Is the Church sometimes influenced by the philosophies of men?

[WalkerW]

Yes, Joseph Smith's approach was education (lifting up) of the Black man and the process of time. However, "worthy" Black individuals were ordained during his lifetime. None of these were, I am confident in saying, escaped slaves (that is "illegal" Black men). You may correct me if I am mistaken....

Smith's approach was "pay[ing] for the slaves with proceeds from the sale of public lands, thus respecting the rights of property while freeing all bondsmen" (pg. 4). Ralph Waldo Emerson made the same proposal eleven years later.

EDIT: TSS beat me to it.

[Blossom]

Hi! I haven't posted much because I'm reading and studying and learning with the help of a neighbor, two missionaries, and three church members.

But I'd like to add to the discussion here, if I may. Remember I am not yet a Mormon and I have a lot of work to do, so please bear with me.

I showed my missionaries this topic this morning and we discussed it. They said it was ok to post what I thought, after I told them of my thoughts.

I think all churches and, indeed, religions, are somewhat influenced by events and ideas from mankind in general. For instance, Mormons do not smoke, drink, or partake of caffeine. That's not scriptural, in the most literal sense. Those rules were created so that Mormons would be plagued less with health problems associated with those bad habits. I believe Joseph Smith, in his wisdom, and the early founders of the Church like Brigham Young, etc., were simply looking out after us and concerned for our health.

Remember, back in the 1800s there were no antibiotics, no cancer treatments, and people usually didn't live very long as we do today.

Sometimes these man-made rules are for our own good, and I believe God might have put it in the founders' heads to make rules like that, because, to me, it is simply healthy living and common sense.

As I said, I'm new, and maybe way off the mark here, but that's how I see it now. I could be wrong.

Thanks for listening.

Blessings,

Blossom

[Daniel Peterson]

Dannibal Lecter himself.

Deservedly hated -- though not to the full extent that my offenses merit -- by all men and women of good character and sound judgment.

[WalkerW]

It looks like TSS got his info from this link.

[WalkerW]

Deservedly hated -- though not to the full extent that my offenses merit -- by all men and women of good character and sound judgment.

Especially census takers.

[volgadon]

Dannibal Lecter himself.

You mean Dannibal Lector

[HiJolly]

I'm new here. Is this Daniel Peterson" THE "Doc Peterson" of fame and infamy (depending on who you talk to)? The BYU Dan Peterson? The recent witness at the Brian David Mitchell trial "Doctor Peterson"?

Just curious, naturally. I thought this Mormon dialogue "Daniel Pererson" was just some other one. (although I did find your expressive and tight verbiage to be highly coincidental if that was the case....)

Yah, he looks a lot like Clayton here, but he doesn't need a helmet to have horns --- they grew in naturally for him! (being the uber Mormon that he is)

HiJolly

[Scott Lloyd]

I wonder when the time will come that the church still stop teaching against interracial marriage?

Phaedrus

Here's the official Church website:

www.lds.org

Can you find even one instance in, say, the last quarter-century of "the church ... teaching against interracial marriage"?

[ElderDarionBevan]

No the church is never influence by the philosophies of men, that is what satan wants people to think. We believe our church is the lord's true church, therefore everything that is done is done by him

[Deborah]

I am actually quite surprised that you question the historicity of Black Americans getting the priesthood in Joseph Smith's day.

I never said I questioned that black Americans received the priesthood in the early days of the church. I'm well aware of the history. I was questioning Wiki as the source of any information. You have a tendency to read what you want to into whatever anyone says. In particular I was questioning Wiki

[volgadon]

No the church is never influence by the philosophies of men, that is what satan wants people to think. We believe our church is the lord's true church, therefore everything that is done is done by him

Actually, it is. The 13th article of faith practically establishes that. The books of the Old Testament were influenced by Canaan, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. The Law of Moses was influenced by Hammurabbi's Law. John the Baptist was influenced by Essenes. Christ was influenced by them as well as by certain pharisaic circles. Jude was influenced by Enoch. Paul's teachings are full of outside influence. Luke was influenced by Josephus. Joseph Smith, Jr. was influenced by pietist, revivalist movements, as well as by temperance societes, and also the book of Jasher. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie were influenced by evangelicalism. Talmadge's "Jesus the Christ" was heavily influenced by victorian histories of Christ.

[Pahoran]

Yes, that's it, try to reframe the argument instead of speaking to the actual case at hand.

Of course I was not insinuating that "Dan merely assum[ed] that the Church built the Sao Paolo Temple at the time?"....are you serious with this logic?

I am quite serious in asking you what "assumptions" you thought Dan was making.

The assumptions that I was referring to are those in which Dan states that the "one" influential event that brought the about-face by the church regarding it's stance on blacks and the priesthood was the dedication of the Sao Paulo temple. The second assumption that I was referring to was Dan's statement that this about-face by the church was "emphatically not [due to] any nonexistent crescendo of pressure within the United States."

