The Modern Apostasy - Grab Some Popcorn, Watch The Show

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"What will save the Church?"

Whatever it is, I hope it saves Brother Reznor, too. He seems to be suffering from a wee bit o' defeatism.

[Buckeye]

Hi Log,

Glad to see that this thread has been kept open. Hopefully all can engage in respectful discourse so that it remains so. I also think our "times" have significant parallels with those of the primitive church, as well as those of church in the early restoration and then end of the 19th century. For some reason, we are all prone to think that our "times" are the very end times. Someday that will prove correct. But we in the early 21st century may likely find that our days were not then end times any more than Peter's, Joseph's or Brigham's. I prefer to get into "the fray" and work towards good rather than to sit on the sidelines eating popcorn while the world goes to hell.

As far as changes go, I also sense movement. For instance, the church is now showing an openness to including women in more leadership roles (particularly the ward council) and in showcasing the good women can do apart from motherhood (see the various profiles on mormon.org). Likewise, the church has retreated from its teachings that those with homosexual feelings should try to change those feelings and instead forused on compassion and understanding. Where will the future take us? I'm not sure. But I do not think that women's priesthood, or homosexual marriage, or acceptance of evolution in the creation story, or any other "pet issue" will prove insurmountable. The church as survived through bigger changes in the past - polygamy instituted, polygamy stopped, racial priesthood ban removed, need for circumcision removed, gospel open to the gentiles, and on and on. Our issues are not bigger than those.

There is a considerable difference between reading the scriptures in light of modern issues and newly discovered knowledge and "falsifying the scriptures" - to use your phrase. Questioning, studying, discussing and testifying to each other of our experiences does not conflict with the scriptures. It is the method by which scripture itself is received.

How will we avoid apostacy? I would suggest reading again Elder Christofferson's conference address from April 2012 entitled "The Doctrine of Christ": http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng#6-10485_000_45chris. Notice he doesn't dwell on evolution, gender roles, homosexual unions or any of the issues that are so popular here. The doctrine of Christ is the atonement, and so long as that is working throughout the church, we will survive just fine. Also pay attention to his discussion of revelation and when the brethren are speaking for God (spoiler: even the Prophet can teach incorrectly during general conference; the key is the spirit's witness).

Elder Christofferson's discourse resonates with me. Complete unity in the church (the precursor to returning to Father) does not come by simply following the Prophet's counsel without question. It comes by wrestling with the spirit on an individual, family, ward, and church level. Through that exercise, the truth is made known to us, as well as the brethren, and we are unified together. Often, the truth requires changes, otherwise known as repentence. This is true for individual members, families, the church as a whole and yes, even the brethren. So long as we and the brethren stay true to the spirit, there can be no general apostacy.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Amen, Buckeye.

[Alan]

The precursors of the historical apostasy from primitive Christianity can be seen reenacted on this board.

In the evolution reconciliation thread, I posted this sentiment:

I beg the moderators' leniency here – that post was actually not aimed at any specific poster, as I thought the first eight words rather clearly indicated. Neither was it intended as an insult. It sparked a train of thought that was intensified by interactions I had on another board.

It occurred to me later that the situation paralleled that of the primitive Christians in detail – only the names of the players have changed.

The parallel is that some of the Saints, both ancient and modern, engage in the practice of falsifying the scriptures - call it deliteralizing, allegorizing, or spiritualizing, if you like, but the net effect is denying the literality of the scriptures - in response to confrontations with the dominant philosophies of their ages. It was Greek philosophy anciently, and today, it’s scientific naturalism. This process has as its intent the rendering of the scriptures conformant to the reigning philosophy. This conforming process can be done with an eye towards benefiting the Church, or with an eye towards weakening its authority.

The process of falsifying the scriptures seems to have the effect of weakening the Church’s faith in the Brethren, and certain members and outsiders use this rift and the conflict between the the denatured scriptures with the unyielding, narrow, uncompassionate, crass literalism of the Brethren to pressure the Brethren to allow things into the church which should not be there - anciently, perhaps belief in an embodied God had to go, while icons and Neo-Platonism were introduced; today, perhaps the goals are introducing homogamy, naturalism, women in the priesthood, the worship of Heavenly Mother, or veneration of the Holy Spirit.

After all, falsifying the scriptures is but one step removed from falsifying the Brethren, for what are scriptures but the fossilized words of the Brethren, and if the fossilized Brethren can be falsified, why not the current Brethren?

