Jump to content

sethpayne

Contributor
  • Posts

    1,696
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sethpayne

  1. How does recognizing behaviour that goes against church teaching not being a result of listening to church teachings prevent us from claiming that behaviour that follows church teachings could be a result of people listening to that church teaching?

    I am not understanding the reasoning here.

    I think one needs to demonstrate and just not assume church teachings increase the likelihood of behaviour by comparing behaviour to general population, but I don't understand an automatic dismissal.

     

    Because if you want to claim credit for the good, you have to also take credit for the bad.  The reason it is all problematic -- good or bad -- is that it is all subjective.  Can we reasonably claim that a racist member was inspired by past teachings by BY or Mark Peterson?  I personally don't think so.  Nor do I think we can credit the Church when a member behaves compassionately or charitably.  The most we can say is that the fruits of individual behavior are indicative of a *personal* commitment to follow Jesus.

  2.  

     

    What harm would anyone blame on the church, and why?  What would be the fix.

     

     

    Well, let's continue with the example I've given.  By the Church NOT explicitly disavowing this false teaching, it has allowed members to continue to spread the lie that victims of abuse may somehow hold some responsibility.  In that sense *some* people *may* have been harmed.  To prevent that, all it would take is a disavowal -- kind of like the Priesthood essay.

     

    But are you looking for doctrines that are *universally* harmful? Meaning, they harm everyone who comes in contact with them?  Again, I don't think such a doctrinal teaching exists.  False teachings likely harm abuse victims and I know some black members who are deeply hurt by the false teachings of past prophets.  But these are anecdotes.  I know some abuse victims who don't care what was falsely taught at one point and I know some black members who aren't concerned about the racist teachings of past prophets.  It comes down to the individual.

     

    Of course, I realize that one may be tempted to start blaming the individual for "choosing" to be harmed.  But I'd be hesitant to question the harm caused by false teachings on abuse and race as expressed by those who claim harm.

  3.  

     

    Is there a case where an LDS doctrine or practice (reasonably not perfectly) followed has caused harm?  

     

     

    I think this is an impossible question to answer.   So many variables you would have to consider like:

     

    * who taught the doctrine?

    * how was the doctrine presented?

    * under what circumstances was the doctrine taught?

     

    So all you will end up with here are anecdotes.  But if I were to make a guess I would say that yes, some doctrines as presented to specific people at specific times under unique circumstances has been harmful.  I mean, just take a look at a now-closed thread where there was serious discussion about if abuse victims were perhaps partially to blame.  I think telling someone who has experienced this kind of trauma may be very harmful.

     

    Of course we'll probably agree that this teaching is in reality a distortion of doctrine based on a misunderstanding etc... But you will always get some sort of rejoinder that well, we heard so-and-so teach in GC that it is better to come home from your mission in a coffin than having committed certain sins.  

     

    So again, I think the question is simply unanswerable beyond the experiences of individuals.

  4. In discussions and forums some cite examples of Saints behaving badly in order to critique church doctrines.  Supremely ironic is the when those examples are used to criticize the very programs and doctrines designed to prevent the sin and abuse.

     

    For example:

     

    - People breaking the law of chastity used as an example of why the law of chastity is too restrictive or causes rebellion.

     

    - Priesthood holders exercising unrighteous dominion that is expressly forbidden by the doctrines on the priesthood being used as a criticism of the priesthood.

     

    - Temple sealing practices being blamed for the confusion and pain of people failing to honor their spouse or children.

     

    I'm sure Satan is thrilled to have Saints break their own laws so the charge of hypocrisy can be raised to the rafters...  but it is a very poor critique of a program to cite failure to obey the law, as a justification against that law.

     

    Kevin.  I think you make interesting points.

     

    But by the same token, good behavior or attributes of the Saints should not be used to promote the LDS Church.  We can't have it both ways.

  5. So if you receive a revelation from the son of Adam, Seth, in your garden and Seth speaks to Seth, that is impossible?

     

    Two people, same name/title.

     

    Bruce Wayne speaks to the police commissioner and batman speaks to the police commissioner.  Two people, conversing, not three.

     

    Ok.  So you *are* talking about two separate people.  Then we are in agreement.  I think this can make sense within the context of LDS doctrine.

  6. Joseph, King Follette discourse

     

    God has a father.

     

    Temple.   "For that is the way Father gained his knowledge"

     

    How did he eat the fruit of the tree if he was not an "Adam"? in some "Garden"?