So let's get this straight.

Dan did not observe any such crescendo of pressure. Scott Lloyd did not observe any such crescendo of pressure. I did not observe it. In fact, nobody here reports observing any such crescendo of pressure; but for you, it is merely an "assumption" that there was no such crescendo?

I mean, if the pressure was so intense, isn't it reasonable to suppose that someone might have noticed it? How much "pressure" could there really have been, if it went entirely unnoticed by those who lived through the period?

And just so you know: the influence of the Sao Paolo Temple dedication on the deliberations of the brethren at that time is not an "assumption," but a documented fact.

It never ceases to amaze me the backflips and somersaults that apologists will go through to strain every nook and cranny of world history throught the myopic sieve of the LDS worldview. No, of course the end of polygamy had nothing to do with pressures from the US government, or the government's unwillingness to grant Utah statehood if polygamy continued. It was only a coincindence that the US Congress forced Utah to ban the practice in its state constitution in order to attain statehood. But no, the church was not influenced by the philosophies of men.

This is a rather spectacular straw man. As Dan pointed out, the Doctrine and Covenants records Wilford Woodruff describing some of the official persecution the Church was receiving in the 1880's, and pointing out that the government had granted itself the power to confiscate the Church's temples, stop the ordinance work, imprison its leaders without trial, disenfranchise its members and dispossess them of their property, all of which would have brought the practice to an end anyway. The abandonment by the United States of its alleged constitutional principles is cited as the specific reason for the ending of plural marriage.

And I put it to you, sir, that you have never at any time seen a single sentence written by any LDS apologist denying this fact.

Isn't that the truth?

Likewise, I've heard a number of apologists and LDS members make the argument that the church was not swayed at all by public opinion when it gave blacks the priesthood in 1978. Rather, the civil rights movement is spun on it's head and it is argued that the movement was in preparation, and thus necessary, for blacks to attain the mormon priesthood. Of course there is no way that by 1978, fourteen years after the civil rights bill was signed, that a church who desparately desired growth and expansion both in the US and abroad could be swayed by a general public who had come to acknowledge that denying a certain people rights based on their skin color was deplorable and disgusting. Certainly that had nothing to do with the matter.

IOW, you assume that such "public opinion" must have had something to do with the decision. Which is to say that the only "assumption" in view is your own.

The fact is that in the 1970's, the Church didn't merely "desire growth and expansion both in the US and abroad," it was achieving it. There was no pressing need to do anything drastic to bring such growth about.

I could go on

I'm sure you could.

with the curious timing of the church's actions and teachings and how they have evolved over the years to remain, at the least, on the fringe of public acceptance (teachings on the actual age of the earth, the evolving location(s) of the Hill Cumorah,

All of which have to do with informed Latter-day Saints studying their actual scriptures and looking at what they actually say, and not what people have traditionally assumed that they mean.

the evolution of the temple ceremonies, etc.).

You should be aware that this is a forum in which explicit discussion of Temple ceremonies is not permitted. Since Latter-day Saints hold such things sacred, it follows that all decent people, without exception, will respect this restriction and not attempt to flout it.

Taken as a single event, it might just seem like coincidence. When looked at as a whole, the number of coincidences becomes uncanny, especially for an institution that is supposedly not influenced by the philosophies of man.

I'm sure that if you select your material carefully enough, you can show just about any pattern you'd like. However, I have a question which I am sure is of the utmost interest to the participants in this forum:

Who's the hairy guy in your avatar?

Thanks,

Pahoran

[WalkerW]

Actually, it is. The 13th article of faith practically establishes that. The books of the Old Testament were influenced by Canaan, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. The Law of Moses was influenced by Hammurabbi's Law. John the Baptist was influenced by Essenes. Christ was influenced by them as well as by certain pharisaic circles. Jude was influenced by Enoch. Paul's teachings are full of outside influence. Luke was influenced by Josephus. Joseph Smith, Jr. was influenced by pietist, revivalist movements, as well as by temperance societes, and also the book of Jasher. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie were influenced by evangelicalism. Talmadge's "Jesus the Christ" was heavily influenced by victorian histories of Christ.

The "philosophies of men" i.e. scholarship has maintained my faith in the Church.

I can't tell you how many times I've been told that we should rely only on "the Spirit" (which is often just a cloak for bolstering one's own personal interpretation) and "the Brethren" (as if they have received revelation on every single issue). I'm fine with both of those, but not when it rejects scholarship out of hand in favor of some made-up orthodoxy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I wonder when the time will come that the church still stop teaching against interracial marriage?

Phaedrus

This is seriously lame, dude. Try again.

[HiJolly]

No the church is never influence by the philosophies of men, that is what satan wants people to think. We believe our church is the lord's true church, therefore everything that is done is done by him

Ok, that's just a little bit mind-blowing. I think I believed that way back when I was 8 or 9 y.o....

