There are many who profess to be religious and speak of themselves as Christians, and, according to one such, “as accepting the scriptures only as sources of inspiration and moral truth,” and then ask in their smugness: “Do the revelations of God give us a handrail to the kingdom of God, as the Lord’s messenger told Lehi, or merely a compass?”
Unfortunately, some are among us who claim to be Church members but are somewhat like the scoffers in Lehi’s vision—standing aloof and seemingly inclined to hold in derision the faithful who choose to accept Church authorities as God’s special witnesses of the gospel and his agents in directing the affairs of the Church.
There are those in the Church who speak of themselves as liberals who, as one of our former presidents has said, “read by the lamp of their own conceit.” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine [Deseret Book Co., 1939], p. 373.) One time I asked one of our Church educational leaders how he would define a liberal in the Church. He answered in one sentence: “A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony.”
Dr. John A. Widtsoe, former member of the Quorum of the Twelve and an eminent educator, made a statement relative to this word liberal as it applied to those in the Church. This is what he said:
“The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs. … He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations. …
“It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth.”
And then Dr. Widtsoe concludes his statement with this: “It is well to beware of people who go about proclaiming that they are or their churches are liberal. The probabilities are that the structure of their faith is built on sand and will not withstand the storms of truth.” (“Evidences and Reconciliations,” Improvement Era, vol. 44 [1941], p. 609.)
Here again, to use the figure of speech in Lehi’s vision, they are those who are blinded by the mists of darkness and as yet have not a firm grasp on the “iron rod.”
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if, when there are questions which are unanswered because the Lord hasn’t seen fit to reveal the answers as yet, all such could say, as Abraham Lincoln is alleged to have said, “I accept all I read in the Bible that I can understand, and accept the rest on faith.”
How comforting it would be to those who are the restless in the intellectual world, when such questions arise as to how the earth was formed and how man came to be, if they could answer as did an eminent scientist and devoted Church member. A sister had asked: “Why didn’t the Lord tell us plainly about these things?” The scientist answered: “It is likely we would not understand if he did. It might be like trying to explain the theory of atomic energy to an eight-year-old child.”
Source: 1971 Conference: “The Iron Rod.”
New Post: From Harold B. Lee: There are many who profess to be religious and speak of themselves … http://t.co/YVtiIQ2AFT #LDS #Mormon
TheMillennialStar: From Harold B. Lee http://t.co/h7XH5oveu6 #lds #mormon
That’s pretty clear. Any questions? Nope.
“Why didn’t the Lord tell us plainly about these things?” Because He is a stumblingblock and a rock of offence, and calls the weak things of the world, the unlearned and despised, like President Lee, to thrash the world with His foolishness, which is greater than the wisdom of men.
I dare say that when we see as we are seen, we’ll realize that He did tell us plainly about these things.
Lee said this in 1971. It goes to show that the Kate Kelly’s and John Dehlin’s of the world are nothing new–they just have a way to spread their message faster and to more people.
For historical buffs, this talk may be seen as a rebuttal to Richard Poll’s then-recent article in Dialogue in which he distinguished between “iron rod” and “Liahona”: members. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V02N04_109.pdf It might or might not an indirect response to Stewart Udall’s also then recent letter published in Dialogue. https://archive.org/stream/StewartUdallConscienceOfAJackMormon/StuartUdall-OpenLetterOnRaceAndConsequencesOfConscience#page/n45/mode/1up I say it might be only because Udall fit President Lee’s definition of a religiously “liberal Mormon”.
David H, it is theoretically possible you are correct, but I personally am doubtful. Prophets when speaking in General Conference are responding to a lot of promptings that are beyond our narrow perspective. We may think our small intellectual concerns are also on the minds of prophets, but I tend to think they are speaking in much broader terms. That is why his message is still relevant today.
Geoff B, I suppose it could be both, too. The Lord could inspire (or approve/confirm in response to a prayerful request for a confirmation) a GA to respond to a specific thing some member wrote or spoke in order that many other members with the same thinking could take note and receive the Lord’s will.
In recent years, it seems like some of the Brethren’s talks were aimed at the Bloggernacle. Ex: Elder Christofferson dissing (that’s not the best word, but I cant think of a more approriate one off the top of my head) people who use the word “exegesis”, and Elder Holland putting the smack-down on the idea that the BoM is inspired fiction.
I believe their staffs, or at least some few people in church HQ do keep apprised of online Mormonism and bring online writings to the Brethren’s attention. That is likely in addition to things that filter up the chain of command from stake presidents, etc. And even though its advised against, I would bet people still write directly to the FP, Q12, and the 70’s.