Who Knows What Eeevil Lurks in the Heart of FARMS

[cinepro]

As far as the official list goes, I just googled "Internet and Chapel mormons" and a website came up with a list of all the differences. I honestly don't know if was a Shades site or not. The one I quoted dealt with Meldrum, so I thought that was funny, as this is what the OP was about originally.

You have entered a link to a website that the administrator does not allow links to

Looks like it was Shades' site

[dblagent007]

As a chapel Mormon, I have read a number of attempts to locate the Book of Mormon events somewhere north of the Rio Grande, and have yet to be impressed by any of them.

I have heard others say they are chapel mormons. Would you please tell us your answers to the following quiz so we can see what you believe that qualifies you as a chapel mormon:

When science contradicts the prophets (regarding the age of the earth, for example), which/who is right?

A. Science. We just understood the prophet incorrectly.

B. The Prophets. Science is always changing anyway.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

When LDS apologists (F.A.R.M.S. and F.A.I.R., for example) contradict the prophets, who is right?

A. The Apologists. Prophets are not infallible and can make mistakes.

B. The Prophets. Apologists aren't called of God to teach and preach.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

Do the terms "Lamanite" and "Native American" refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups, or are the terms interchangeable?

A. "Lamanites" and "Native Americans" are two separate cultural and linguistic groups.

B. The terms are interchangeable.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

Was Noah's flood local or global?

A. It was a local event, covering perhaps a large part of Mesopotamia or the Black Sea area.

B. It was global and water covered the entire earth.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

When Lehi arrived in the Americas, were there lots of non-Jaredite Asiatic inhabitants already present?

A. Yes.

B. No.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

When discussing the words of the prophets, is God displeased if we say "it was only his opinion?"

A. No, God is not displeased.

B. Yes, God is displeased.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

Did the Nephites make their last stand against the Lamanites on a hill in Central America or on a hill in New York?

A. On a hill in Central America

B. On a hill in New York

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

Is binding Mormon doctrine to be found between the covers of the four Standard Works only, or can it be found elsewhere?

A. Between the covers of the four Standard Works only

B. Elsewhere, such as official church manuals, First Presidency statements, etc.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

Which is most likely to lead us to the truth: To "filter" a prophet's words through both his likely cultural influences and his limited sphere of knowledge, or to take his words at face value?

A. "Filtering" a prophet's words through both his likely cultural influences and his limited sphere of knowledge will most likely lead us to the truth.

B. Taking a prophet's words at face value will most likely lead us to the truth.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

Do a prophet's words apply to everyone he's addressing, or do his words sometimes not apply to some of the people he's addressing?

A. His words sometimes do not apply to some of the people he's addressing.

B. His words apply to everyone he's addressing.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

If a married couple uses birth control, is God displeased?

A. No

B. Yes

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

Did human beings evolve, or were Adam & Eve the first--and parentless--humans?

A. Human beings evolved.

B. Adam & Eve were the first humans.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

Please note that since there aren't any honest people anywhere who subscribe to Shade's deliberately bogus dichotomy, I have no hesitation in claiming the title of "chapel Mormon" for myself. I go to Church in a chapel; I partake of the Sacrament in a chapel; I carry out my Church calling in a chapel. I was baptised in a chapel, ordained to the priesthood in chapels, and received my Patriarchal Blessing in a chapel. If the expression "chapel Mormon" describes anything at all, it describes me.

oh, I see, redefine the term and then claim it covers you.

Which would be disappointing to you, I know. But as James 1:8 says, "A dblminded man is unstable in all his ways."

Man, you are at your devastating best when you throw in those little digs at my username. Impressive, indeed.

[maklelan]

Wait, are you saying that I would somehow "exclude" LDS? Exclude them from what?

Exclude them from what you see as the more theologically orthodox Mormonism.

As I've said so many times before, the distinction is useful for understanding the different approaches LDS have to certain subjects.

No, it's not useful at all for that. This artificial distinction only serves an evaluation if you're trying to marginalize. You want to stick your tongue out at "Internet Mormons" and tell them they're not as orthodox.

Whatever you want to call them, the different approaches are easily visible in numerous exchanges on this very message board (currently there are some great examples in the Priesthood Ban thread, if you're willing to wade through it).

