81 replies to this topic

[Senator]

zerinus, on 14 March 2012 - 07:26 AM, said:

Apologetics is not for preaching the gospel, but defending the faith--two different purposes:

D&C 17:

6 For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly, even power.
7 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.
8 Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.
9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper;
10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.

Everything has its time and place. The purpose of that site was to inform, not do apologetics.

I see.

[Scott Lloyd]

nackhadlow, on 13 March 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

I think we're on the cusp of a paring down, and 'de-doctrinization' of many elements of 'authoritative speculation' and tradition are being, piece by piece, peeled away from those things that we do know and have clear, documented revelation on.

I agree except to say this is not a new thing. It has been going on for quite a while, at least since the advent of the much-maligned priesthood correlation in the 1960s.

[David T]

Scott Lloyd, on 14 March 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

I agree except to say this is not a new thing. It has been going on for quite a while, at least since the advent of the much-maligned priesthood correlation in the 1960s.

The thing is, I think it's taking it to a further level. I do believe the Correlation effort is a net win, although at times its can be its own worst enemy. I think what we're seeing indications of going on now is revisiting the 'approved correlated' ideas that were left to sit there and be republished without question, and finding out which of those really belong in circulation and the 'pre-approval' list to begin with.

[Scott Lloyd]

nackhadlow, on 14 March 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

The thing is, I think it's taking it to a further level. I do believe the Correlation effort is a net win, although at times its can be its own worst enemy. I think what we're seeing indications of going on now is revisiting the 'approved correlated' ideas that were left to sit there and be republished without question, and finding out which of those really belong in circulation and the 'pre-approval' list to begin with.

There's no question it's an ongoing process, the ideal outcome being greater purity of doctrine. Once in a while, something comes along that requires us to kick it into gear, as it were, compelling us to further re-examine what we thought we knew. As examples, I would include the 1978 revelation on the priesthood and the controversy of the last decade pertaining to DNA and the Book of Mormon. The first instance caused none other than Bruce R. McConkie to urge members to discount what he and others had said in the past on that topic, and the second arguably led to an alteration in the introduction to the Book of Mormon.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 14 March 2012 - 10:26 AM.

[BCSpace]

Quote

The thing is, I think it's taking it to a further level. I do believe the Correlation effort is a net win, although at times its can be its own worst enemy. I think what we're seeing indications of going on now is revisiting the 'approved correlated' ideas that were left to sit there and be republished without question, and finding out which of those really belong in circulation and the 'pre-approval' list to begin with.

Quote

There's no question it's an ongoing process, the ideal outcome being greater purity of doctrine. Once in a while, something comes along that requires us to kick it into gear, as it were, compelling us to further re-examine what we thought we knew. As examples, I would include the 1978 revelation on the priesthood and the controversy of the last decade pertaining to DNA and the Book of Mormon. The first instance caused none other than Bruce R. McConkie to urge members to discount what he and others had said in the past on that topic, and the second arguably led to an alteration in the introduction to the Book of Mormon.

And yet we often find that when a revision is made, little to nothing changes such as the much ballyhoo'd Gospel Principles manual and the doctrine that God was once a man (which remains).  There is a lot of hopefulness that certain doctrines will change, but I doubt there will be much movement on those fronts.  The doctrine on the priesthood ban didn't change.  Even the change from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors" is no change at all considering what principal means.

It's much better to develop the proper apologetic than to deny the doctrines.

Edited by BCSpace, 14 March 2012 - 11:25 AM.

[calmoriah]

nackhadlow, on 14 March 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

I think those who say they are doing a 'milk before meat' approach are really saying they feel they are being intentionally misleading, but they feel it's for a good cause.

I don't feel they are hiding anything. They are expressing what we do know. The answers are very honest. While tradition and speculation has had different answers to those questions in years past, the Church is recognizing that is exactrly what they are, and that we don't definitively know that those old assumptions are true.

It's not milk before meat. It's true fortified milk rather than traditional junk food with empty calories. Problem is, many members, through repetition,  have come to actually believe that the junk food with empty calories is actually the meat. That's the  big problem going on now that I think they're trying to solve bit by bit.

Well explained.

[David T]

BCSpace, on 14 March 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

And yet we often find that when a revision is made, little to nothing changes such as the much ballyhoo'd Gospel Principles manual and the doctrine that God was once a man (which remains).  There is a lot of hopefulness that certain doctrines will change, but I doubt there will be much movement on those fronts.  The doctrine on the priesthood ban didn't change.  Even the change from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors" is no change at all considering what principal means.

It's much better to develop the proper apologetic than to deny the doctrines.

