Cooking with wine

[NerdGirl]

The idea that the general authorities don't automatically agree on everything all the time and actually disagree sometimes is something I like, because to me it suggests that there actually is inspiration involved, not just a bunch of yes-men blindly following their leader, and also that God has enough trust in their leadership and decision making skills to not always reveal everything in detail right away but to let them work it out for themselves and come to Him for confirmation. But I guess that's not quite the same thing as dissension, and I've never read the book in question, so I have no idea how it portrays the general authorities.

[FauxRaiden]

I would think that the inspiration of church leaders is subject to some interpretation.

Much like two different people could read the same scripture and get two different meanings out of it, I can see two different authorities have the same revelation and interpret it differently.

[bismark]

You all need to shut up and read your Correlation-approved handbooks before you get excommunicated.

[insert rant here about annoying stuff]

[Marduk]

Thanks for fixing that, Bismark. I'll go ahead and edit my post as well, so there's no evidence of your....indiscretion...

[bismark]

-

[bismark]

-

[Marduk]

Anyway, let's get back to the regularly scheduled discussion, enough of this interruption.

I've always been curious: why do all the anti-caffeine heads seem to make exception for hot chocolate? It seems to me if we take issue with caffeinated beverages, we should take issue with hot chocolate (or chocolate milk, for that matter).

[Gimgimno]

[insert rant using chemistry jargon about theophylline and theobromine and how they differ from caffeine that no one reads or cares about]

There. I just spared all of you.

[ahem.]

I've always been curious: why do all the anti-caffeine heads seem to make exception for hot chocolate? It seems to me if we take issue with caffeinated beverages, we should take issue with hot chocolate (or chocolate milk, for that matter).

I know a few people who abstain from chocolate as well. So not all anti-caffeine heads make an exception.

[insert rant using chemistry jargon about theophylline and theobromine and how they differ from caffeine that no one reads or cares about]

I've also heard people use this excuse for why "caffeine" in chocolate is okay.


I think there's a spectrum, and there are people all along it.

[Katya]

I think there's a spectrum, and there are people all along it.

I've found that a spectrum (or concentric circles) is one of the best ways of explaining Mormon beliefs, because there is so much individual interpretation.

E.g., probably 90% of active Mormons don't drink tea or coffee, 70% don't drink caffeinated beverages, 50% won't have mocha-flavored desserts, 30% won't take Excedrin, and 0.5% won't eat chocolate. (I'm making those numbers up off the top of my head, but you get the idea.)

[Imogen]

Well considering that almost all of LDS scholarship today raved about the book, its openess and honesty, and that it in no way tries to shake the readers testimony, and tha 95 percent of the controversial material is backed by a primary, quoted source, I'd say that the charge that a former mission president and the head of the most respected LDS scholarly journal have some sort of ulterior motive to make up sources is somewhat dubious. Have you even read the book? Or are you just quoting some conservative member of the bloggernacle or high priests' group?

Let's get even more controversial, shall we? The Steed family doesn't exist, and the Brethren don't always get along or see eye to eye and, yes, disagree very strongly sometimes.

Of course people who want to believe that there is dissension among the general authorities, and that the Church leadership is after all is just a group of mostly uninspired old men, are going to rave about it. I read a few chapters in it. I found it a very dishonest book. Sure, there are a few moments when a select few Church leaders appear to have an inspired moment now and then. The controversial parts have references that you can't look up. At least one of the authors is a political hack. I trust nothing in the book. By the way I don't say they made up the sources, I say they interpret what the sources say, and you have no means to verify it. They use unofficial, dubious hearsay kinds of references. What one of the authors remembered his aunt having said she heard President McKay say when she was his secretary, is not a primary source in my book. And I think she would be horrified to see how her nephew distorted the story. There is a good reason the Church does not approve of this kind of "scholarship" using unofficial notes and items taken home without permission, and interpreted to fit the agenda of some author. And that agenda is that the Church is primarily a human institution, mingled with scattered inspiration.

um...vorpal, not to be too rude, but did you read craig's actual post? he said that LDS scholars praise this book, not just random folks off the street or people who hate your church. and to say the author's aunt would be "horrified" is probably a stretch. you didn't like this book. fine. you don't have to, but your vitriol in responding to craig's post is out of line. he's an RM (which is apparently a big deal). i'm sure he's not going around quoting things that will hurt your church, even anonymously.

[vorpal blade]

um...vorpal, not to be too rude, but did you read craig's actual post? he said that LDS scholars praise this book, not just random folks off the street or people who hate your church. and to say the author's aunt would be "horrified" is probably a stretch. you didn't like this book. fine. you don't have to, but your vitriol in responding to craig's post is out of line. he's an RM (which is apparently a big deal). i'm sure he's not going around quoting things that will hurt your church, even anonymously.

