Comments on: Earrings and Coffee and Our Eternal Ties to Current Church Leaders

By: Speaking Up

Speaking Up — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:08:12 +0000

I do not think that by knowing a certain doctrine that your automatically going to act in a correct way.

Well I guess it depends on how much doctrine you have. If you have the doctrine from D&C about the sacrament prayer, then you’re going to do it right. If you don’t have it, you might get it right, but more likely not.

I guess its really a silly argument over all since the ideal is both.

By: Craig Atkinson

Craig Atkinson — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:27:47 +0000

Maybe Blake could get in on this argument.

By: Craig Atkinson

Craig Atkinson — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:26:17 +0000

Speaking Up,
I do not think that by knowing a certain doctrine that your automatically going to act in a correct way. And I agree that it doesn’t go the other way either. You may be able to say that we are more likely to act in moral ways when we understand doctrine, but it’s not a given. Blake Ostler about a month ago gave a very compelling post about this very subject. He gave the example of an old woman they he knows, I think shes from Germany but I can’t remember off the top of my head. He talked about her tender heart, and her goodness, and yet at the same time she was ignorant of the doctrines of the church. He believed that she is much closer to getting into the CK than he is. How we act and treat others always trumps doctrine. And trust me, I love studying church doctrine, probably more so than the next guy. But I would never give it prescedence over correct actions.

By: Speaking Up

Speaking Up — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:16:05 +0000

Craig Atkinson: On second thought, I think if you have correct doctrine, correct practices will naturally follow, but the opposite cannot occur.

By: Craig Atkinson

Craig Atkinson — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:52:19 +0000

Speaking up,
You said:
Also I’d rather have correct doctrine and incorrect practices over correct practices and incorrect doctrine anyday. A man cannot be saved in ignorance. (Of course I’d prefer ultimately to have perfect practice and perfect doctrine).

I’m going to have disagree with you strongly on that one. I’d take incorrect doctrine, and correct practice any day over correct doctrine and incorrect practice. I think you would to if you realized what your saying. It’s like saying “Yeah I know the correct nature of God, but I like to sleep around.”

By: A nonny miss

A nonny miss — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:22:50 +0000

I wonder how much this kind of thing would change if the leaders of the Church were younger men (or women). It worries me sometimes that the leaders could become senile, invent silly rules and everyone would still lock step and follow because “the prophet said so.”

By: Speaking Up

Speaking Up — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:06:32 +0000

Micro-managing such as deciding how many earrings you can wear smacks of the amount of steps the Pharisees allowed for the Sabbath. Just as Christ told those spiritual leaders about straining at a gnat, he’d say the same things at ours. And for those who think that our leaders walk on water, remember that there are several prophesies, dreams, etc. by early church leaders saying that the church would NEED a house cleaning before the Last Days. Its going to be more than the simple rank and file that get an eye-opening.

Also I’d rather have correct doctrine and incorrect practices over correct practices and incorrect doctrine anyday. A man cannot be saved in ignorance. (Of course I’d prefer ultimately to have perfect practice and perfect doctrine).

The 2 great commandments: Thats whats important.

By: Craig Atkinson

Craig Atkinson — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:13:24 +0000

Geoff,
What does it matter whether it is a practice or a doctrine. Is the prophet some how immune from being wrong about practice, but possibly wrong about doctrine? And my real issue with this is actually the principle that is being taught, not the action we are asked to perform. Like I said, I could care less that I have to shave every morning, or that my wife and daughter have to wear only one pair of earrings. My issue is that this practice teaches us to equate righteousness/unrighteousness with outward appearances, and not with what goes on in the inner vessel. So what would you say, he’s right about the practice, but wrong about the principle it teaches as a consequence? If the prophet told us that we all need to start walking backward from now on that God would say, yes I agree?

By: Benny K

Benny K — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:09:02 +0000

I found D&C 74:5 rather interesting today. God is talking about Paul and says that, at one point, Paul “wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself.” God isn’t even complaining or reprimanding Paul, but is simply clarifying something for Joseph Smith. Or at least that’s my understanding of it.

By: Matt Bowman

Matt Bowman — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:55:27 +0000

Lots of times we are looking for an eternal principle to explain any and every prophetic counsel about our behavior.

And with good reason, too. Perhaps we’re defining ‘eternal principle’ differently; I mean it as those things which matter eternally – the law of consecration may be one of them, but paying a tithe set at 10% is is not. When we hear that we should pay 10%, we _should_, therefore, seek a better reason than ‘because the prophet said so;’ we should use it as a way to teach ourselves and grow spiritually towards the capacity to live consecrated lives. Paying tithing or avoiding pornography simply because you’re told to is like leaning on your parents’ testimony when you’re young; if we want to grow as moral beings, we should be able to defend our decisions in ways stronger than the appeal to authority. Relatedly, I therefore don’t buy the pseudo-doctrine that God will reward us if we follow a leader in his mistakes. We have the ability and responsibility to make our own moral decisions with the guidance of the Spirit.

I think what I said last comment applies here as well (but italics for extra fun!): I don’t think you have the correct criteria here. I think we simply should know through witness of the Spirit that God wants us to perform the action. Anything beyond that (like who’s idea it was originally or even if it was based on correct assumptions or not) is moot.

This may be where we’re talking past each other. You say that God backs his stewards, even if they give counsel based on incorrect doctrine. I’m willing to concede that God places a high value on listening to his prophets. However, I don’t think that the worth of that trumps the danger of spreading false doctrine, and so if your theory is correct, I think its boundaries are closer together than you acknowledge. You argue that doctrine and counsel can be separated, but I frankly don’t see how that’s possible, and would be interested to hear your thoughts on why your theory applies to one and not the other, and how you manage to separate them so cleanly. In both the examples I’ve given, the counsel is based on doctrinal assumptions. I guess you’re right; I just don’t buy that God would hold us accountable for failing to heed incorrect teachings.