I did the list of every change in Gospel Principles 2009 (see the thread here - formatting is funky, and doesn't look like direct links work anymore, but it's all still there). - And it's true. there are no 'major doctrines' changed, even though some duplicate expressions of some were removed from one chapter or another more for editorial purposes than any other. However, there were several instances of subtle changes in phrasing in order to make something more scripturally accurate, rather than a paraphrase which adds assumptions into it.

The subtlety and re-direction of certain emphases is striking, and fascinating. Generally, they tend to widen interpretive understandings rather than constrict them.

Edited by nackhadlow, 14 March 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[Sky]

BCSpace, on 14 March 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

And yet we often find that when a revision is made, little to nothing changes such as the much ballyhoo'd Gospel Principles manual and the doctrine that God was once a man (which remains).  There is a lot of hopefulness that certain doctrines will change, but I doubt there will be much movement on those fronts.  The doctrine on the priesthood ban didn't change.  Even the change from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors" is no change at all considering what principal means.

It's much better to develop the proper apologetic than to deny the doctrines.

You seem to think that you know more about LDS doctrine than anybody else, BCSpace.  But I just want to remind you that just because you say something is doctrine, that that does not necessarily mean that it is.  You get some things right, but not everything.

And it’s not about denying doctrines so much as it is about clarifying and separating doctrine from folklore or speculation.

Members’ getting folklore and doctrine mixed up has already caused the Church enough trouble as it is.  It’s past time that we do something about this.  This is probably one of the reasons why the revised Gospel Principles manual is worded in the most elementary, simplest way possible.  We also have a lot of new members recently baptized into the Church, and the last thing their minds need is to be clouded over or confused with decade’s old outdated and erroneous notions.

[Pahoran]

Stormy Waters, on 13 March 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

The church teaches that members are married for eternity.  They teach that marriage lasts even after death.  So even after a spouse dies, they are still married.  If they choose to marry again, they have multiple wives.  They will certainly have all of their wives when they arrive in the celestial kingdom.  If this is not the case, then why can't women get married in the temple more than once?

You are merely attempting to change the subject.

To call a widower who remarries a "polygamist" is to deliberately mislead people who may not know what you are talking about.  While we are the only significant group I know of that formally regards marriage as eternal, a lot of people believe or hope that family connections may continue after death.  If they remarry after being widowed, does that make them polygamists too?

Polygamy exists when a person has multiple concurrent living spouses.  Calling a remarried widower a polygamist is a clearly intentional equivocation that can have no other purpose than to deceive.

You've been found out.  I recommend you cut your losses at this point.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Bob Oliverio]

calmoriah, on 13 March 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

CFR

Pahoran, on 14 March 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

You are merely attempting to change the subject.

To call a widower who remarries a "polygamist" is to deliberately mislead people who may not know what you are talking about.  While we are the only significant group I know of that formally regards marriage as eternal, a lot of people believe or hope that family connections may continue after death.  If they remarry after being widowed, does that make them polygamists too?

Polygamy exists when a person has multiple concurrent living spouses.  Calling a remarried widower a polygamist is a clearly intentional equivocation that can have no other purpose than to deceive.

You've been found out.  I recommend you cut your losses at this point.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran, on 14 March 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

You are merely attempting to change the subject.

To call a widower who remarries a "polygamist" is to deliberately mislead people who may not know what you are talking about.  While we are the only significant group I know of that formally regards marriage as eternal, a lot of people believe or hope that family connections may continue after death.  If they remarry after being widowed, does that make them polygamists too?

Polygamy exists when a person has multiple concurrent living spouses.  Calling a remarried widower a polygamist is a clearly intentional equivocation that can have no other purpose than to deceive.

You've been found out.  I recommend you cut your losses at this point.

Regards,

Pahoran

Why such hostilities?  I thought it was a fair and meaningful question.

[calmoriah]

Why do you assume a "CFR" is hostile?

[Pahoran]

Bob Oliverio, on 14 March 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Why such hostilities?  I thought it was a fair and meaningful question.

Please recall that he prefaced his "fair and meaningful question" with:

Stormy Waters, on 13 March 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

I think this answer isn't honest.

If he'd said something like "I don't agree" or "It's an oversimplification" or "There's more to it than that," and then went on to say that widowers who were sealed to their first wives and then remarried were engaging in something doctrinally analogous to polygamy, he'd have a point.  But when he bluntly accuses someone of dishonesty and then supports that accusation with a false assertion, he's earned himself a talking to.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Bob Oliverio]

Pahoran, on 14 March 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Please recall that he prefaced his "fair and meaningful question" with:


If he'd said something like "I don't agree" or "It's an oversimplification" or "There's more to it than that," and then went on to say that widowers who were sealed to their first wives and then remarried were engaging in something doctrinally analogous to polygamy, he'd have a point.  But when he bluntly accuses someone of dishonesty and then supports that accusation with a false assertion, he's earned himself a talking to.

