Man may receive God's grace through Christ's atonement alone.Priests and Church authority figures are needed or required.Why
some people feel the need to place themselves under the authority of men and
institutions rather than God and God alone is really a mystery to me.
To "marxist " you are wrong. The United Order didn't fail because
of capitalism. It failed because people were disobedient.You should
also realize that the term alt-right means the LEFT, since the alternate to the
right is the left. You should also realize that Nazi's are on the left.
Christendom killed people like stacks of cordwood. Guess the writer would not
want to mention Islam killing 250 million since its inception. The Prophet
Mohammed as he went along conquered thousands. 25,000 Jews in one town were
slaughtered for opposing him. The other great killers of history are atheists,
Hitler with perhaps 50 million or more dead, Mao 60 million. Pol Pot maybe only
2 million what a piker.
The freethinker in me believes there is no such thing as absolute freedom; man
is always subject to someone or something outside of self. Man is a slave. Even
the “freedom” to choose is still influenced and/or dictated by
something outside of self; that is if we can definitively define "self".
Philosophically speaking, of course. lol!!
I don't consider myself a "smart" person, but I love to read their
thoughts even though I don't understand them all. I enjoyed reading this
article and and the comments. There are many smart people commenting on this,
thanks. This quote, I believe, is at the root of Joseph's teachings
and his confidence in the saints being able to follow the Church's
leadership; " seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning
even by study and also by faith; ". The Church leaders today are doing the
same thing as Joseph and through their faith are implementing procedures and
policies that appear as "great reforms". In many cases the these are
not changes, but just acknowledgements of a changing society, the Proclamation
on the Family is a great example. I will state the obvious here, the last
4 words of the quote above are the most important "and also by faith."
That is what allows our freedom of choice and our desire to conform to be
harmonious most of the time. We are not conforming to "Church
leadership", we are conforming through our faith to God's will. I am
grateful for the Holy Ghost that helps guide me through this conundrum.
Douthat is quoted stating that Luther's reforms "...ultimately
permitted liberalism to triumph.” 1. Religion is only one factor in the
rise of liberalism. Liberalism rejected all political and social norms of
hereditary power, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the divine right of
kings, in favor of humankind's natural right to self govern. The American
experiment is the apex of that movement. 2. Mr. Boyd frames Mr. Carlyle's
opinion as an apologetics for Mormonism's ability to reconcile freedom and
tyranny. I argue that it is not Mormonism that reconciles the freedom of the
political ballot, and the personal choice to follow a despot (a "good"
or "bad" despot), but the American form liberalism, not Mormonism - one
could invoke Puritans following tyrant ministers, Catholics free to vote, and
pledge allegiance to infallible popes, or Millerites freely following Miller to
the rapture. Submission to a tribal tyrant for the good of the tribe and for
self interest is as old as humans - liberalism, the European Enlightenment, and
its American political incarnation resolved the dilemma of separating tribal
authoritarianism from the body politic, not a particular religious movement.
@BoMerit "Marxist; can we assume that the LDS Church would be more fitting
for your liking if LDS leaders had no moral authority by which members of the
faith would voluntarily fit their behaviors? "No. I hold the
leadership of the LDS Church in high esteem. I only wished to point out that we
may well be in a time of passage. The Protestant Reformation with the attendant
rise of capitalism was a major passage. The acceptance of Utah into the union,
along with acceptance in Utah of the national system was another passage.The passage we are into now may be a rough one. Moreover the duality of
freedom and obedience described by the writer may be of great use.
In the end, no analysis of this subject is complete without understanding where
Brigham Young got this mild yet mighty temperament from - his predecessor Joseph
Smith. And Joseph cannot be understood on this subject - without quoting his
response to the query about how he governed the people of Nauvoo to such order:
"I teach the correct principles and they govern themselves." Also, the
Lord's demands communicated through Joseph to church members that they
shouldn't be commanded in all things but should use their agency to do many
good things without compulsion. There is, therefore, a flip side to this topic.
The truly righteous & benevolent leader works to preserve the liberty of
his subjects to continue to do those good things that come to their own minds
through the instrumentality of spiritual communications and of their own human
love. The fostering of love and agency together creates a powerful nation.
Self-interest need not always been manifest in greed if proper teachings are
widely distributed in curriculum (catechism), in print, and in example.
Sacrifice can be a matter of agency and not just divine dictum. I think people
taught this well would never fall.