The interesting thing to me is the falsifiers in the Church may very well believe they are doing the Church a service by strengthening her doctrines against a philosophy they believe she cannot prevail against if her doctrines and teachings are taken literally. These faithful falsifiers also may not believe that the Brethren have got any more truth or knowledge than they do; certainly, they believe the Brethren are unqualified to teach on the topics they touch. That would be the overall attitude of the recent "NOOOO… They mocked the Big Bang" thread.

The next steps are to marginalize, then reject, the Brethren. The seeds are already there.

Understand, I'm looking at the "big picture," not accusing any of you of apostasy.

It is a fascinating time to be alive, to be able to watch history repeat itself before one’s eyes.

A very astute post and one that resonates with me. I know I hold some unorthodox views, but these are in areas where the scriptures are silent. Where the scriptures are clear, such as the creation account, I comply no matter who says what about ape-men.

[David T]

I'm of the opinion that part of the Restoration and Perfection of the Church goes thorugh the same process we do - an initial new creation (1830, Baptism), followed by a period of learning, repentance, and perfection, and greater light and knowledge.

I'm solidly of the view the Restoration of the Church/Gospel is still in progress, and that often times we're not heeding President Uchtdorf's warning that "Unfortunately, we sometimes don't seek [new] revelation or [new] answers from the scriptures ... because we think we know the answers already... as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn't get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"

Joseph's questions opened the door to Restoration. At times, our unwillingness to learn more and re-adjust understanding places an iron gate in the way of the door that Joseph opened. We are in a powerful day where, "God [is in the process of trying to] reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.", but many in the Church are saying, "A paradigm! A paradigm! We have a paradigm, and need no more adjusting of paradigms!"

I have seen people on this board express that if certain traditional principles or understanding as to how the world works, or how God views and understands his Children were stated to be changed or revised by the Brethren through revelation, it would be the sign to them of the Brethren's own apostasy, and that they would be forced to leave the Church, knowing that it had bowed to the pressures of men. Iron gate indeed.

Past apostasy, from the Early Church, and in the Early Restored Church, was clearly marked by individuals rejecting appointed leaders, and administering the Church without proper appointment.

When you see people claim new apostolic authority, or cirumvent their Stake President and the FP to appoint a Bishop, then call me. Otherwise, I see members who have a desire for clarification and progression in the Church (based on either personal feelings they've understood as revelation, or a lack of divine confirmation as to present procedures), and a longing for institutional change. I haven't seen anyone (worth taking seriously) suggest any sort of Authoritative Overthrow, or beginning of a New Reorganization over this matter. Specifically, I haven't seen anyone here suggest ranks be broken, and ordinations or sealings or otherwise be performed where the FP has not authorized them.

Differing views and opinions while still respecting and obeying and not circumventing the sacramental order of the Church is a FAR different situation than what has gone on before when new paradigm-shifting revelations came that were not popular (see the break-off groups that started when Polygamy was ended, or the Second Book of Commandments that claims that SPencer W. Kimball's giving blacks the priesthood was a sure sign of the Church's apostasy.)

Yes, there are those here who have holy envy for some aspects of other Restorationist groups, specifically the Community of Christ, who have extended (or are in the process of extending) key blessings we feel strongly about and feel may be right and true. But we're still here. We sustain the current leaders. We sustain they Keys of the Temple. We haven't jumped ship because we see key aspects of what we might feel they're doing better, and perhaps more in line with how we understand the character of God.

We're still here. We still believe the Church is the Lord's. We will support it and sustain it, while still feeling very strongly about key insights that we have felt as a result of prayer, pondering, study, and seeking the Lord's guidance in making sure the Gospel of Love and Peace is being expressed by us in the way the Lord truly desires.

Stop insinuating individuals who disagree with fundamentalist readings of scripture do so out of shame, or out of a willingness to be praised by the world, or out of a desire to be seen as a martyr. Give the benefit of the doubt that those individuals are seeking to be humble, devoted followers of Christ, seeking to be edified and learn from all sources of knowledge and revelation that have come forth.

The condescending ideas presenting that those who desire to place the Gospel in context with their own personal experience as well as the observable world around them taking advantage of 21st century science and understanding are actually faithless proto-apostates are tired, boring, and contentious. In the words of President Uchtdorf, STOP IT.