Regards,
Pahoran

Still, I thought it was a reasonable and fair question.  We can't always require others to "ask the question we want them to ask".  Wouldn't that be easy and hypnotic!!

[Brian 2.0]

calmoriah, on 12 March 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

The study it footnotes says of those who self-identify as Mormon, etc. etc.

The stats in the flyer are woefully and intentionally misleading.  The percentages and 9-out-of-10 stuff are based off of surveys where "members" means self-identified as such.  But to also tout the 14+ members statistic in the same flyer, which obviously includes everyone, is misleading.  The church knows the ballpark figures of activity and it's nowhere near 77%.  I don't find it ethical to list percentages and stats with the label "member" and then also listed the total membership at 14+ which is obviously not the sample size used for the stat.

It's like saying:

There are 10 total members of the weekly dance club.
100% of members attend every week.

When in reality there is only 1 person of the 10 that claim to still be a part of the dance club, and it's that 1 member that shows up every week.

Anyway you want to slice it, it's misleading, and the church should know better.

[Stormy Waters]

Brian 2.0, on 14 March 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

Anyway you want to slice it, it's misleading, and the church should know better.

I agree completely.  It would be interesting to know who put the infographic together.

[Sky]

Brian 2.0, on 14 March 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

The stats in the flyer are woefully and intentionally misleading.  The percentages and 9-out-of-10 stuff are based off of surveys where "members" means self-identified as such.  But to also tout the 14+ members statistic in the same flyer, which obviously includes everyone, is misleading.  The church knows the ballpark figures of activity and it's nowhere near 77%.  I don't find it ethical to list percentages and stats with the label "member" and then also listed the total membership at 14+ which is obviously not the sample size used for the stat.

It's like saying:

There are 10 total members of the weekly dance club.
100% of members attend every week.

When in reality there is only 1 person of the 10 that claim to still be a part of the dance club, and it's that 1 member that shows up every week.

Anyway you want to slice it, it's misleading, and the church should know better.

I don't think the picture is as gloomy as you are trying to paint it.

[Stormy Waters]

Pahoran, on 14 March 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

You are merely attempting to change the subject.

To call a widower who remarries a "polygamist" is to deliberately mislead people who may not know what you are talking about.  While we are the only significant group I know of that formally regards marriage as eternal, a lot of people believe or hope that family connections may continue after death.  If they remarry after being widowed, does that make them polygamists too?

Polygamy exists when a person has multiple concurrent living spouses.  Calling a remarried widower a polygamist is a clearly intentional equivocation that can have no other purpose than to deceive.

You've been found out.  I recommend you cut your losses at this point.

Regards,
Pahoran

The newsroom should have stated that men cannot practice plural marriage with more than one living wife for clarity.  Funny how the newsroom omits that men can acquire more than one wife in this life, and have them all at once in heaven.  Anyone who has concerns about plural marriage will certainly be interested to learn this little detail.  Maybe they can use 'milk before meat' as an excuse to withhold this information until they are 'ready'.  But I guess that's probably harder for them to pull off with the internet these days.  I wonder if polyandry will be mention in Mormonism 201...

[KevinG]

In my experience 50% of members of record attend every month.
90% of monthly attendees (which our Stake uses as a metric of "active") attend every week
The information from the Pew research center is likely to be very accurate - but you would need to know what the question was or the sampling pool was to know the definition of attendance or active they were using.  (Active, of record, Monthly, weekly, etc.)

My question is why the obsession with proving Mormons attend or do not attend in numbers?  I thought salvation and belief was an individual thing?

[KevinG]

Stormy Waters, on 14 March 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

The newsroom should have stated that men cannot practice plural marriage with more than one living wife for clarity.  Funny how the newsroom omits that men can acquire more than one wife in this life, and have them all at once in heaven.  Anyone who has concerns about plural marriage will certainly be interested to learn this little detail.  Maybe they can use 'milk before meat' as an excuse to withhold this information until they are 'ready'.  But I guess that's probably harder for them to pull off with the internet these days.  I wonder if polyandry will be mention in Mormonism 201...

Oh brother here we go again...  The church does not have a public forum on the difficulties of sealings following the death of a Spouse or divorce (which is a problem in and of itself) and we're accused of witholding information.

Were doing a pretty bad job of withholding information if every Tom, Richard and Critic has intimate knowledge of how we do things.

[Stormy Waters]

KevinG, on 14 March 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

My question is why the obsession with proving Mormons attend or do not attend in numbers?  I thought salvation and belief was an individual thing?

In the infographic contained in the link, the church uses the pew survey to claim 77% weekly attendance.  But the pew survey is people who self-identify as members and not the general membership.  The question is if that is honest considering the church probably has access to much more accurate statistics.