Speak now or forever hold your peace
Posted by Ryan on January 6th, 2006
In my elders quorum class on Sunday, we were discussing the restoration through the eyes of Wilford Woodruff. Our teacher asked us what was so miraculous about Bro. Woodruff’s conversion to the gospel. Having recently covered that era in Rough Stone Rolling, I mentioned that despite all the visionaries, superstitions, visions, magic and other nonsense that was so prevalant at the time, it was a testament to Wilford’s ability to discern right from wrong in that he was able to accept the truth of Robert Mason’s vision and not simply discount him as another crazy visionary. My comment was discussed a bit and then shortly afterward the teacher mentioned that another reason his conversion was so miraculous was that Robert Mason was very brave to have been willing to mention his vision during a time when having visions and such was very unpopular…. What? Didn’t I just say (and I cited my source by the way) that it absolutely was not unpopular to claim to have visions?
Being ever reluctant to stir up contention unless I am teaching the lesson, I kept my mouth shut and let the conflict remain unaddressed. In reality it was really a minor example of what I am now calling “Incorrect Doctrines In Our Teaching” or IDIOT. What I would like to open to discussion is: When do we have a responsibility to correct IDIOTs? And when, for the sake of peace, should we just leave well enough alone?
One general rule I might suggest for starters: Don’t correct the teaching unless you have authoritative support. Kind of like blogs, arguing theories is usually fruitless and just gets people riled up. So, does anybody have any good examples of IDIOTs? How did you handle the situation? What do the authorities say about our responsibility to speak up when we feel that incorrect doctrines are being preached?
Ah, the ever present IDIOTs. Interesting that you should post this today because I encountered at least two IDIOTs this past week. One concerned the preexistence (a subject that seems to always rile people into divergent opinions without anyone citing any authority). One well meaning person actually tried to tell the class that there was no such thing as, what he called, “fence sitters” before this life. He taught the class that either people were for or against Christ’s plan - no wishywashyness existed. This started a spin-off of other various IDIOTs.
As for your approach, I took the same road. But, so did President Winter from the SP who was there to hear the IDIOTs. He never said a word through all the IDIOTs (although I did see him raise his hand once, and then take it back down quickly). I would say, who are we to correct IDIOTs if we haven’t studied the lesson before hand and are armed with correct citations?
Comment # 1 left by Wade on January 10th, 2006
I would just like to re-affirm that IDIOT is an acronym for “Incorrect Doctrines In Our Teaching” - Reading through my comment makes me sound like I’m bashing the people instead of their mistaken doctrines… a little harsh without understanding the acronym.
Comment # 2 left by Wade on January 10th, 2006
That’s funny, I made almost the same exact point in my elders quarum, citing Rough Stone Rolling. You know what I got? A blank stare and a teacher that obviously had no idea what I was talking about. He pretty much moved on without commenting on what I said. It’s obvious that those in my quorum have not read the book (probably don’t know of it’s existence). I live in a hick town in Oregon.
Anyway, I was going to write about this on my blog, but haven’t yet, but our Sunday School teacher sometimes teaches some IDIOTs. She tried to teach that it we accept the doctrine that Mary and God physically procreating (with a lack of a better way of putting it). Now, this is not official doctrine, and may or may not be true. Either way teaching this in Gospel Doctrine class is a no-no.
Right after she was done teaching this and moving to the next point, someone from the stake presidency walked in unaware of the conversation. I was half tempted to bring it up with him afterwards, but decided against it.
Comment # 3 left by Ian on January 10th, 2006
Either way teaching this in Gospel Doctrine class is a no-no.
Care to elaborate (with sources)?
Comment # 4 left by Ryan on January 10th, 2006
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Not to chase anyone away, but I was wondering why teaching any doctrine is a no-no if the teacher is citing authority - especially citing scripture?
The Gospel of Luke reads:
“Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Emphasis mine)
Also, Nephi’s vision teaches:
“And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.” (Emphasis mine)
Thus, it seems to me that scriptures teache what the gospel doctrine teacher was expounding? Also, I have always thought the immaculate conception theory was bogus. However, I would be interested to read differing authority here.