There's also a really good blog setup by a Chapel Mormon in which he duels Internet Mormons on the subjects of creation and evolution.

So was David O. McKay an "Internet Mormon"? And why is someone who is using the internet to debate and promulgate his interpretations of gospel questions being called a "Chapel Mormon"? Are these names arbitrary?

[Droopy]

I have heard others say they are chapel mormons. Would you please tell us your answers to the following quiz so we can see what you believe that qualifies you as a chapel mormon:

The dichotomy is meaningless, but I'll bite in any case.

When science contradicts the prophets (regarding the age of the earth, for example), which/who is right?

A. Science. We just understood the prophet incorrectly.

B. The Prophets. Science is always changing anyway.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

Science can contradict the prophets all it wants on concepts such as the age of the earth, as the Church has no official or settled doctrine on the subject.

When LDS apologists (F.A.R.M.S. and F.A.I.R., for example) contradict the prophets, who is right?

If someone from FARMS contradicts settled Church teaching, then the prophets carry the day (obviously).

Do the terms "Lamanite" and "Native American" refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups, or are the terms interchangeable?

Probably interchangable, depending upon what aspects of culture one wishes to look at and what it might mean in a gospel sense, to be a descendant or remnant of another group. This may be able to be taken in various ways.

Was Noah's flood local or global?

I have no answer to this particular question at this time.

When Lehi arrived in the Americas, were there lots of non-Jaredite Asiatic inhabitants already present?

Why Asiatic only? There very possibly could have been representatives of numerous ancient peoples present in the Americas at various times. The answer is yes.

When discussing the words of the prophets, is God displeased if we say "it was only his opinion?"

No if was, and yes, if it was not.

Did the Nephites make their last stand against the Lamanites on a hill in Central America or on a hill in New York?

Apparently not.

Is binding Mormon doctrine to be found between the covers of the four Standard Works only, or can it be found elsewhere?

It can be found in anything officially published by the Church and intended as doctrinally legitimate for the general membership. True doctrine can also be found in a number of other places, but this may not be of the binding variety.

Which is most likely to lead us to the truth: To "filter" a prophet's words through both his likely cultural influences and his limited sphere of knowledge, or to take his words at face value?

Your two possible answers here have convienently left out the actual and longstanding doctrinal answer. The best means of ascertaining truth is in prayer and through the confirming witness of the Holy Spirit.

Do a prophet's words apply to everyone he's addressing, or do his words sometimes not apply to some of the people he's addressing?

Some of a prophet's words during a talk or discourse may indeed have special meaning to some subset of his listeners.

If a married couple uses birth control, is God displeased?

If the purpose of such use is the curtailing or limitation of childbirth (as opposed to simply spacing children in a rational manner) than apparently so.

Did human beings evolve, or were Adam & Eve the first--and parentless--humans?

The Church has no official teaching on the subject over which we can quarrel as "chapel" or "internet" Mormon.

Whether they did or not has little direct relevance to my salvation and exaltation, in any event.

[structurecop]

Okay, okay people. Knock it off.

People on the board apparently get upset at being called Internet Mormons. It's a bad dichotomy, in my opinion, and even liberal Mormons (e.g. the editor of Dialogue) disagree with its use. Whether it's meant to be offensive or not, people take offense, and it doesn't do much to further the discussion.

[Calm]

Someone said that? That's silly.

Shades, the creator of the Chapel/Internet Mormon theory did.

[Hamba Tuhan]

People on the board apparently get upset at being called Internet Mormons. It's a bad dichotomy, in my opinion, and even liberal Mormons (e.g. the editor of Dialogue) disagree with its use. Whether it's meant to be offensive or not, people take offense...

It's not meant to be offensive, in my opinion, as much as it is meant to be dismissive. In the ex-Mormon echo chamber, there are simply no good answers to certain questions, so those who actually have some answers must be dismissed. Labelling 'apologists' and others who find faith perfectly reasonable and defensible in such a way as to place them outside the supposed boundaries of Latter-day Saint orthodoxy is a rather handy--and strikingly Orellian--way of doing that.

...and it doesn't do much to further the discussion.

Which is the whole point.

[maklelan]

Now it's a "worldview"?

