 2+2=5' or 'it must be childhood indoctrination, extreme emotional distress, synapses, limbic systems, and the like', what exactly is the point?"

That's a huge "if," Stephanie. The fact is that I don't invoke that particular argument every time I disagree with someone. In fact I use it very rarely--only when I think it makes sense.

Rick, I'd like to point out that to say people's beliefs are heavily shaped by cognitive factors is not the same as "reduc[ing] all those with faith to thoughtless drones." Unlike drones, people are quite capable of thinking outside the cognitive box, as it were, and overcoming the many obstacles to clear thinking. I've done it, and you've done it. (Sarah Palin, well....)

Allow me to address this: "Joseph's prophet-hood, the production of the scriptures, Jesus' doctrine, the development of Christianity - they are not empirical truths - they are totally up for interpretation."

Well, I'm glad to hear you say that--but (as I'm sure you know) the Church quite emphatically thinks you're wrong.

Ditto for this bit of heresy:

"It's more like sports teams. I might love the Suns, and no matter what, I might maintain that all other sports teams suck, and the Suns are the best, and I might even feel that they are endowed with extra power from on High. But I am able to maintain a normal life and go about that life in peaceful coexistence. I might think that your love for the Lakers is wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that I can carry on a conversation in an intelligent and rational way."

That analogy gives us a wonderful formula for peaceful coexistence, but you know as well as I do that the Church does NOT consider the difference between itself and other churches analogous to the differences between sports teams.

So I agree with you on this point, which is to say my criticism of the Church is yours as well. I would push your analogy a little further, and point out that one's "belief" in a sports team is almost wholly contingent on things like what parents you happen to be born to, where you grow up, and similar accidents--just as one's religious belief.

Faithful Dissident, you write, "I personally don't like the fact that most Mormons say they are 100% beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-sure about being the ONLY true Church with the FULLNESS of the Gospel."

But that absolutism is not merely the claim of "most Mormons." It's the claim of the Church itself. It's the claim of Joseph Smith and of Brigham Young. Don't get me wrong; I find your heresy refreshing and encouraging. But it is heresy.

Rick and F.D., I actually appreciate and even sympathize with your desire for a liberalized LDS doctrine and church. But I'm more of a "fish or cut bait" kinda guy.

As for the idea that "while 2+2 will always equal 4 on earth, we might be surprised to find out someday that to God it equals 5."

I would be surprised indeed. God sucks at math! Who knew? :)

--David

Anonymous said...

Beautifully put, FD - This:
"David, I personally don't like the fact that most Mormons say they are 100% beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-sure about being the ONLY true Church with the FULLNESS of the Gospel, often at the expense of other truths in the world. Many Mormons are so used to hearing and saying it, that they fail to see how it tends to build a huge wall between us and the rest of the world" is also something that I agree with - It is one of my pet peeves among LDS, and it is not something that I ascribe to at all - again showing the vast difference between dogmatic religion and personal faith.

David, absolutely. It's a bit heretical. I can live with that. Black men having the priesthood was a bit heretical to Brigham Young, too.;) And its fair to say that there is alot of "nurture" involved in someone's religious choice. But not 100%.

God doesn't suck at math. God doesn't suck at physics, but we found out that Newton's Laws don't apply all the time - Einstein figured that out. He said, look guys. those physical laws are great...for our relm of existance- but God's Relm of understanding is...quite different. Not that he's a sucky physicist:)

I'm glad we can meet on that one point

Stephanie said...

Here is a good article on Christians and government. I didn't realize that other Christians held the same view of government as we do from our knowledge gained in the Book of Mormon. The Bible seems to be consistent with the BofM in regard to the role of government.