Comment # 5 left by Wade on January 10th, 2006
From what I have read, I have no reason to disagree with what she was teaching. But It’s not explicit anywhere, not even in the sources that she used. (sorry, I didn’t write them down). One of them was Bruce R. McConkie I think.
I personally feel that since even reliable sources only allude to the doctrine that Mary and God, had a physical relationship that it is not official doctrine. Since it’s not official, I don’t think it should be taught in Gospel Doctrine class.
That’s all. I think that one of the reasons that we go to church is to feel the spirit. Doctrines like this do not necisarily bring the spirit.
I just don’t think it’s wise to teach supposition and innuendo as official church doctrine.
Comment # 6 left by Ian on January 10th, 2006
I personally feel that since even reliable sources only allude to the doctrine that Mary and God, had a physical relationship that it is not official doctrine.
I agree entirely. I think Wade’s scriptures do offer bits of information that would support the theory but I don’t think they make it clear or final by any means. Nor can i think of a reason that I might fall short of my salvation if I never actually know the truth about the subject during my mortal probation. But maybe that leads us into a potential second rule of speaking up… namely: If it doesn’t have a somewhat significant role in helping you to work out your salvation, maybe it’s better just to keep your big yapper shut?
who are we to correct IDIOTs if we haven’t studied the lesson before hand and are armed with correct citations?
Well played. I think this is an excellent point. In fact, I feel a bit more driven to study the lesson manual beforehand so that I can feel justified in correcting a potential IDIOT. I think, if nothing else, I won’t be as likely to keep quiet as I have been up to this point.
Comment # 7 left by Ryan on January 11th, 2006
Okay, Okay, I was being somewhat of a devil’s advocate on purpose here. However, I see it both ways, i.e. I can understand that G.D. class is for teaching the basics of salvation and not for expounding mysteries; but at the same time, I refuse to accept the contention that the conception of Christ as I understand it is not official doctrine.
First, I have to agree with Ian: because most wards are a composite of various members who are on various levels of understanding, “mysteries” should be let alone at church.
But Secondly, is it really a mystery, or is this teaching really considered innuendo and supposition? Have we accepted the norms and traditions of the world here? In other words, have we as a Church taken at face value the Catholic tradition of immaculate conception? Also, this plays into a related thought: why does discussing such issues offend some people? Can anyone point to any source that teaches this is not official doctrine? I have yet to find such a source; the only things I find are teachings of prophets that support it - see below.
Brother Brigham said:
“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost” (JD 1:50). As for this being “official”, President Young as prophet also said he had “never yet preached a sermon… that [we] may not call Scripture” (JD 13:95).
As to the issue of teachings being important to salvation, do we honestly belief that ANY truth is not needed to obtain exaltation? Understandably, I agree that we should learn truth in the proper order; but I also refuse to accept the idea that certain truths are unnecessary for Salvation in the highest glory. The scrptures teach that “it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance” (DC 130:6), and Joseph taught (as well as Joseph Fielding Smith and others) that “the principle of knowlede is the [very] principle of salvation” (TPJS p.297). Also, Joseph taught, “In knowledge there is power. God has more power than all other beings, because he has greater knowledge; and hence he knows how to subject all other beings to Him. He has power over all.” (TPJS p.288).
And finally, President Young (after teaching the false nature of the traditional immaculate conception) said: “Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation“ (JD 1:51, emphasis mine).
True, we shouldn’t be casting pearls before swine, but I am concerned that the mantra of “it’s not important to my salvation” will prove the loss of salvation for some.
Comment # 8 left by Wade on January 11th, 2006
Before I respond let me make sure everyone is on the same page. Namely, I understand Salvation to mean Becoming as God is and I understand the Mary/God discussion to be whether or not God actually had sex with Mary. This is what I am hinging my arguments on.
As to the issue of teachings being important to salvation, do we honestly belief that ANY truth is not needed to obtain exaltation?