Yeah.

I was pointing out that no one suggests that Chapel Mormons or Internet Mormons disagree over whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration, The Book of Mormon is true (and historical), or that Thomas Monson is the prophet today.

But you have insisted this difference means something. You've never explained exactly what it means, and the differences themselves have so far seemed irrelevant. That there is a difference seems to be your only concern, and yet there's no explanation of why.

To put it simply, in any area where the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles, or publications of the Church veer into apparent conflict with scholarship or science, Internet Mormons try much harder (and give much more ground) in reconciling the two.

So when the apostles emphasize that we don't know why the priesthood ban took place, or that there has been no revelation or official doctrine concerning evolution, or that we should never guess when no revelation has been given, are they now being "Internet Mormons," or do you arbitrarily get to decide which questions and which positions define this distinction?

As I said, Noah's Flood is the clearest example of how this happens, but it also happens with the Creation/Evolution, blacks and the priesthood, and numerous other subjects.

So you believe that all the apostles and first presidency unanimously believe in a global flood, and reject evolution, and so on?

[SlackTime]

I have heard others say they are chapel mormons. Would you please tell us your answers to the following quiz so we can see what you believe that qualifies you as a chapel mormon:

When science contradicts the prophets (regarding the age of the earth, for example), which/who is right?

A. Science. We just understood the prophet incorrectly.

B. The Prophets. Science is always changing anyway.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

C - Science changes, Revelation continues line upon line, and you haven't indicated which is the answer the Spirit supports. Until the Spirit has spoken, the truth has not been completely heard.

When LDS apologists (F.A.R.M.S. and F.A.I.R., for example) contradict the prophets, who is right?

A. The Apologists. Prophets are not infallible and can make mistakes.

B. The Prophets. Apologists aren't called of God to teach and preach.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

C - Apologetic arguments change, Revelation continues line upon line, and you haven't indicated which is the answer the Spirit supports. Until the Spirit has spoken, the truth has not been completely heard.

Do the terms "Lamanite" and "Native American" refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups, or are the terms interchangeable?

A. "Lamanites" and "Native Americans" are two separate cultural and linguistic groups.

B. The terms are interchangeable.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

D - Both, Lamanites are a part of the heritage that provides covenant promises to all native americans (of both American continents) and many other diverse groups. Genetics are uninvolved. Culture and language are diverse across the various cultures touched by the covenants involved. All covenant blessings are available to everyone in the world who will repent and accept them.

Was Noah's flood local or global?

A. It was a local event, covering perhaps a large part of Mesopotamia or the Black Sea area.

B. It was global and water covered the entire earth.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

C - Science changes, Revelation continues line upon line, and not everything about the story has been revealed. What has been revealed is that obedience is an essential part of the worship of God, the "moral" of the story of the flood. I.e. the flood story teaches a correct principle about our relationship with God.

When Lehi arrived in the Americas, were there lots of non-Jaredite Asiatic inhabitants already present?

A. Yes.

B. No.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

C - Probably; Science changes, Revelation continues line upon line, and the Spirit has spoken that the Book of Mormon is true. The text represents far more people than can be explained in the migrations followed in the book, so I'd lean toward A because I know the book to be true.

When discussing the words of the prophets, is God displeased if we say "it was only his opinion?"

A. No, God is not displeased.

B. Yes, God is displeased.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

C - No single answer can be given to too broad a question. Why would God be displeased when it really was "only his own opinion"? On the other hand we can use their opinions to mock, create disbelief, and otherwise try to discredit the testimony of the Prophets and their testimony of the Savior and the restoration of the Gospel. When someone does that, I'm sure the Lord is displeased.

Did the Nephites make their last stand against the Lamanites on a hill in Central America or on a hill in New York?

A. On a hill in Central America

B. On a hill in New York

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

C - Science changes, Revelation continues line upon line, and you haven't indicated which is the answer the Spirit supports. Until the Spirit has spoken, the truth has not been completely heard. Oh and on this one, I really don't care if there was "two cumorahs" or only one.

Is binding Mormon doctrine to be found between the covers of the four Standard Works only, or can it be found elsewhere?