Yes, I did notice that he said that. I haven't taken the time to see just which LDS scholars he is talking about. I made up my on independent assessment of the book. I can't prove that the author's aunt would be horrified to read the book, that is just my opinion based on what I know of Claire Middlemiss and what I know of the book. So, I'll retract that statement. I do feel strongly about the book, but there was no vitriol intended, and I don't see it now. There are a lot of well meaning people who water down any church principles they feel may offend non-believers. Sometimes people get caught up in some book and don't even realize that is what is happening. I think the book in question is one of those books. Hurting the church is the furtherest thing from their minds. I don't mean to say that I believe Craig Jessop wants to hurt the Church; far from it.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this. And I don't think you were being rude to me, Imogen.

I guess I will add that I have a lot of experience with stake leaders. For almost ten years I met with the stake presidency in every meeting they held (except interviews). They had different life experiences, and they would come at problems from different directions, but there was never the kind of disharmony, contention, political manuevering, lobbying, and scheming that you see in the David O. McKay book. Basically, they all acted like they were inspired by the same Divine Being, and they acted in unity. Now, I've met many of the General Authorities, and I have no reason to believe that they are in any way less inspired or less awesome, than the leadership in my stake. So, I find it very hard to believe that behind the scenes at Church headquarters it is less inspired than in my stake.

[Imogen]

but dissension doesn't mean they're not inspired. just that they disagree, as people do. all churches are ultimately products of imperfect human beings and subject to the whims of humans beings as well.

[vorpal blade]

The way I see it working, Imogen, is for men to have different perceptions when they come to the meeting to discuss the issue. Perhaps they have different opinions on how to proceed. They discuss the issues, they pray about it, and the leader either tables the issue or tells the others how he feels inspired. The others immediately feel the inspiration, knowing it is right. If by chance one of them still does not feel that they have arrived at the correct course of action they postpone the decision until everyone feels that they know what the Lord wants them to do. It usually isn't long before they feel the same inspiration. I've never seen that disagreement last longer than the length of the meeting, though I've heard of instances where it was a week or so if someone is really stuck on a certain idea.

The way it doesn't work is for a decision to be made without unanimous consent freely given. It doesn't work by someone trying to trick the leader into signing something or agreeing to something he wasn't fully informed about. It doesn't work by a faction lobbying for a certain outcome, and continuing to lobby for it after a decision is made, seeking to overturn or undermine the decision made. It doesn't work by continuing rifts, hard feelings about successes or failures of past campaigning efforts to get their will done. But such seems to be the nature of the way it works as I read in the book.

[Craig Jessop]

Vorpal, I see and understand your point and, while I disagree, I recognize that it is valid.

[vorpal blade]

Thanks, Craig Jessop. I appreciate that. I hope there are no hard feelings. Please forgive me if I get over-enthusiastic in my posts.

[Marduk]

The way I see it working, Imogen, is for men to have different perceptions when they come to the meeting to discuss the issue. Perhaps they have different opinions on how to proceed. They discuss the issues, they pray about it, and the leader either tables the issue or tells the others how he feels inspired. The others immediately feel the inspiration, knowing it is right. If by chance one of them still does not feel that they have arrived at the correct course of action they postpone the decision until everyone feels that they know what the Lord wants them to do. It usually isn't long before they feel the same inspiration. I've never seen that disagreement last longer than the length of the meeting, though I've heard of instances where it was a week or so if someone is really stuck on a certain idea.

The way it doesn't work is for a decision to be made without unanimous consent freely given. It doesn't work by someone trying to trick the leader into signing something or agreeing to something he wasn't fully informed about. It doesn't work by a faction lobbying for a certain outcome, and continuing to lobby for it after a decision is made, seeking to overturn or undermine the decision made. It doesn't work by continuing rifts, hard feelings about successes or failures of past campaigning efforts to get their will done. But such seems to be the nature of the way it works as I read in the book.

Let me preface by saying that I have not read the book in question, so I cannot offer any opinions on it. I just wanted to throw a little wrench in the manner of revelation you have described here. I think you would agree that the "different opinions" you are speaking of are based on the study and prayer that each individual member has already done going into the meeting. It certainly is not based solely on a "gut feeling" or visceral reaction. All leaders at any level in the church follow the guidelines for revelation to be recieved; namely, in this case, that prayer and study precede it. After this, they come up with a decision and pray for verification that this is the will of the Lord.

Now, what if there is more than one acceptable solution? Is it possible that based on their individual study, personality, and pre-learned notions that they come up with different solutions, and that either or all solutions, even though they are diverse, are acceptable to the Lord?

You're right, there is not a unit in the church, be it a bishopric, stake presidency, etc. right on up to the first presidency, that moves forward when there is not unanimous approval of the prescribed course of action. But they don't always agree going in, as you mentioned, and the solution that they move forward with, although it has divine sanction, is by no means the only action that could have been taken.