This is mischaracterizing my point, by ignoring the clause I added at the end of my salvation statement:
“Nor can i think of a reason that I might fall short of my salvation if I never actually know the truth about the subject during my mortal probation.”
Obviously, to be like God I must know all things. But that does not mean right now and it especially does not mean speculating or drawing inferences from vague commentary on the conception of Christ. Which is how I am characterizing all the quotes I have yet seen. I have never believed in the Immaculate Conception (although thank you to Wade for bringing an actual source confirming my disbelief) But I have also never seen a specific description of the process, whether it was an intimate relation as we currently know it or whether it was by some other means of which we are currently unfamiliar.
“I am concerned that the mantra of “it’s not important to my salvation” will prove the loss of salvation for some”
My concern (which I will contend trumps yours) is that doctrines like the Mary/God issue are not worth getting too caught up in because it will prove the loss of salvation of many more people who are offended by what they think is doctrine but what is really misunderstanding.
Which all leads back to the question, will raising controversial issues, or even challenging what is taught in Gospel Doctrine or Elders Quorum or wherever lead to contention that, if consistent, will lead to a lack of the spirit? Or does the spirit leave when false doctrine is taught so sounding the alarm is merely an effort to bring it back?
Comment # 9 left by Ryan on January 11th, 2006
“This is mischaracterizing my point, by ignoring the clause I added at the end…”
Good point, I stand corrected in inferring that you believe not ALL truth is necessary. Yet, do you believe that if a truth is available in this life and available to you, that you should ignore it because you can learn it later?
“My concern (which I will contend trumps yours) is that doctrines like the Mary/God issue are not worth getting too caught up in because it will prove the loss of salvation of many more people who are offended by what they think is doctrine but what is really misunderstanding.”
I don’t discern that there is much to get “too caught up in” here. And for those who get offended when they learn what they thought was truth is really not, these are those who don’t seek truth because they love it.
But, over-all I agree with you Ryan, that certain truths should not be given or discussed in Church because some will be offended and the contention will drive the Spirit away.
As Joseph said:
“The evil of being puffed up with correct (though useless) knowledge is not so great as the evil of contention” (TPJS p.287).
I suppose the exact procedure of conception is useless although correct knowledge and should never be discussed. But, the fact that the Son is the literal Son of the Father is NOT useless and learning this truth I think is important. Nevertheless, we should not be “puffed” up with this knowledge and I now concede that it should never be discussed in Church because of the contention wrought by those who are easily offended.
Comment # 10 left by Wade on January 11th, 2006
It’s kind of sad isn’t it. It goes back to your point (which I mentioned in church last week) about how much truth we don’t get to have because we aren’t ready for it.
We were discussing the apostasy and how there truly were righteous men who, as our teacher said it, “did what they could with the light they had” and I referenced you and suggested that it probably is not unlikely that the same will be said of our generation during the millenium. That, “we did what we could with the light we had” and they will shake their heads in a moment of reticence for the restored gospel that couldn’t be completely restored because the church remained under condemnation.
Comment # 11 left by Ryan on January 11th, 2006
Yet, do you believe that if a truth is available in this life and available to you, that you should ignore it because you can learn it later?
Hmm.. give me some time to consider the implications of that statement…
Comment # 12 left by Ryan on January 11th, 2006
Someone left a great comment over at T&S in a post about the intensity and reality of blogs.
“Actually, the only time I enjoy reading blogs is when it is “just blogging” - I get creeped out when people feel comfortable “hav(ing) the tamarity to dogmatize on which the Lord has seen fit to remain silent.”
Comment # 13 left by Ryan on January 11th, 2006
I see the wisdom in that statemnt.
Perhaps we do get a little blaize about some of these important/sacred things.
Comment # 14 left by Ian on January 11th, 2006
Another thing that just came to mind on the subject of knowledge.
Will the lord require us to know more than what is in the official manuals or scriptures of the church? Is there more to our salvation than what is contained there?