A. Between the covers of the four Standard Works only

B. Elsewhere, such as official church manuals, First Presidency statements, etc.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

C - The doctrine that is binding upon me personally is written upon my heart by the Holy Spirit. Whatever the Spirit has manifest unto me is binding upon me and I believe I will be answerable to God for how obedient I am to what has been revealed to me. It is my duty to study and learn and act upon all that has been revealed by the Spirit to me. As a whole group, the only record of what is "binding upon the Saints" is what they (the Saints) have accepted as binding upon them, those are the Canonized books of scripture.

Which is most likely to lead us to the truth: To "filter" a prophet's words through both his likely cultural influences and his limited sphere of knowledge, or to take his words at face value?

A. "Filtering" a prophet's words through both his likely cultural influences and his limited sphere of knowledge will most likely lead us to the truth.

B. Taking a prophet's words at face value will most likely lead us to the truth.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

C - Truth is revealed by the Spirit. To "understand" the Prophet better, and get to what teachings were being revealed and the context that they were revealed under, we must understand the culture and environment of his day. But I, and a more modern prophet, can take the words of the prophet and learn truth that applies to me, through the Spirit, by "likening the scriptures" unto myself.

Do a prophet's words apply to everyone he's addressing, or do his words sometimes not apply to some of the people he's addressing?

A. His words sometimes do not apply to some of the people he's addressing.

B. His words apply to everyone he's addressing.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

C - They apply to everyone he is addressing as they are confirmed by the Spirit upon the hearts of those who are listening. We need the additional input of the Holy Ghost.

If a married couple uses birth control, is God displeased?

A. No

B. Yes

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

C - Did the couple discuss it with the Lord? If so, and they acted according to that revelation that is pertinent to them, and them alone, then I would say no. If they acted contrary to what they were told by the Spirit, then yes. But I cannot make that judgement and am not interested in how many children someone else chooses to have.

Did human beings evolve, or were Adam & Eve the first--and parentless--humans?

A. Human beings evolved.

B. Adam & Eve were the first humans.

C. Don't know / undecided / not enough information

D - Possibly Both, How God created Adam and Eve has not been given, but they did have parents which have been revealed in the scriptures. (Luke 8:28) With Adam God made the first covenant, and through Adam the great plan of happiness became available to all God's children. Was there pre-Adamites? Don't know, I wasn't there, but Adam is important because of the covenant.

There ya go. And if it helps I go to Church regularly, and spend a lot of time in the Chapel. Of course, I also spend a lot of time on the internet.

- SlackTime

[Daniel Peterson]

My Malevolent Stalker has now manufactured a titanic struggle within the Twelve between the supporters of Rod Meldrum and the supporters of the Maxwell Institute (aka FARMS), and he can name names. Furthermore, one of his "anonymous informants" (who may or may not even exist) has seen several members of the Twelve at a meeting relating to Deseret Book and looking very serious. Proof positive, I say!

The gullible owner of the board finds this simply "riveting." (He is also persuaded by the Spalding theory -- which, I think, is no coincidence.)

People ask me why I waste so much time watching ex-Mormons on message boards, and I always respond that they're psychologically fascinating. That's often regarded as a pretext, but I'm entirely serious. And a case like this one illustrates brilliantly how intriguing apostate behavior can be.

Perhaps, someday, I'll be recognized as the Konrad Lorenz of the ex-Mormon hive. Alas, though, there's no Nobel Prize for the discipline.

[structurecop]

People ask me why I waste so much time watching ex-Mormons on message boards, and I always respond that they're psychologically fascinating. That's often regarded as a pretext, but I'm entirely serious. And a case like this one illustrates brilliantly how intriguing apostate behavior can be.

I find people who are obsessed with ex-Mormon boards psychologically fascinating.

[gmormon]

...Perhaps, someday, I'll be recognized as the Konrad Lorenz of the ex-Mormon hive. Alas, though, there's no Nobel Prize for the discipline.

Maybe if you think about making peace with them you can win th Peace Prize. Who knows it worked for someone else for just the possibility he might accomplish something

[Daniel Peterson]

Yes, indeed. Nobel laureate Barack Obama should be an inspiration to us all.

I find people who are obsessed with ex-Mormon boards psychologically fascinating.

