"Hold my root beer" - the Russell M. Nelson thread

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's funny. I had almost the exact opposite sentiment--ok, not almost. the exact opposite sentiment--expressed to me this weekend, through casual discourse. The comment was something like this:

"Why would anyone ever want to belong to this church if they didn't agree and understand that these men receive direct revelation from God. If you don't believe they are speaking for God, but are just nice men trying to do the right thing, wouldn't your membership in the church seem like a complete charade?"

Ugh...

As humans we are naturally drawn to black & white thinking. Nuance is hard, I guess. It bugs me when people (on both sides) claim that the ultimate conclusion from recognizing and acknowledging fallibility is that there is nothing unique or special about prophets.

[swampfrog]

I honestly don't know how you stay in the church if you think that the leadership is anything more than a bunch of dedicated human beings trying their damnedest to do what God wants them to do, usually through the process of trial and error.

If you really think Jesus is talking to the GAs face to face, I simply don't see how you make it all work.

An individual when told the answer to every question and is directed in every act never learns to what to do when the source of that direction is removed. He becomes nothing. The church provides a path for becoming not for following. I apply the same rules to an institution made of individuals. Joseph Smith struggled constantly to find answers to difficult circumstances. He searched previous revelations constantly for direction and made many mistakes.

I have no problem substituting "the church" for "he" below.

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.
29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

The face to face is culturally perpetuated myth.

I don't always make it work. I do believe the GAs are individuals struggling with the spirit to understand what God wants, and as JL noted, it's our responsibility to struggle with the same spirit. Since GA's carry the cross that is the weight of preservation, they will likely err in the direction of what has been.

[Green Monstah]

Ugh...

As humans we are naturally drawn to black & white thinking. Nuance is hard, I guess. It bugs me when people (on both sides) claim that the ultimate conclusion from recognizing and acknowledging fallibility is that there is nothing unique or special about prophets.

I think there's significant evidence that there is nothing unique or special about prophets. They're just like the rest of us who are trying to understand what God wants us to do, and often times royally screwing it up.

[Green Monstah]

That's funny. I had almost the exact opposite sentiment--ok, not almost. the exact opposite sentiment--expressed to me this weekend, through casual discourse. The comment was something like this:

"Why would anyone ever want to belong to this church if they didn't agree and understand that these men receive direct revelation from God. If you don't believe they are speaking for God, but are just nice men trying to do the right thing, wouldn't your membership in the church seem like a complete charade?"

Those are the type of people who will read the CES Letter and resign their membership in a two-week period.

[ByronMarchant]

I would like to improve on Swampfrog's post:

1. Revelation is the introduction of error (2015)
2. "Revelation" also is the discovery of error by rational means and/or due to rational societal pressure (2019)
3. In the process of revelation, good people get hurt because they believe God is somehow perpetrating a discriminatory policy

What would be better: Evidence-based and/or rational identification of error, rather than waiting for the tribe's chief to recite almost random pronouncements from heaven.

[ScoopJahoop]

Ugh...

As humans we are naturally drawn to black & white thinking. Nuance is hard, I guess. It bugs me when people (on both sides) claim that the ultimate conclusion from recognizing and acknowledging fallibility is that there is nothing unique or special about prophets.

But that’s exactly what the brethren do. There’s nothing nuanced about what comes out of SLC. You, Creekster et al are much smarter than I am, but the usefulness of prophets, if they’re no better than any random Joe at divining the will of God, is lost on me.

[Applejack]

Excellent post as usual. Thanks.

The bolded part is an important insight. In so many of these discussions, people often exclaim, "How could they miss that? They should have known better!". We always seem to overstate how obvious things should have been in hindsight. Furthermore, I think there is a lot of hubris in implying that we have everything figured out and that social and cultural changes are on a steady upward arc. Churches are conservative for a very good reason.

I disagree only in the sense that this policy was one that they should not have "missed." Upon the unveiling/exposing of the original policy, even the die-hards at church were like, "Ouch. That seems harsh."

[Jeff Lebowski]

I disagree only in the sense that this policy was one that they should not have "missed." Upon the unveiling/exposing of the original policy, even the die-hards at church were like, "Ouch. That seems harsh."

Definitely a head-scratcher.

[Jeff Lebowski]

But that’s exactly what the brethren do. There’s nothing nuanced about what comes out of SLC. You, Creekster et al are much smarter than I am, but the usefulness of prophets, if they’re no better than any random Joe at divining the will of God, is lost on me.

I have never said that and I am quite sure creekster has never said that either.

I think they are vastly better than "any random joe" at divining the will of God. That still doesn't make them perfect.

[ScoopJahoop]

I have never said that and I am quite sure creekster has never said that either.

I think they are vastly better than "any random joe" at divining the will of God. That still doesn't make them perfect.

How are they better? Under what circumstances should their words be given more weight than my neighbor or the mayor or Oprah?

[creekster]

I have never said that and I am quite sure creekster has never said that either.

I think they are vastly better than "any random joe" at divining the will of God. That still doesn't make them perfect.

