GaTech Raley wrote:
This in combination with an honest examination of the church's history has led me to be bothered by the memberships' blind faith in church leadership.
I also call into question what you consider "an honest examination of the church's history".
Care to elaborate?
Assuming the restoration happened, an honest examination of the church's history would preclude people from revering the senior leadership the way they do today. While everyone says TCOJCOLDS does not have an infallibility doctrine, EFFECTIVELY there is one.
The idea that "the prophet could never lead you astray" is not doctrinal. It was put forth by a president of the church who was basing keeping his authority on that very idea. Unfortunately, that idea stuck and is so ingrained it will not leave the church. Further, it has been effectively applied to the twelve. And is also implicit to stake presidents and bishops. If the prophet will not lead us astray, he would not call stake presidents/bishops who would.
This has many negative consequences. First, people do not think for themselves. When considering whether they should eat tiramisu or an iced mocha latte (because it is a coffee derivative), they think what has the general authorities said on the matter instead of reasoning it out for themselves. This misplaced reliance on authority on man is not good. Second, we reverence and even worship man. Never a good idea to worship man. Lastly, it is a recipe for self destruction. They are wrong and contradict each other all the time. BRM and BKP say there's no evolution, and people turn their heads off, because they must be right, the Lord would never lead us astray. (Which actually is an inherently problematic theology. In a world where God allows man free agency to the effect of slaughtering millions of people, he would not allow presidents of the church to make mistakes. And if they want to make a mistake God has to kill them to prevent them from leading others astray. Truly bizarre doctrine-even if you believe the rest.) People still get all uptight when you mention evolution, even though BYU teaches evolution. People still talk about a world wide flood and there was no continental drift until "after the days of Palay"-or whatever.
The church looks so screwed up because people keep adhering to every stupid thing a fallible person said. Blood atonement, Adam/God, etc.
" in combination with an honest examination of the church's history"
Assuming the church was restored, the church was never set up to revere man so much. It slowly crept in and grew bigger and bigger until all the children sing "Follow the Prophet...Dont go astray." Hell, if we follow the prophet what do we need the scriptures or Christ for.
Most members do not know that calling the president of the church "prophet" is relatively knew. Brigham Young, Taylor, etc through Joseph F. Smith were called "presidents of the church". Calling the president, "Prophet" has created a cult of personality within the church for the office.
I also am deeply troubled by the correlation committee. I'm tired and don't really want to elaborate on that.
I am not sure if that answers your question. You said, "what you consider 'an honest examination of the church's history'" I also think an honest examination would conclude that even if Brigham Young did not explicitly order the MMM, he harbored the environment where that became possible.
I think an honest examination would conclude EVEN IF plural marriage was originally commanded by God, the church totally abused it.
The blacks should have had the priesthood way before 1978.
An honest examination would likely show that the fullness of the gospel was taken back, assuming of course it was ever received. Even D&C 124 talks about the need to build the Nauvoo temple in order for the keys to be restored. The Nauvoo temple wasn't finished before JS died or the saints left. So when were the keys to the fullness given back to the church?
An HONEST examination would address these issues, and not explain them away or make excuses. "Passing the Heavenly Gift" addresses these, doesn't excuse them. He has been called an apostate by many TBMs. He's not an apologist. If you are baffled on why he would still go to church, well, that was what I thought was interesting about this book.