Comment # 15 left by Ian on January 11th, 2006
“Will the lord require us to know more than what is in the official manuals or scriptures of the church?”
This is an interesting question! I don’t believe the official Church manuals contain all saving truth - they are only guidelines for teachers and leaders. However, as for the scriptures, I for one don’t think we need more than what is contained in them to obtain the knowledge required of us in this life. But, there is so much contained in the scriptures that it would take more than a life-time to learn anyway.
Take for example how Christ was able to teach scripture to some of his most faithful disciples:
“And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:32).
Also, it is common folklore of the Church that we will receive more scripture (i.e. the sealed portion of the B.O.M.) when we are worthy to have it.
So, the short answer I would give is that God will require us to know more knowledge than what is contained in scripture if we desire to be exalted; but I don’t think obtaining this knowledge during our probation is necessary.
But, the scriptures also teach that “Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come” (DC 130:18-19, emphasis mine).
I think the more critical question here is what advantage over others in the next life will those who sought and obtained more truth in this life have?
Comment # 16 left by Wade on January 11th, 2006
I think the more critical question here is what advantage over others in the next life will those who sought and obtained more truth in this life have?
That is an excellent question, is it just the advantage of decreased learning time before you move on to Godhood? I find this to be a bit unlikely because it seems to me that the even the most learned of us will know nary more than a particle of all there is to know. How could
Comment # 17 left by Ryan on January 11th, 2006
whoops, posted too soon
I meant to italicize Wade’s remarks and finish with:
How could such a finite difference in knowledge be so important as to lead the Lord to call it an “advantage”
Comment # 18 left by Ryan on January 11th, 2006
“…it seems to me that even the most learned of us will know nary more than a particle of all there is to know. How could such a finite difference in knowledge be so important as to lead the Lord to call it an “advantage”?
Yes, I do think it is interesting! Yet, maybe we underestimate the worth of these truths many seem to think are frivolous.
I again cite Brother Brigham’s statement: “Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation” (JD 1:51, emphasis mine).
Comment # 19 left by Wade on January 11th, 2006
This one quotation (made, interestingly enough and conincidentally, after his exposition of Christ’s origin) is strong language and for some reason I am convicted by it! Thus, derives my belief that we should seek understanding and truth instead of wiling away the hours watching t.v. etc…
Comment # 20 left by Wade on January 11th, 2006
I agree that it is much better to be caught up in things of the kingdom rather than watching another crappy detective show…
What about wasting time bloggin, is that ok? =-)
Another thing, I am always wary about any quote from the Journal of Discourses. Much of what is in there is only second hand accounts of what was actually said. We beleive that the Bible is correct, as long as it is translated correctly. Perhaps we can look at the JoD in the same light.
That to me doesn’t discredit the complete journal, but it does force me to take much of what is said with a grain of salt.
Perhaps sometimes we have to read it with the spirit of discernment.
The Journal of discourses is something I need to pick up and read sometime.
Comment # 21 left by Ian on January 11th, 2006
“What about wasting time bloggin, is that ok?”
Ha ha, yeah I can already tell that this blogging thing is going to be something I will have to learn to discipline myself about.
As for the JD, I have heard a lot of negative things about it! I think your idea about taking it with a grain of salt as we do with the Bible is probably a good idea. However, I have never been very concerned about anything I’ve read in the JD. True, a lot of things that come out of the JD may be controversial, but only because people today are not as receptive to truths as they used to be. We have become subject to the norms of our time and often refuse to see the light! Just because we may not understand something, or we don’t think it jives with what we already believe doesn’t mean something isn’t true.
As for the transcription of the discourses: I also don’t discern that there would be too many errors there. This is why, the JD was first published in 1853, B.Y. died in 1877. That’s 24 years that President Young had to clarify anything that might have been erroneously transcribed!!! This is significant in my mind. Also, they were published under the direction and endorsement of the First Presidency.