I have not said that and I do not believe it. In addition to being better than most (or all) at receiving, interpreting and implementing revelation I think that God has granted prophets the authority to speak for and to the church, as opposed to any random Joe or Scoop. I think that matters. But, as JL notes, they are still not perfect.

[swampfrog]

I would like to improve on Swampfrog's post:

1. Revelation is the introduction of error (2015)
2. "Revelation" also is the discovery of error by rational means and/or due to rational societal pressure (2019)
3. In the process of revelation, good people get hurt because they believe God is somehow perpetrating a discriminatory policy

What would be better: Evidence-based and/or rational identification of error, rather than waiting for the tribe's chief to recite almost random pronouncements from heaven.

Here's my interpretation of recent events:

I'll assume the mortal Christ was Himself not anti-anything. Though because of His limited time, His focus was on preparing a people to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. He was therefore discriminatory with his mortal time. He had to prepare His disciples.

His apostles began erring almost immediately after His departure. Peter had a difficult time understanding his role to bring the gospel to the gentiles and needed divine correction. He was proud. D&C 121 is exactly right in its description of what happens to men when granted some authority. Peter was called, but it took time before he became chosen. This is always the path.

To find a point of difference, and then to use that difference to "other" someone else is a human instinct built by millions of years of evolution. It is surprisingly strong. This has been shown to be likely true by "rational means". That an ancient instinct has found it's way into imperfect religious dogma is therefore expected.

Bret Weinstein (evolutionary biologist) when reflecting on recent horrors tweeted the following:

I have been trying to warn people. It's a totaly predictable, recurring train wreck that can only be prevented if it is thoroughly understood. Looking away guarantees it will keep happening. And I don't mean shootings and bombings, I mean the entire genocidal impulse.

His brother added the following:

I agree with Bret here. But his real message is hidden.

However much you‘re intellectually budgeting to understand the genocidal impulse, budget orders of magnitude more. If you truly want to fight this evil, stop acting pretty & dare to understand it’s biological origin.

Early in Christianity, multiple bad ideas got embedded into the tradition of Christianity, some were cultural, some were historical, some were perversions of new teaching. They existed long before Mormonism. Similar to Christ making corrections to Jewish law and practice, there is no way Joseph Smith had time to correct all of the bad ideas, thoughts, and practices that would have previously been embedded into Christianity from which he culled most of his followers. He also was trying to create a new church and culture and that was also done imperfectly, compounding the existing issues.

Christ taught vehemently about loving your enemies, almost as if He had some idea of how difficult and yet important that task is. It's a constant battle. We're programmed to see "other" as an enemy with whom we are in a winner-take-all fitness struggle. Religion can and should be an antidote, but it is often corrupted by the very nature of the thing which it should exist to combat. It should be no surprise that religions are often corrupted by natural instincts.

Is reason a viable alternative? Many think so, but many also do not. Haidt (in The Righteous Mind) argues quite compellingly that humans are not reasonable creatures, we're emotional instinctual creatures and reasoning developed to justify our own behaviors and actions. He's atheist, but a fan of western religion.

Back to the original argument. Anti-gay beliefs have existed for thousands of years. They are unfortunately embedded in some Christian dogma. It might seem logical to throw out the dogma in entirety, it's a justifiable position. But what then? What is the bulwark against genocidal tendencies that is part and parcel of the human genome? Science and reason? Is there evidence that they are sufficient? One can watch Peterson and Harris debate this on stage for over 10 hours on Youtube. It's not a settled matter by an stretch.

Embedded within the teachings of how to properly resist the natural man are corrupt teachings. When society changes, the preservation engine kicks in to oppose them. Much of the time, that is the correct action, but when unknown embedded corruption is the target, it is not. This is again expected behavior of an institution trying to preserve real moral value. That such an institution lags behind society is exactly the behavior to be expected and desired. Change slowly and carefully. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Rapid change is just as much the enemy as no change. The dissolution of the family and marriage is an actual real societal problem. The values that used to sustain the next generation are being lost and there is more depression, anxiety, and suicide. We're not sure of all the causes, and it could get worse if we don't figure them out. See Haidt's "The Coddling of the American Mind".

[BigFatMeanie]

How are they better? Under what circumstances should their words be given more weight than my neighbor or the mayor or Oprah?

You're right. Their words shouldn't be given more weight than your neighbors or Oprah's. Keep watching Super Soul Sunday and you might as well give yourself a 10% raise to boot.

[myboynoah]

How are they better? Under what circumstances should their words be given more weight than my neighbor or the mayor or Oprah?

peter_edited-1.jpg

[Maximus]

Excellent post as usual. Thanks.

The bolded part is an important insight. In so many of these discussions, people often exclaim, "How could they miss that? They should have known better!". We always seem to overstate how obvious things should have been in hindsight. Furthermore, I think there is a lot of hubris in implying that we have everything figured out and that social and cultural changes are on a steady upward arc. Churches are conservative for a very good reason.

When the hindsight stuff is ..


Oh, well blacks arent really less valiant we taught for decades
Oh, gays shouldn't be tortured to not be gay


Uh yes if they are directed from God they should be able to see maybe they are wrong.