I am actually perfectly fine with individuals who do hold a view of scripture that is very different than mine. I will not mock them. I will not make assumptions about their character, faith, or desires. I will ask questions to better understand the view, but that is different than assuming poor things about their character. I am more than aware that many of the best Christians I know understand the Epic of Eternity very differently than I do. We do, however, share a love for the same Gospel, and strive to live it in unity, and in love, and in charity. I may think they're wrong about the age of the earth, or the degree of the literalness of accounts of divine dictation. But we serve the Lord and our fellow men together. That's not apostasy. That's discipleship.

Edited April 24, 2012 by David T

[Log]

I don't hold that the authority which has been bestowed on the Brethren by the laying on of hands to receive (and then administer) the Ordinances of the Gospel imply in any way that their understanding and worldviews -- which were learned line upon line and precept upon precept -- are suddenly infallible the minute they take a stewardship office "above" others.

As such, I believe that [the Brethren] have taught things in the past that are, quite simply, flat-out incorrect.

I firmly believe that it is a mark of shame on the Church that it's taken us until 2012 and beyond to realize that women should have been being ordained all along.

As far as the Spirit and Mother in Heaven goes, I personally believe some of the Brethren are mistaken on this point, while also recognizing that my own belief -- while, I think, very well-founded -- is speculative.

I noted in the OP that those who believe they are doing the church a service by discrediting the scriptures, and, ultimately, perhaps even the Brethren, believe the Brethren have not got any more truth and knowledge than they do, and perhaps even less. I don't infer that you mean badly by it.

There is no "special pleading" needed to recognize that Daniel's Dream, or Nephi's Vision, or Jacob's Vineyard, or any number of uncontroversial allegories are allegories.

Possibly - go with me on this one - because they are clearly labelled as such?

If Adam was not a literal person, the Gospel is changed not a whit.

In your view, that may be a true statement.

D&C 131:7 "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."

Hopefully you noticed that my statement, that no prophet ever equated intelligence, or the light of truth, with matter, or element, remains true. That spirit is matter does not address that topic at all.

If the light of truth were not some form of matter or information or quantum bit of energy or something, and yet one asserted that it existed at all, it would be some sort of "immaterialism", which is a complete absurdity. Saying something is immaterial is akin to saying it doesn't exist.

Saying something exists other than matter - like, say, intelligence, or the light of truth - is simply to say that whatever matter or element is, it is not the sole constituent of reality.

Again, it makes no sense to think of the three Gods taking part in the Godhead as being equally One while only worshipping a single one of them alone.

And yet, that is the commandment of Christ.

It's quite possible you are. Clawson, born in 1857...

Ohoh. Sorry - my gospel hobbyism doesn't include your specific topics of interest. That does explain my fruitless searches for that text on the church website, though.

Because Adam never transgressed from the laws of Justice, ever.

I have no affirmative grounds for believing that he did.

(By the way, Abraham 1:26 says the tradition was established "by the fathers [ie, not necessarily Adam himself] in [ie, during ] the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign," which was "even in the reign of Adam." The two are not necessarily connected; specifically, the "government" which reigned as a patriarchy is only explicitly said to be Ham's (Abraham 1:25).

I think your case is a tad weaker than you'd like to admit.

"Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood."

It seems rather clear to me, with no need of ellipses.

So, that's all I got. At this point, everyone knows where everyone stands, and if this enormous post doesn't help, it's just a pointless circle and I won't feel too obligated to respond further.

Brother Orbe-Smith,

Believe it or not, I did not write the OP specifically at you, and, while I have mentioned, perhaps unfortunately, some of your personal topics of interest, I could very well have chosen others from a very long list. I am perfectly sincere when I acknowledge your good intentions. I am also perfectly sincere when I say I am not accusing you of apostasy. I just urge caution, again, because of the example of history.

[Log]

I know I hold some unorthodox views, but these are in areas where the scriptures are silent. Where the scriptures are clear, such as the creation account, I comply no matter who says what about ape-men.

That's my position as well - I do as I'm told, think for myself, and do NOT add to the burdens of the Brethren.

Glad to see that this thread has been kept open. Hopefully all can engage in respectful discourse so that it remains so.

I was surprised to find it so as well.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Log

[ERayR]

I'm of the opinion that part of the Restoration and Perfection of the Church goes thorugh the same process we do - an initial new creation (1830, Baptism), followed by a period of learning, repentance, and perfection, and greater light and knowledge.