I'm fascinating in many ways myself, even though, alas, I don't meet your standard of being "obsessed" with ex-Mormon boards. I do, however, find a couple of them really interesting. Would that be enough to qualify for your fascination?

[structurecop]

I'm fascinating in many ways myself, even though, alas, I don't meet your standard of being "obsessed" with ex-Mormon boards. I do, however, find a couple of them really interesting. Would that be enough to qualify for your fascination?

Yes. Would you mind filling out this form so I can submit it to the Human Subjects Review Board?

[cinepro]

But you have insisted this difference means something. You've never explained exactly what it means, and the differences themselves have so far seemed irrelevant. That there is a difference seems to be your only concern, and yet there's no explanation of why.

To me, it illustrates a difference in approach to certain subjects.

So when the apostles emphasize that we don't know why the priesthood ban took place, or that there has been no revelation or official doctrine concerning evolution, or that we should never guess when no revelation has been given, are they now being "Internet Mormons," or do you arbitrarily get to decide which questions and which positions define this distinction?

Elder Holland's comments in the PBS interview were a great step forward in clarifying the unclear nature of the priesthood ban. As time goes on, this idea may become more accepted among the Church (I'm certainly open to formerly "Internet-Mormon" ideas permeating the Chapel-Mormon culture). But there do seem to be people who still hold strongly to past teachings on the subject, or more importantly, feel strongly that the ban must have been the result of revelation because God would not allow so many prophets to be so wrong about something. This is a very Chapel Mormon line of thought.

As for evolution, the recent Pew poll reported that 75% of LDS said evolution is NOT the best explanation for human life. So the Church's insistence that the Church "doesn't know" doesn't appear to counteract whatever it is that encourages LDS to trend against evolution.

So you believe that all the apostles and first presidency unanimously believe in a global flood, and reject evolution, and so on?

To the degree that Church publications reflect the views of the apostles and FP, I would have to say that yes, "they" do believe in a global flood. That position is pretty clear. If any of them do believe in a local or allegorical flood, they've done an excellent job making sure they don't say anything that might get published in a Church publication. Again, this clarity is what makes it so useful in illustrating the different patterns of thought.

Evolution is less clear, which is why I don't find it extremely useful in distinguishing between the two (although I would definitely guess that someone who is strongly anti-evolution is a Chapel-Mormon). There are a lot of different, smaller issues at play when doctrines are made to fit the theory of evolution, so there isn't an easy way to discuss it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Elder Holland's comments in the PBS interview were a great step forward in clarifying the unclear nature of the priesthood ban. As time goes on, this idea may become more accepted among the Church (I'm certainly open to formerly "Internet-Mormon" ideas permeating the Chapel-Mormon culture). But there do seem to be people who still hold strongly to past teachings on the subject, or more importantly, feel strongly that the ban must have been the result of revelation because God would not allow so many prophets to be so wrong about something. This is a very Chapel Mormon line of thought.

Can you cite verbatim the verbiage from Elder Holland which leads to your conclusion that the restriction was not the result of revelation?

Add on: I just glanced at the PBS transcript of the Elder Holland interview. While he does dismiss the folklore that was circulating pre-1978 with regard to reasons for the priesthood restriction, I don't see any denial that it was in place due to revelation.

[cinepro]

Can you cite verbatim the verbiage from Elder Holland which leads to your conclusion that the restriction was not the result of revelation?

Add on: I just glanced at the PBS transcript of the Elder Holland interview. While he does dismiss the folklore that was circulating pre-1978 with regard to reasons for the priesthood restriction, I don't see any denial that it was in place due to revelation.

I agree it isn't explicitly said. But I think it is very important that in his entire answer, he never once affirms that God was the source of the ban. Especially when he says this:

whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time.

I don't think he would have worded it this way if he truly believed the ban came from God. If he believed God was the source, there would be no problem with saying "We don't know why God instituted the ban..." or "Previous leaders were obeying revelation on the subject, but they didn't know why God would require such a thing...".

It would be perfectly logical for the Church leaders to adopt an official stance saying "God established the ban; we don't know why He did it; He ended it in 1978." But that's not what Elder Holland said.

(Or look at it this way: if anyone asks why Joseph Smith and early LDS practiced polygamy, is there any other answer than "Because God commanded it"? That's the first and most critical point to establish. Would you ever answer "Joseph Smith and early LDS...they were practicing polygamy on the basis of faith at that time"?)

