Oversimplification vs Nuance

[Olavarria]

Is oversimplification and a lack of nuance the cause of some doctrinal and factual errors?

Oversimplified Statements

1)The modern living decendants of Lehi are Native Americans; Natve Americans are descendants of Lehi.

2)Plural Marriages are Celestial Marriages; Celestial Marriages are plural marriages.

3)All Doctrine is true; truth is doctrine.

4)The United Order is consecration; consecration is the United Order.

5)The Book of Abraham was translated from the JSP; the JSP translate into the Book of Abraham.

6)No drugs/coffee/tea/beer/smokes=Word of Wisdom; Word of Wisdom=no drugs/coffee/tea/beer/smokes.

7)Adam is God; God is Adam.

8)God's word comes through the Prophet; the Prophet's words come from God.

9)Christianity was in ancient America; ancient America was Christian.

Nuanced Statements.

1)The modern living decendants of Lehi are Native Americans, but not all Natve Americans are descendants of Lehi.

2)Plural Marriages are Celestial Marriages, but not all Celestial Marriages are plural marriages.

3)All Doctrine is true, but not all truth is doctrine.

4)The United Order is consecration, but not all consecration involves the United Order.

5)The Book of Abraham was translated from the JSP, but not all the JSP are the Book of Abraham.

6)To live the Word of Wisdom you must obstain from alchohol, tobacco, drugs and tea/coffee; but obstaining from alchohol, tobacco, drugs and tea/coffee in and of itself is not living the Word of Wisdom.

7)Adam is god; but God is not Adam.

8)God's word comes through the Prophet, but not all of the Prophet's words come from God.

9)Christianity was in ancient America; but not all of ancient America was Christian.

[annewandering]

I like simple. In fact I think God made it so even simple people can understand it but. Logic is where we run into trouble. As your examples point out very well. We need to be careful assuming things. For example all white people are humans. But the reverse isn't true. Not all humans are white. Its a very easy trap to fall into and I am sure I have done it frequently.

Thank you for pointing this out.

[Yirgacheffe]

Is oversimplification and a lack of nuance the cause of some doctrinal and factual errors?

Oversimplified Statements

7)Adam is God; God is Adam.

Nuanced Statements.

7)Adam is god; but God is not Adam.

I don't understand this????

[Jason]

I don't understand this????

Adam has attained the status of a God, but Adam is not the same being as God the Father.

Real things are complex and nuanced. Even something as simple as "thou shalt not murder" doesn't mean there is never a time to kill.

[cinepro]

Is oversimplification and a lack of nuance the cause of some doctrinal and factual errors?

Oversimplified Statements

1)The modern living decendants of Lehi are Native Americans; Natve Americans are descendants of Lehi.

2)Plural Marriages are Celestial Marriages; Celestial Marriages are plural marriages.

3)All Doctrine is true; truth is doctrine.

4)The United Order is consecration; consecration is the United Order.

5)The Book of Abraham was translated from the JSP; the JSP translate into the Book of Abraham.

6)No drugs/coffee/tea/beer/smokes=Word of Wisdom; Word of Wisdom=no drugs/coffee/tea/beer/smokes.

7)Adam is God; God is Adam.

8)God's word comes through the Prophet; the Prophet's words come from God.

9)Christianity was in ancient America; ancient America was Christian.

Nuanced Statements.

1)The modern living decendants of Lehi are Native Americans, but not all Natve Americans are descendants of Lehi.

2)Plural Marriages are Celestial Marriages, but not all Celestial Marriages are plural marriages.

3)All Doctrine is true, but not all truth is doctrine.

4)The United Order is consecration, but not all consecration involves the United Order.

5)The Book of Abraham was translated from the JSP, but not all the JSP are the Book of Abraham.

6)To live the Word of Wisdom you must obstain from alchohol, tobacco, drugs and tea/coffee; but obstaining from alchohol, tobacco, drugs and tea/coffee in and of itself is not living the Word of Wisdom.

7)Adam is god; but God is not Adam.

8)God's word comes through the Prophet, but not all of the Prophet's words come from God.

9)Christianity was in ancient America; but not all of ancient America was Christian.

I wonder how an LDS in 1865 would answer the question? Heck, I imagine someone could get excommunicated for raising those points while Brigham Young was alive.

It's great how far we've come.

[Connolly]

3)All Doctrine is true, but not all truth is doctrine.

That could just as easily be rendered

All truth is Doctrine, but not all doctrines are true.

[LeSellers]

3)All Doctrine is true, but not all truth is doctrine.

That could just as easily be rendered

All truth is Doctrine, but not all doctrines are true.