I'm solidly of the view the Restoration of the Church/Gospel is still in progress, and that often times we're not heeding President Uchtdorf's warning that "Unfortunately, we sometimes don't seek [new] revelation or [new] answers from the scriptures ... because we think we know the answers already... as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn't get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"

And all too many who when they do feel the need to impose their personal insight's on the whole church. I am not saying their insights are wrong or right, only that they are not doctrine.

[Log]

Incidentally, my now-locked post on liberalism contained what I felt were important insights into the motivations of those who would push accommodations with the prevailing wisdom and culture of the age.

Let me rephrase that post to try to draw out what I took from it (and I completely understand why some took umbrage at the post in its original form, where I just posted the original material without substantial comment):

• Liberalism as an ideology places a premium on care/harm and fairness, while lowering the relative importance of loyalty, respect for authority, and purity/sanctity.
  
• Those who adopt liberalism as an ideology judge values and behavior on the basis of utility and fairness.
  
• Most people tend to rely less on loyalty, respect for authority, and purity/sanctity, when they are comfortable and safe. Which means that liberalism is the natural and spontaneous result of living in a safe and prosperous society.
  

This, to me, is extremely helpful in understanding what motivates the push for accommodations. To me, it also contributes to understanding a lot of what has happened in US history, as well as the Book of Mormon historical cycles.

Again, there is no inference of bad intentions here. I am not interested in debating which set of values is best to have adopted; I am interested in understanding.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Log

[David T]

And all too many who when they do feel the need to impose their personal insight's on the whole church. I am not saying their insights are wrong or right, only that they are not doctrine.

Very few claim they are, with the understanding the Doctrine is the current authoritative teaching of the Church. I agree its unhelpful when anyone presents their personal feelings/speculations as binding or The Truth without any disclaimer in any Church setting. Or even here. Like those who've I've heard personally express that those who have a Coke every now and then aren't worthy to have a Temple Recommend.

I like David O. McKay's related statement, "I would like to know just what it is that a man must be required to believe to be a member of this Church. Or, what it is that he is not permitted to believe, and remain a member of this Church. I would like to know just what that is. Is it evolution? I hope not, because I believe in evolution."

Edited April 24, 2012 by David T

[cinepro]

The parallel is that some of the Saints, both ancient and modern, engage in the practice of falsifying the scriptures - call it deliteralizing, allegorizing, or spiritualizing, if you like, but the net effect is denying the literality of the scriptures - in response to confrontations with the dominant philosophies of their ages.

So, was President Kimball in error when he taught that Eve's creation from Adam's rib was "figurative"?

The role of woman was fixed even before she was created, and God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It is written:

“And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]

“And I, God, blessed them [Man here is always in the plural. It was plural from the beginning.] and said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over [it].” (Moses 2:27–28.)

(Emphasis added)

Edited April 24, 2012 by cinepro

[mercyngrace]

Very few claim they are, with the understanding the Doctrine is the current authoritative teaching of the Church. I agree its unhelpful when anyone presents their personal feelings/speculations as binding or The Truth without any disclaimer in any Church setting. Or even here. Like those who've I've heard personally express that those who have a Coke every now and then aren't worthy to have a Temple Recommend.

I like David O. McKay's related statement, "I would like to know just what it is that a man must be required to believe to be a member of this Church. Or, what it is that he is not permitted to believe, and remain a member of this Church. I would like to know just what that is. Is it evolution? I hope not, because I believe in evolution."

I'm not particularly fond of being trammeled either.

But after rereading Poll's "What the Church Means to People Like Me" this morning, I'm inclined to believe that Iron Rods can keep Liahonas from drifting too far afield and Liahonas can keep Iron Rods from becoming Scribes and Pharisees. We need each kind of believer, we just need them to be more tolerant of each other and a little less extreme.

[Senator]

So, was President Kimball in error when he taught that Eve's creation from Adam's rib was "figurative"?

That's why I always read GA authored books with a bowl of popcorn at my side.

[David T]

We need each kind of believer, we just need them to be more tolerant of each other and a little less extreme.

I completely agree. I have learned powerful insights from Church members (and non-Church members!) who see the world very differently than I do. It was a great part because of their different way of viewing the world that they were able to show me something I was unable to see. I only hope that I am able to be such a person to others as well.

It's okay to be willing to acknowledge that you've learned from, or agreed on a particular point - with someone who you otherwise deeply disagree with. I've learned some of my most valuable lessons from individuals I had deep disagreements with, yet still was able to respect.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The parallel is that some of the Saints, both ancient and modern, engage in the practice of falsifying the scriptures - call it deliteralizing, allegorizing, or spiritualizing, if you like, but the net effect is denying the literality of the scriptures - in response to confrontations with the dominant philosophies of their ages.

