Teancum

It may not be canon. But its ideas certainly were incorporated into enough LDS lesson manuals including seminary and institute manuals, in LDS conference talks, many by LDS prophets. that it is hard to say it is not doctrinal. I know it was being emphasized less from the time I was entering my less active phase of my church experience.

I have to say that after reading through your posts and some of the other LDS posters, I think Bruce McConkie was onto something on his comments about The Fifth Lecture when he talked about the members of the Godhead divinely indwelling each other. He notes in that way they are ONE, in that they share the same mind, thoughts, etc. So while physically not one, it seems to me he thought they were sure one in almost all ways that matter. He also goes on to say that humans that are exalted would also be one with the Godhead by, I assume, divinely indwelling each other as well maybe? Seems like we if Latter-day Saint doctrine on this is properly represented by Elder McConkie, Orthodox Christians and Latter-day Saints are closer than we may think. Thoughts?

You outlined what my position on this topic was when I was a believer and defending against a critique that we believed God the Father was a man just like us.

Very interesting.

Certainly it is possible. Yet there would be some significant doctrinal shifts to do so. Interestingly, when I wrote my paper I was surprised to learn that Bruce McConkie loved the Lectures on Faith and was pro adding them back the the LDS Canon. They were included from in the 1935 Doctrine and Covenants but dropped in 1921 shortly after the First Presidency pronouncement on the Godhead. And that because the Lecture, particular Lecture 5 conflicted with the stated doctrine in the FO statement. But there was never a vote to remove the Lectures, which we called the doctrine of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenents. They were one of a series of such doctrine treatises that were planned for the Doctrine and Covenants. Here is what McConkie said about Lecture 5 that it is: He also said that the Godhead are one in that the divinely indwell one another and share the same mind, thought, purposes, etc. Elder McConkie seemed semi classical in his thoughts about the Godhead and how they are one.

The concept of God in the Book of Mormon and early LDS teaching is clearly similar to classical Christian theology. It was around 1838 the Joseph introduced the idea of three separate Gods and that the Father was a corporeal being. And of course the radical doctrines about God and eternal progression came after that. This is one of the major criticisms for Evangelical Critics. I dealt with one fellow who came to pass out material and the Hill Cumorah pageant each year when I was a believing apologist. He had a paper called "We used to agree." I wrote a 100 page rebuttal of that paper but looking at it know it seems like a desperate attempt to argue that we were not more like the trinitarians from 1820 to 1838. I think the paper is on the FAIR website. I presented it at a FAIR conference I think at Alta Utah. That was maybe the third FAIR conference.

Current email is correct.

I have long been puzzled that RFM, who posted here as Consiglieri, has not had his membership withdrawn. He must have especially tolerant local leaders.

Whether one agree or not with the policies and procedures the the Church uses when it comes to disciplinary issues or not does not matter. A member like Brophy most certainly is aware of them. Don' act all surprised when you are a vocal public critic of the church and your membership is withdrawn. For personal reasons, I still valuer my church membership and that is why I do not do podcasts and have never appeared to be interviewed on a podcast. And John Dehlin would be happy to have me. But I have no desire to so such things.

I dunno....comparing the priesthood ban to a bad military order to take a hill that turns out strategically worthless is a stretch. Yes blacks could be baptized but they were restricted from the "blessings" of temple covenants and holding the priesthood. Unless you are arguing that those things really don't mean that much in mortality (because yes I know that the come back is they would have those "blessings" somehow in the afterlife) that seems to be simply brushing it aside. These really do impact salvation. And then there are all the "wonderful" attempts to explain the ban and justify it. And now it is "well never mind, we got it wrong." Wrong for over a hundred years. It doesn't generate much faith in the ability of the LDS leaders to get things right if they can be so wrong on something that is more than a copywrite issue.

You really think one must follow policy even if the top leaders are wrong? Do you really think the comparison to the military is a proper one. And as you note, a member of the military is obligated to disobey illegal orders. Certainly wrong orders may still be legal so yes a member of the military should obey a wrong order. Still I do not like the comparison. Church membership is not the military. The old teaching from I thon Heber J Grant that one will be blessed for following the prophet even if he is wrong, but don't worry, the lord would take a prophet before allowing him to lead us astray. How did that work for the priesthood ban? You admit it was wrong so I guess leader can lead us astray right?

Man you have pretty thin skin. It is simply factually true that the church is only having significant growth in demographics where people are poorer. That has nothing to do with race at all. And you said ignorant not me. So take a hard look in the mirror.

Why? It is factually true.

If you think your world wide activity rate is all hunky dory more power to you. The only one bringing up regions is you.

Whatever happened to @smac97?

Sloppy? Do you have more than one example?

I do not know if you are referring to me. I simply noted my friends experience in Chili and an MP. Feel free to enlighten us on activity rates in other areas.

Fair enough.

Meh. I think he and RFM are pretty bright and knowledgeable about things LDS. I did not expect you or any other LDS apologist to agree. That is quite the stretch of a casual relationship. Is that the criteria of a strong critic now? Interesting take.

So if there is one false revelation how can you trust the others are not false as well?

If this is the case how can it be trusted?

Wow! That is a lot of I do and I do not believe. It is a tough issue to get one's head around and still believe this nonsense was somehow divinely commanded. Ocam's razor seems useful here.

I think this is spot on and I think Dehlin and others have experienced this when they have tried to build a sustainable community of ex and disaffected members. I do not think any have had much success. I could be wrong as I do not follow such groups and where I live there is not a lot of LDS people-active, ex or disaffected so a community is tough to sustain with those low numbers.

A close friend of mine who served as a mission president in one of the Santiago Chile missions focused much of his missionaries time on finding and activating the inactive. Stakes in his mission had many wards that had 1000 members on the list with around 100 members attending. The strength of the wards and stakes were decimated by this and activation seemed a higher purpose than new converts.

I am not sure there is exact data. But the Church has about 17.5 million members of record. Rough estimates put active members at about 30% to 40%. If that is accurate, adding in former members to 60% to 70% inactivity then you have much more in the former inactive camp. I recall Elder Marlin Jensen giving a priesthood leadership training around 2010 to my stake. He said there were 1 million members in the lost members file, meaning they are on the records but they cannot be found. When I was active we periodically would work on the lost member list in our ward to see if we could find address information for the church records. It was hard work with little success.