Given the length of the answer, I think that's an important point. But since he didn't say it explicitly, there is certainly room to see it differently.

(And based on comments made by certain members in the threads that discuss these matters, I don't expect any Church leader to ever plainly state that the ban was probably not the result of a revelation. The implications of such an idea are tolerable for some LDS, but too traumatic for others.)

[Pahoran]

I have heard others say they are chapel mormons. Would you please tell us your answers to the following quiz so we can see what you believe that qualifies you as a chapel mormon:

No. I will not.

But if ever I find myself so unsure of my religious identity as to feel the need to have it validated by a hostile manipulator of facile invented labels, I promise you'll be the first person I ask.

FWIW, when a certain "shady" character first posted his famous "survey" in another forum, I took it, just for fun. Turns out I scored smack in the middle of the range he identified with "Chapel Mormons."

I understand the hoops that Shades et al expect believing Latter-day Saints to jump through to justify the existence of this bogus dichotomy have shifted since then. I rather suspect I understand why. But since I am not a performing seal, I see no reason to jump through any more hoops for your idle amusement.

oh, I see, redefine the term and then claim it covers you.

Since I have rather explicitly rejected the validity of these labels, and the uses to which they are put, I consider myself entirely at liberty to come up with potentially legitimate uses for them, instead of the intentionally illegitimate ones invented by Shades.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree it isn't explicitly said. But I think it is very important that in his entire answer, he never once affirms that God was the source of the ban. Especially when he says this:

I don't think he would have worded it this way if he truly believed the ban came from God. If he believed God was the source, there would be no problem with saying "We don't know why God instituted the ban..." or "Previous leaders were obeying revelation on the subject, but they didn't know why God would require such a thing...".

It would be perfectly logical for the Church leaders to adopt an official stance saying "God established the ban; we don't know why He did it; He ended it in 1978." But that's not what Elder Holland said.

Bear in mind that Elder Holland was speaking to the perhaps skeptical producer of a secular documentary about the Church expected to have viwership in the millions. It makes sense to me that Elder Holland would be very careful not to make a statement that, taken out of context and used as a sound bite, could be inflammatory, divisive and bring the Church into disrepute. I think it significant that, trying his best to present the Church's position in a positive light, he never denied that the pre-1978 priesthood restriction stemmed from revelation. He even used the term "doctrine" to characterize it at one point in the interview.

[cinepro]

Bear in mind that Elder Holland was speaking to the perhaps skeptical producer of a secular documentary about the Church expected to have viwership in the millions. It makes sense to me that Elder Holland would be very careful not to make a statement that, taken out of context and used as a sound bite, could be inflammatory, divisive and bring the Church into disrepute. I think it significant that, trying his best to present the Church's position in a positive light, he never denied that the pre-1978 priesthood restriction stemmed from revelation. He even used the term "doctrine" to characterize it at one point in the interview.

I've read your first sentence at least 10 times, and it still makes no sense to me. You seem to be saying that the size and nature of the audience was a reason for Elder Holland (an Apostle) to back away from affirming the divine nature of the ban. That seems totally backwards to me (as I understand the role of an "Apostle"). If it were a Church PR guy or "spokesman", it would make more sense.

And while he does initially call it a "doctrine", look what happens a second later....

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

As I've said before, I'm much more convinced that President Hinckley's statement indicates a shift in attitude towards the priesthood ban. Only time will tell if it continues, or is just an aberration.

As a reference for comparison, I look at the Church's attitude towards 19th century polygamy. Even with the modern policy against the practice of polygamy (and the desire to distance ourselves far away from those who do practice it today), the Church is always clear to point out the God commanded its practice in the early days of the Church. For example, the Gospel Doctrine teacher's manual includes this statement in it's notes:

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage.

Are there any similar statements for the Priesthood ban anywhere on the Church website?