No. That completely reverses the meaning. It could not be rendered as you have done and still have anything to do with LDS doctrine.

Lehi

[cinepro]

This is also a good illustration of one of the key tools in the apologist toolbox: the Shrinker®. Whenever a claim comes within shooting distance of being falsified, shrink it down to make it smaller. Eventually, some claims may be so shrunken that they disappear entirely, but that's expected.

[LeSellers]

This is also a good illustration of one of the key tools in the apologist toolbox: the Shrinker

[Connolly]

That could just as easily be rendered

All truth is Doctrine, but not all doctrines are true.No. That completely reverses the meaning. It could not be rendered as you have done and still have anything to do with LDS doctrine.

Lehi

Are you asserting that there are no doctrines that are widely believed by members that are not actually doctrines of the church?

[LeSellers]

Are you asserting that there are no doctrines that are widely believed by members that are not actually doctrines of the church?

How can anything not actually be a doctrine of the church, yet still be a doctrine?

That many LDSs believe something does not make it doctrine.

Think Venn diagram: "Truth" is a large circle, and "Doctrine" a smaller one that lies wholly enclosed within the first. All doctrine is truth, but not all truth is doctrine (yet).

Lehi

[Deborah]

I think there are many traditional beliefs in the church that aren't completely true but have the element of truth. This is why it is so important to study and keep in mind context while we are doing so. This is a problem though that has always existed. Paul's letters illustrate the problems he had with people wanting to bring their traditions with them and wrap them within the gospel (ie circumcision); Joseph Smith had the same problem and today we are no different. We are creatures of habit and I think become lazy and it's easier to accept certain things on their face rather than find out what the reality is. Basically, most people don't really think about these things deeply enough to even care.

[Olavarria]

That could just as easily be rendered

All truth is Doctrine, but not all doctrines are true.

Interesting, I'll give you an example of what I mean.

1)God the Father has a body of flesh and bone.

2) Humans breath in oxygen and expel Carbon Dioxide. Plants breath in Carbon Dioxide and expel Oxygen.

Both 1 and 2 are true, but the Church only takes an active position on 1.

[Olavarria]

This is also a good illustration of one of the key tools in the apologist toolbox: the Shrinker

[cinepro]

What is "this"?

Lehi

The examples in the OP, specifically 1,2,4 & 7, where the "expanded view" was once held by Church leaders and members (and may still be held by some members whom we could call...."Chapel Mormons"?) today. But instead of defending the originally held view, the strategy was to shrink down the scope of these claims to make them less falsifiable.

[Deborah]

But instead of defending the originally held view, the strategy was to shrink down the scope of these claims to make them less falsifiable.

I think the effect was to actually evaluate the claims in terms of context rather than a never-changing idea. This is something I had to learn as I studied and matured, that sometimes a message really isn't for everyone or every day and age. Even reading Biblical scriptures one must look at whom was being addressed as well as the historical meanings of certain words and phrases. We are to liken the scriptures to ourselves, but need to apply this to general principles and not to specific instructions for a certain people or time, ie the law on circumcision or the dietary laws under the Law of Moses.

[Olavarria]

But instead of defending the originally held view, the strategy was to shrink down the scope of these claims to make them less falsifiable.

Or is it refining a previosly held view based on , what to us is, new information? Aren't Mormons supposed accept the further light and knowledge that Heavenly Father promises to send us? Or is our religion a static, stagnant faith?

1,2,4 & 7

1)),"Zarahemla," Times and Seasons 3/23 (1 October 1842):

If Joseph's was right in his latest view then South America had nothing to do with BoM history, this casts a doubt as to whether or not the place populated by Lehites. This new view didnt come about because Joseph couldnt defend the idea that SA was the land southward but on his new knowledge that the cities were in mesoamerica. So a limited geograpy isnt revisionist, its restorationist.

2)Plural Marriages are Celestial Marriages; Celestial Marriages are plural marriages.

That may seem like the original teaching. But did that apply to all people at all times or just to those were being tought it at the time. I contend that polygamy isnt essential to salvation, niether is monogamy. What is essential is obediance.(Abraham 3:25).

"We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"â??the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son;but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."JoD 11:266

If it aint offered to you then you cant live it. Think Alvin Smith.

4)The United Order is consecration; consecration is the United Order.

The Saints in Navou didnt have a UO. Despite the fact that they couldn't legally deed over their property to the Bishop's store house, were they kept from giving all they had to the Church and Kingdom?

7)Adam is God; God is Adam.

No comment.

[russianwolfe]

Lets not forget the most sought after anti-mormon toy this Christmas, The Maximizer 4.0