HiJolly

[David T]

Here's the official Church website:

www.lds.org

Can you find even one instance in, say, the last quarter-century of "the church ... teaching against interracial marriage"?

Actually, unfortunately, yes. It's taught every three years to the Aaronic Priesthood. - including this year.

Compare the results of the vote with the following statement by President Spencer W. Kimball. Have a young man read it.

[Walden]

I'm sure that if you select your material carefully enough, you can show just about any pattern you'd like. However, I have a question which I am sure is of the utmost interest to the participants in this forum:

Who's the hairy guy in your avatar?

Thanks,

Pahoran

"I'm sure that if you select your material carefully enough, you can show just about any pattern you'd like."....the same is true for LDS apologists. The difference is I am not confined to material that is "church approved"

And that hairy guy is one of my heroes, Henry David Thoreau

[WalkerW]

Ok, that's just a little bit mind-blowing. I think I believed that way back when I was 8 or 9 y.o....

I second this.

[WalkerW]

And that hairy guy is one of my heroes, Henry David Thoreau

Hence the name.

[WalkerW]

The difference is I am not confined to material that is "church approved"

Nor am I or anyone else on this board. I'm not even sure what the hell that means, whether coming from a critic or a member.

[Pahoran]

"I'm sure that if you select your material carefully enough, you can show just about any pattern you'd like."....the same is true for LDS apologists. The difference is I am not confined to material that is "church approved"

If by "church approved" you mean "having some basis in fact," clearly you disdain such trivial restraints.

And that hairy guy is one of my heroes, Henry David Thoreau

Which explains your screen name. Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[SkepticTheist]

While I believe the church has been steadfast in its mission of proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, it seems that it has a history of adopting philosophies and ideas from other peoples in society. For Example:

-The the adoption of the popular idea that all black people are descended from Cain through Ham.

- The priesthood being given to blacks conveniently following the civil rights movement.

- Anti-scientific ideas from the Young Earth Creationist movement perpetuated by Bruce R. McKonkie and Joseph Fielding Smith.

-The idea that all native americans descended from lost tribes of Israel (A popular belief in the 19th century).

It makes me wonder if they'll ever give in and let women have the priesthood or allow gays to marry. Maybe. Maybe not.

I think the Articles of Faith are clear that many things will be revealed, even after Joseph Smith's time. Does it matter if these ideas originate outside the Church? If there were things that originated outside the Church that were wrong, they are left by the wayside eventually, and that which is correct takes its place, regardless of its place of origin. Therefore, it is not surprising that naive, oudated ideas are abandoned like the curse of Cain doctrine, adopted originally from Protestantism. The 1978 revelation put a stop to that nonsense. It is incidental that it coincides with the Civil rights movement in the sense that God can speak whenever he pleases, but who can deny that the reasons the revelation came about was because of the fact that the Brethren sought light and knowledge because of the preoccupation on the subject in the environment of that era?

Ed Goble

[SkepticTheist]

Actually, unfortunately, yes. It's taught every three years to the Aaronic Priesthood. - including this year.

Compare the results of the vote with the following statement by President Spencer W. Kimball. Have a young man read it.

[David T]

I think a general piece of advice that seeks to help people avoid general issues that may lead to marital friction is a good thing. But it doesn't mean that if one goes against that advice, that it is somehow a "sin." I don't think bigotry is at the core of that particular quote.

However, most likely, the Priesthood restriction on Africans was. Note the date of the original quote: 1977. The impression I get from it, knowing its context, is, "Don't choose to be married to someone who couldn't go to the temple with you, and would automatically deny in-this-life blessings to your future children." Right? I think the advice as found in the current manual is as moot and outdated as is all discriminating racial discussions and opinions prior to 1978. How it passed correlation, and continues to be taught to teenage boys, I have no idea.

[SkepticTheist]

Just because something comes from political pressure doesn't mean that keys were not exercised in harmony with the will of the Lord.

Furthermore, if faced with obedience to the law of the Church if it is restored someday, I think the same phenomenon would appear as has always appeared. there would be those who would leave the Church over it, and others would obey it, and some would do so out of obedience, not because they believe in it. And apologists would come along and defend the practice, as they always have for everything the Church does.

Ed

Since the beginning Mormon theology has had to capitulate and reframe it self due to pressures from the world (philosophies of men and political pressure - I will refer to them as the same thing).

An easy and obvious example of this is Polygamy.

Polygamy was a divine decree currently on display in restoration scripture.

It was stopped because of political pressure which stemmed from the philosophies of men (men thought they knew what was moral and correct and sought to force that morality on the church).

Any fair reading of the declaration responsible for the church wide statement discontinuation of polygamous practices would recognize it is a politically pressured change.

Now in our current times most Mormon's would find it impossible to agree to the reinstitution of the practice, indeed some Active-Mormons feel that it was wrong, un-inspired etc etc.

This is but one obvious example of how the philosophies of men impact the growth shape and popular doctrinal beliefs of the Church and it's members.

We live in the world. Of course it effect the church.