[cinepro]

What you have to remember, Dan, is that Cinepro and his ilk are operating on the Inverse Proportionality rule of LDS Doctrine, which posits that references in the standard works to redemption, the role of the Savior's atonement, service to our fellow man, and everything else you listed are simply too ubiquitous to represent anything important. If it really meant something, it would be rare. So rare, in fact, that the most important doctrine of all--the event that sustains the very "fabric of our cosmology" according to some--would be mentioned only once in the SW and perhaps depend on how we read something literally in translation despite textual or editing concerns. According to this POV, what Joseph really meant to say was something like this:

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the English KJV of Genesis concerning the flood, that it was global and involved a lot of animals and cubits; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

CFR that I've ever denied the fact that LDS are pretty unified in their devotion to the Savior, their belief in His divinity, and their desire to serve others.

As I've said countless times before , I use the "flood" as a litmus test not because it is somehow central to the doctrines of the Church (indeed, it could disappear tomorrow and nothing else about the Church would even change), but because it is a clear doctrine of the Church that is also clearly addressed by Earth sciences. That is why it is useful to illustrate the different approaches LDS take towards resolving apparent conflicts between the two.

I don't know of any other doctrine that is as clear and also as clearly conflicting with modern science. "No death before the fall" is definitely in second place, but there is enough ambiguity in the doctrines of the creation and Fall that conversations quickly become unwieldy.

If anyone has any other suggestions for doctrines that are clearly taught by the church (that are scripturally based, taught in Church publications, curriculum and over the pulpit, and taught consistently, clearly and currently) while also being contradicted by multiple disciplines of modern science, please let me know, and I'll stop banging the one key on the piano.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've read your first sentence at least 10 times, and it still makes no sense to me. You seem to be saying that the size and nature of the audience was a reason for Elder Holland (an Apostle) to back away from affirming the divine nature of the ban. That seems totally backwards to me (as I understand the role of an "Apostle"). If it were a Church PR guy or "spokesman", it would make more sense.

Why do you think avoidance of needless alienation of the outside public should be any the less important to an apostle than it would be to a PR guy?

And while he does initially call it a "doctrine", look what happens a second later....

I don't know what you're trying to illustrate with this. Elder Holland clearly calls it a doctrine, even in the excerpt you quote here.

As I've said before, I'm much more convinced that President Hinckley's statement indicates a shift in attitude towards the priesthood ban. Only time will tell if it continues, or is just an aberration.

In my observation, it has never been the policy of the Church to approve of racism, racial slurs, denial of human rights, etc., even in the pre-1978 days. I don't see President Hinckley's denunciation of such as being much of a shift in anything, let alone the attitude toward the pre-1978 priesthood restriction.

As a reference for comparison, I look at the Church's attitude towards 19th century polygamy. Even with the modern policy against the practice of polygamy (and the desire to distance ourselves far away from those who do practice it today), the Church is always clear to point out the God commanded its practice in the early days of the Church. For example, the Gospel Doctrine teacher's manual includes this statement in it's notes:

Are there any similar statements for the Priesthood ban anywhere on the Church website?

This is, to some degree, an apples-to-oranges comparison.

[cinepro]

It has never been the policy of the Church to approve of racism, racial slurs, denial of human rights, etc., even in the pre-1978 days. I don't see President Hinckley's denunciation of such as being much of a shift in anything, let alone the attitude toward the pre-1978 priesthood restriction.

I would agree, if he hadn't asked this question:

How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Tell me, is the answer to that question "Because sometimes God says they're ineligible"?

Also, would it have been applicable for President Grant, or President McKay to stand in conference and ask the same question? Meaning, was it not "arrogant" then? But it is "arrogant" now? It just suddenly went from being "not-arrogant" to "arrogant" in June of 1978?

This is, to some degree, an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Only because there isn't a Priesthood-ban equivalent to D&C 132.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would agree, if he hadn't asked this question:

President Hinckley asked this question because, in the context of the time, he could ask it. Obviously, he wouldn't have asked it pre-1978.

The Church has repeatedly said that the reason for the 1978 priesthood restriction is unknown, not that it never should have been implemented in the first place. That President Hinckley's question, asked in a conference sermon many years later under a different time, circumstances and frame of reference amounts to a repudiation of the pre-1978 practice strikes me as far-fetched.

Only because there isn't a Priesthood-ban equivalent to D&C 132.

I've never accepted the notion that a revelation must be printed in the scriptural canon to be valid.

[rockslider]

I