     

    Is the KFD representative of LDS doctrine?  It seems that the recent Church essays on the subject are moving away from this idea.  Even President Hinckley said "I don't know" when asked about some of these ideas.

     

    I want to make sure I"m following you.   Let's just take everything you have said as a given.  The question we've been discussing is whether "Adam" is the same being as "Elohim."  What you have laid out supports the idea they are two separate people but the Elohim consumed fruit in a garden quite separate from Adam/Michael in the process of him becoming a God.  

  7. As I recall, some believe that "Adam" is a title, but that's not really what BY was teaching. 

     

    I recall that whole "Adam as title" thing but that's makes matters worse.  It's an idea with ZERO scriptural support.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  No support in the temple.  No support from Church leaders.  How can this idea even possibly be entertained as Church doctrine when every source of Church doctrine negates the very notion?

  8. "God spoke to Adam"

    Yes ADAM'S God spoke to Adam.

    What's so complicated about that?

    There is no end or beginning to the grand chain of Gods. Like in Revelation where we become Kings and Priests to God and HIS father.

     

    It's not complicated at all.  It simply has zero support in all scriptures, the temple, and from every other Church leader *besides* BY.

  9. The same way Bruce Wayne is also Batman.

     

    One being, two titles.

     

    Not that complicated.

     

    Did you ever see Bruce Wayne and Batman together -- like having lunch -- or waling through a Garden?

     

    If we LDS want to discount the trinity because it would be impossible for Jesus to pray to himself then the same must apply to Adam.  God spoke to Adam and Eve in the garden.  Two *separate* individuals.  I honestly see no way around it.  

  10. How could Adam be God?

     

    He couldn't be.  The whole idea is absurd regardless of what JLHPROF wants to believe or promote.

     

    BY taught Adam-God.  He was wrong.  IIRC even some serving members of the 12 opposed his teaching on this subject.

  11.  

    Despite that deference,  it is not on a par with the phrasing of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the phrase and concept is appropriately subject to re-examination by thoughtful people such as Elder Oaks, who proposes "curtain of separation" as preferable substitute for "wall of separation." He makes a strong case in doing so.

     

    Nonsense.

     

    Are you really suggesting that Elder Oaks has a better handle on the meaning of the first amendment than did Jefferson?  That's just silly.

     

    Yes, the phrase doesn't exist in the Constitution.  Only morons don't know that.  That's hardly the point.  

  12. Not suprisingly I agree with them mostly. Repentance may be possible in many cases, but is difficult and becomes moreso on repeat offenses and under weightier covenants. Just how important is keeping our lives in the grand scheme of things? It's not like anyone gets out of here alive. So which is more important to preserve? Mortal life or virtue?

     

    I feel very sorry for your children.

  13. You speak like this is something we can choose or reject.

    Christ as our Savior and Mediator isn't optional.  It simply is.  You don't even have to believe it.  I may not believe that water is wet, but it still is.

     

    And the scriptures are clear that EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ.  Optional isn't included.

     

    If JLHPROF were a Muslim:

     

     

    You speak of the Allah like  he is something we can choose or reject.

    That Mohammed is His prophet isn't optional.  It simply is.  You don't even have to believe it.  I may not believe that water is wet, but it still is.

     

    And the scriptures are clear that Allah had no son and that in the end, every tongue will confess Allah's name. Optional isn't included.

  14. Nothing to do with it? Surely you're not serious.

     

     

    Of course I'm serious.  Their perception of the situation doesn't change the truth of untruth of the claim (not that the claim can be established objectively one way or the other).

     

    Both of these brothers would, I imagine, dismiss the claim to be sure.

     

    It's like saying Hillary Clinton didn't mislead the public on the nature of the attack on our consulate simply because *she dismissed* the claim.  You don't establish the truth of something by simply accepting someone's view on the matter.  It has nothing to do with it.

  15. I'd be interested to know what Brother Millet and Brother Wilcox would have to say about that. My hunch is they, to their credit, would both say you are off the beam with that remark.

     

    Which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or untruth of the claim.

     

    You are very good at misdirection.  I admire a person skilled in rhetoric.  

     

    Please stay on topic. Scott Lloyd is not the topic.

  16. Will this do for now till I find something on your own planet?  Can you become a God without a planet?  D&C 132

     

    According to LDS doctrine, I think so.  The OT refers to several "el" who are clearly separate from YHWH.  The LORD (or the Most High) referred to other beings as "gods."  

×
×
  • Create New...