Finally, the 20th Century Apostle John A. Widtsoe said concerning the J.D., “The public utterances of few great historical figures have been so faithfully and fully preserved” (Discourses of B.Y., emphasis mine). And, George Q. Cannon said, “The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of ‘the light that shines from Zion’s hill” (J.D. preface to vol. 8).
Sadly, I believe the norms of the world have prevented the Church from being able to declare some of the things in the JD and the Church has therefore distanced itself from them - perhaps we should too in this public arena / blog???
Comment # 22 left by Wade on January 11th, 2006
Perhaps you are right about the JD.
Have you actually read them? Just curious because I have only read a little bit of it.
Check out this article that appeared in the Ensign in 1978.
As I wrote this the question came to mind, should articles in the Ensign trump the JD?
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1978.htm/ensign%20august%201978%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0
Comment # 23 left by Ian on January 12th, 2006
“should articles in the Ensign trump the JD?”
To the extent that an article in the Ensign is from an Apostle, I think that the article should clearly trump anything said in the JD.
As for the article you referrenced, I thought it was interesting - especially coming from someone who has read all 26 volumes. What I liked most about the article was his caution about priorities in study! I think it is crucial to not be studing sources other than current prophetic messages and scripture unless one has accomplished this already. One should study and get a good handle on the scriptures and revealed truth before delving into tangential readings.
I do think that one comment Jones made in the article was a bit disingenuous though. He said, “Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents.” I think this statement comes close to absurd! Does any rational person honestly believe that the First Presidency would officially endorse something and even encourage the membership of the Church to read it if there could be even an ounce of doctrinal inaccuracy contained in it? And if a person believes the First Presidency would do this, even if by accident, why would such a person trust them after the fact - especially when that same President of the Church had virtually a quarter of a century to correct any inaccuracies but did not do so?
Finally, Jones confirms my whole take on the JD in the last sentence of the article. He said, “the most pertinent discussion of gospel doctrines and answers to life’s problems and source of spiritual inspiration in today’s world comes from the standard works and our living prophets.” The words “Today’s World” pretty much sum up my thoughts on the subject, i.e. under current conditions and sentiment, we as a Church cannot handle the JD because we constantly change with the tides of traditional acceptence (we meaning the membership and not the Head of the Church).
Comment # 24 left by Wade on January 12th, 2006
“Have you actually read them? Just curious because I have only read a little bit of it.”
I have read numerous articles in the Journal of Discourses. However, most of my reading was done either on my mission (where we were allowed to read them if we had already memorized the discussions and were done with our daily study), or within the first couple of years after my mission when I was more disciplined and focused on seeking out truth.
However, I love learning and want to understand the “mysteries” so my mind is virtually impervious to challenges from any statement made by any general authority. Indeed I may say I follow the admonition of Paul wherein he taught to prove all things and hold fast to that which is true.
It is my belief that some truths that have been revealed in this dispensation have already been lost due to our love of vanity, worldiness, and tradition. But, I don’t believe any truths have been lost which if unknown in THIS life will keep anyone out of the C.K. In my mind, there are only three things that need be known in this life: The priesthood authority to secure salvation exists in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Through this authority of God, one must repent (i.e. be worthy to receive the ordinances of the priesthood); and one must forgive all offenses committed against him/her. All else are truths necessary for exaltation but need not be known in this life - yet those who do know them will have an advantage over those who do not!
Comment # 25 left by Wade on January 12th, 2006
Another Sunday means another round of IDIOTs! The bishop was in attendance in GD yesterday wherein the teacher taught that the earth was celestialized before the fall. After class the bishop told me he was going to have to “look that one up”. He seemed really unsure about that one.
Personally, I don’t know whether that is true or not. On first thought it actually seems right to me? I just that it was interesting that the bishop, although he seriously doubts that teaching, didn’t say a word in class. So, he seems to follow our take on the whole correction deal.
Comment # 26 left by Wade on January 23rd, 2006
Going back to the very first comment, I don’t see them as against each other. Having visions and other things was very much popular. Expressing them was something entirely different. It could, and often did, get you into serious trouble.
Comment # 27 left by Jettboy on March 6th, 2006