What I find more than a bit fascinating in this thread is the notion which never quite comes to the surface about what it means to read scripture. There is this sort of assumption by Log that what we accept when think about what it means to read must also have been the case in the past when the early Christians thought about what it means to read.

How does this come into play? Well take the comments that I quote from Log. One of the challenges with this sort of overview is the rather obvious notion that scripture often repurposes scripture. It doesn't just quote it, it takes it from its context, reuses it (often in away that conflicts with the original use in the original context). Scripture often treats other scripture as allegorical or as something non-literal. Unless (or perhaps, even if) we suppose from the outset that scripture itself is a response to confrontations with dominant contemporary thought (which may well be the case), it seems clear that this "falsifying the scriptures" is itself a part of the creation of scripture and has been for as long as there has been recognized scripture.

Perhaps the most fascinating discussion of authorship and readership in scripture comes in First and Second Nephi, which explicitly claims that this idea that Log calls falsifying scripture is not only a potentially rewarding way to read scripture, it is perhaps the best way to read scripture. There is this movement in Nephi's writing which starts on one end of the spectrum and ends up in a completely different place. He starts by telling us that he is the author, that his presence stands behind his work, and that his work is true (1 Nephi 1:3). He moves from there to a realization that his intentions are to some extent irrelevant to the work - because he does not control the purpose which God intends for it, and he cannot relate to that audience that he does not know (1 Nephi 19:3 ff.). Along side this, he provides us with large selections from Isaiah. But there he runs into a problem (1 Nephi 25:1-7):

Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews. For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; for their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations. Wherefore, I write unto my people, unto all those that shall receive hereafter these things which I write, that they may know the judgments of God, that they come upon all nations, according to the word which he hath spoken. ... Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, for I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews. But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews; but behold, I, of myself, have dwelt at Jerusalem, wherefore I know concerning the regions round about; and I have made mention unto my children concerning the judgments of God, which hath come to pass among the Jews, unto my children, according to all that which Isaiah hath spoken, and I do not write them. But behold, I proceed with mine own prophecy, according to my plainness; in the which I know that no man can err; nevertheless, in the days that the prophecies of Isaiah shall be fulfilled men shall know of a surety, at the times when they shall come to pass.

Of course, the solution, if they cannot read in this fashion is, as Nephi puts it, they are to liken it unto themselves (1 Nephi 11:2,8:

And now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words. For I will liken his words unto my people, and I will send them forth unto all my children, for he verily saw my Redeemer, even as I have seen him. ... And now I write some of the words of Isaiah, that whoso of my people shall see these words may lift up their hearts and rejoice for all men. Now these are the words, and ye may liken them unto you and unto all men.

Not only does Nephi suggest this, but, when we get to places where we have sections of Isaiah interspersed with commentary - as he does in 2 Nephi 26 and 27, where he quotes, modifies, repurposes and comments on Isaiah 29, we see him actually doing this - likening the scriptures unto himself (and, to use Log's phrase, falsifying the scriptures). And then, Nephi has a rather startling personal revelation of sorts. He realizes that his audience (i.e. us) will also liken his scriptures unto ourselves. He realizes that in the act of reading, this is inevitable (even among his own people). That despite his insistence way back at the beginning, that it is true because it represents his own experience, he sees that this isn't something that he can convey in writing. And so at the beginning of 2 Nephi 33 he is mindful that:

... neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.

This idea, that scripture is only truly understood in some specific context with some fixed and absolute meaning is itself one of these dominant philosophies of our age (although it is one that is even now fading and being replaced). It does make for some fun discussion though.

Ben M.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Benjamin McGuire

[David T]

+1000000 to everything Ben M just said.

[Senator]

+1000000 to everything Ben M just said.

Yep

[Damien the Leper]

A very astute post and one that resonates with me. I know I hold some unorthodox views, but these are in areas where the scriptures are silent. Where the scriptures are clear, such as the creation account, I comply no matter who says what about ape-men.

Odd. I say this considering the fact that Genesis 1 was written several hundred years after Genesis 2 & 3.

[Calm]

when missionaries would teach the lessons t the end and afterwards begin the idea of baptism. Now it comes after the first lesson.