Marxist; can we assume that the LDS Church would be more fitting for your liking
if LDS leaders had no moral authority by which members of the faith would
voluntarily fit their behaviors? Assuming your socio-political preferences are
in alignment with your social media handle, I find it strange you join
like-minded choruses in calling for near anarchy while being well aware that
disorder's void will be filled with powerful characters stepping in to
force order upon the people who now crave security. On the other hand; in stark
opposition to LDS Church leaders who are constantly preaching voluntary love for
neighbor and frequent sacrificial acts of service, communist leaders encourage
tattle-telling and breakdowns in social discipline so the small minority ruling
interests of the state can be protected and perpetrated. Eventually you get
your order, and all of us have a qualitative decision to make: should we listen
to the preaching of religious leaders and voluntarily make our world a better
place to live, or should we give up those freedoms in return for promises of
security at the hands of those very people who would point their weapons at
their own citizens & kind?
There's another Christian tradition that is independent of all of this
European-centric history and understanding of the theology of Jesus, yet trace
their lineage as Christians all the way back to Jesus' apostle, Thomas:
The Nasrani / St. Thomas Christians, of the southwest coast of India.The St. Thomas Christians have quite different views than the other branches
of Christianity, yet also have a documented, uninterrupted claim to the
Christian priesthood, provided directly by Thomas the Apostle.
"Carlyle observes, referring to Brigham Young, that The Mormon Governor is
supreme in Mormon Conviction; what he does and orders is what every good Mormon
is longing to see done. That is the secret of just despotism, of a Despotism
which can be called beneficent.Setting aside the loose terminology, for Carlyle,
Kerry writes, the genius of Mormonism is its uniting of wills: the members
hearken to their King, and he in turn has their best interests at heart and
through them has the ability to see that their needs are met. So Carlyle
writes that BY was a King and a Despot and the flock blindly obeys. And Hal Boyd
thinks that's a good thing?
Interesting article. I always considered the Protestant vs Catholic stances to
be based on Priesthood authority vs faith as the most important aspect of
Christ's church. Of course, the religious and secular power of the Church
was an issue. I believe the LDS doctrine of Priesthood authority operating in
coordination with faith settled that problem, nicely. Then, the doctrine of
Agency was a stunning principle. The God - given right for a person to make
his/her own choices, and thereby be responsible for those choices, enables one
to choose the kind of person he/she becomes. To quote ( freely ) Cecil B.
DeMille, " People don't break God's commandments, they break
themselves against the commandments." Christ's atonement enables us to
make corrections and obtain forgiveness from God. And this is the road to true
Really interesting article. I would suggest reading Mosiah 29 where King Mosiah
outlines different forms of government. He states the best form of government is
a Kingdom led by a righteous king, but since there is no guarantee a king or
reign of kings will remain righteous he establishes a republic made up of judges
voted on by the people to rule. When Christ comes again he will rule as King of
Kings and Lord of Lords and his Kingdom will perfectly balance justice and mercy
"Martin Luther’s 95 Theses — which turned 500 this week —
roiled the religious order of his day. More than a theological debate about
indulgences or the pope’s powers over purgatory, today the Theses which
sparked the Protestant Reformation have come to symbolize individualism’s
conquest over authority — an adumbration of the enlightenment, the
American Revolution and Western liberalism’s modern retreat from religious
authority."The Theses, along with Calvin's Doctrine of the
Calling created the capitalist revolution. And capitalism curbed the
Papacy's power. Similarly the onslaught of American capitalism curbed the
powers of Brigham Young and subsequent LDS leadership as Utah was transformed
from a system of United Orders to pretty much plain American capitalism.This was a major transformation, but much authority remains in the LDS
leadership. Now I believe we may be undergoing another transformation in the
enormous disruption of traditional American politics, wrought by Trump, Bannon
and the alt-right (neo-Nazis). How LDS society might be transformed by this,
along with the rest of the country, is anybody's guess.
Both Calvin and Luther allied themselves to the local governmental authorities,
so religious freedom did not exist there. Both were in favor of using the power
of the state to put down religious thought they disagreed with. About the only
places that had religious freedom in the 17th century was The Netherlands, Rhode
Island, and Pennsylvania. Calvin actually had someone burned at the stake he
disagreed with. It wasn't until the 18th century that religious toleration
spread in England and her American Colonies.
Sorry. I hit submit nut accident. I was going to say that without personal
revelation you would not get the unifying obedience mentioned in the article. I
know that without it (personal revelation) I would not be one to be told what to
do or not do.