FYI, I believe it is Prince's McKay bio that describes how a study was done in England examining those converts who has stayed strong in the faith and those who had become inactive. One of the things they studied was when these individuals made the decision to become baptized. According to the results, those who stayed strong were much more likely to have committed to the idea of baptism at the time of the first lessons. Spending hours and days teaching in depth did not have any long term effect on faithfulness. Decisions to alter the lessons to make missionary work more effective and efficient were based on these results among other things.

I highly doubt that significant changes in teaching are made without considerable thought and study as well as prayer. I've seen this in action in regards to setting up lds.org to be a more effective tool when I was asked to participate in studies.

Edited April 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

Actually, I thought I compared them directly to the primitive Christians. Why is it you do not upbraid Nibley, one wonders?

There are probably dozens upon dozens of people not posting right now that I could upbraid, but at the very least, de mortuis nil nisi bonum. I do struggle to see how tu qoque helps your case any. Perhaps you could explain.

[Damien the Leper]

So, was President Kimball in error when he taught that Eve's creation from Adam's rib was "figurative"?

What about the Exodus narrative and the problem of there being no evidence in the historical or archealogical record that Egypt ever enslaved an entire race?

[Damien the Leper]

Ben M. is the standing champion. Awesome post!

[ERayR]

Very few claim they are, with the understanding the Doctrine is the current authoritative teaching of the Church. I agree its unhelpful when anyone presents their personal feelings/speculations as binding or The Truth without any disclaimer in any Church setting. Or even here. Like those who've I've heard personally express that those who have a Coke every now and then aren't worthy to have a Temple Recommend.

I like David O. McKay's related statement, "I would like to know just what it is that a man must be required to believe to be a member of this Church. Or, what it is that he is not permitted to believe, and remain a member of this Church. I would like to know just what that is. Is it evolution? I hope not, because I believe in evolution."

Each is responsible for his own beliefs. What bothers me is the attitude of died in the wool evolutionist toward those who do not subscribe. Those who have the temerity not to believe in macro-evolution are portrayed as uneducated and backwards. Don't believe me? Look back at the posts in this forum. I have my own beliefs in this area, some that perhaps, would be quite controversial and I am neither uneducated nor a fool and I do not think the church should adopt my ideas as doctrine.

I think it is fine if you want to ve in evolution but I can't reconcile it in a rational way with scripture.

[Calm]

Those who have the temerity not to believe in macro-evolution are portrayed as uneducated and backwards. Don't believe me?

I think both sides have been making patronizing remarks to the other, implications that one is less faithful or supportive of the prophets, etc. are as likely to bring on accusations of being ignorant, etc. as the reverse.

[Log]

One of the challenges with this sort of overview is the rather obvious notion that scripture often repurposes scripture.

That is perfectly consistent with the OP.

This idea, that scripture is only truly understood in some specific context with some fixed and absolute meaning is itself one of these dominant philosophies of our age (although it is one that is even now fading and being replaced).

The servants of the Lord likening the scriptures unto us, even repurposing scripture, updating, or revising it, and so forth, or the Spirit of God likening the scriptures unto us in our readings, is the proper authority by which such things are done.

Without proper authority, it’s called transfiguring the holy word of God.

But let me point up a different take on this whole issue, because, Ben, I think you've actually gone aside the point, or ascribed to me a view I don't hold. Granted, I did not expend 100 pages of text in explaining cultural contexts for the production of scripture, and all the different legitimate ways to understand it, and so forth, because I operate on an assumption that people will get my point without requiring each jot and tittle to be precisely outlined.

In John 6, Jesus taught things that were literally impossible to be true. These teachings, taken literally, caused even his disciples to be offended and apostatize. They had no other way to understand him, because there he was, speaking to them. You can't say he doesn't mean what he's saying when he's there, in front of you, saying it, emphasizing it, and repeating it.

Jesus did not call them back to him, and give them the key to understanding his teachings. Instead, he turned to the twelve, and asked them if they would likewise apostatize.

At some point, no doubt, he explained things to their understanding after they had proven themselves faithful to him, just as he was wont to do with his parables. I'm guessing there was no literal "long pork" being served at the Lord's supper.

If the Lord sees that there is a need to explain his teachings further, he will do so, if we are faithful to what we've received; if he sees that there would be utility in applying stories in a way not related to their original context, he will do that too.

On the other hand, I'm guessing that if we've taken it upon ourselves to mingle the philosophies of men with scripture to soften the harder teachings that conflict with the dominant ideologies and philosophies of our age, he will let us reap the confusion we've sown.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Log