The Debate Is Over.

[BCSpace]

I think debate against the prophet is over for the faithful who really think about what they are doing to themselves and others when they argue against the prophet’s direction.

One then has to determine one's level of personal apostasy and unbelief and how much of that one is willing to accept. For example, there are published doctrines which I don't accept, but I think they're too small to be of much salvational value and likely to be changed in the future. Another person might certainly look at the same disagreements I have and think those would disaqualify one from the higher degrees of salvation.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

There may be some obscure doctrine of which I may disagree. But I haven't found any yet.

The only person I ever fully agree with is myself, and I'm entitled to change my mind.

[Garden Girl]

There has been the rare occasion when I've disagreed with one of the prophets, but not on the core salvational doctrines... things like the age of the earth/creation, where I followed more with scientific evidence...

GG

[wenglund]

The phrase "the debate is over" doesn't necessarily mean that the issue has been definitively settled and put beyond question and doubt. It can also signify a viable point for cessation of fruitless, unresolvable, and detracting squabbles, as well as a way of encouraging moving on to productive actions.

I believe it is the latter that is being suggested by Cannon and Tanner.

After all, much of what we debate within the Church and with those critical of the Church is subjective, non-definitively resolvable, and of little relative consequence compared with what we are and ought to be doing as members.

Some debate can be good, though not to the point where it impedes progress. When it reaches that point, as it often does, it is good to end the debate and go about progressing. Accepting and acting upon the inspired words of the prophets is a great way of doing so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 18, 2011 by wenglund

[rameumptom]

The debate is over on core doctrine. The debate is never over on any other issue. The Church has changed its stance on many things since those two quotes were given.

The Church distinguishes between a General Authority speaking opinion and core doctrine. It has an authorized statement regarding it here: http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[Storm Rider]

You don't need to worry about critics.

They aren't going away. You need to worry about what is true

mf, I am committed to truth, but I understand the evil one's purpose and we don't need to help him in his task. God answering prayers does not equate to "progressing". If you think so, please explain. Make sure you re-read McConkie's comment; it cannot be said any clearer.

[mfbukowski]

mf, I am committed to truth, but I understand the evil one's purpose and we don't need to help him in his task. God answering prayers does not equate to "progressing". If you think so, please explain. Make sure you re-read McConkie's comment; it cannot be said any clearer.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/afterlife/progression_eom.htm

Underlining mine.

by Elder Bruce R. McConkie

Endowed with agency and subject to eternal laws, man began his progression and advancement in pre-existence, his ultimate goal being to attain a state of glory, honor, and exaltation like the Father of spirits. During his earth life he gains a mortal body, receives experience in earthly things, and prepares for a future eternity after the resurrection when he will continue to gain knowledge and intelligence. (D. & C. 130:18-19.) This gradually unfolding course of advancement and experience -- a course that began in a past eternity and will continue in ages future -- is frequently referred to as a course of eternal progression.

It is important to know, however, that for the overwhelming majority of mankind, eternal progression has very definite limitations. In the full sense, eternal progression is enjoyed only by those who receive exaltation. Exalted persons gain the fullness of the Father; they have all power, all knowledge, and all wisdom; they gain a fullness of truth, becoming one with the Father. All other persons are assigned lesser places in the mansions that are prepared, and their progression is not eternal and unlimited but in a specified sphere. There will be truths such persons never learn, powers they never possess. They are "ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory," and they so continue "to all eternity, and ... forever and ever." (D. & C. 132:16-17.)

Those who gain exaltation, having thus enjoyed the fullness of eternal progression, become like God. It should be realized that God is not progressing in knowledge, truth, virtue, wisdom, or any of the attributes of godliness. He has already gained these things in their fullness. But he is progressing in the sense that his creations increase, his dominions expand, his spirit offspring multiply, and more kingdoms are added to his domains. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 5-10.)

God is not unchanging; any interaction he has with his children is a change. Yes he is perfect- there is no contradiction there.

As can be seen above, there is a sense in which he cannot be said to "progress" without our progression.

[BCSpace]

The debate is over on core doctrine. The debate is never over on any other issue. The Church has changed its stance on many things since those two quotes were given.

The Church hasn't changed it's stance on plural marriage, or blacks and the priesthood, or homosexuality so what else could you be thinking of?

The Church distinguishes between a General Authority speaking opinion and core doctrine. It has an authorized statement regarding it here: http://newsroom.lds....mormon-doctrine

Amen. I link to it in my siggy.

[wenglund]

To underscore my earlier point, the unresolvable and seemingly fruitless debate continues over whether the debate is over.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rameumptom]

The Church hasn't changed it's stance on plural marriage, or blacks and the priesthood, or homosexuality so what else could you be thinking of?

Amen. I link to it in my siggy.

I do not consider any of the above as "core doctrine." Besides, there has always been a belief that plural marriage is only done when commanded of God (see Jacob, for instance), and even Elder McConkie and others believed the blacks would someday receive the priesthood.

As for homosexuality, the Church has learned to distinguish between natural tendencies and sin. One still cannot be engaged in homosexual sex and remain a member of the Church, so I do not see how the doctrine has changed, just the policy on how to react to it.

The Church has very few actual core doctrines. Yes, there are many teachings that are called doctrine, but they are not core doctrine. The Word of Wisdom could be eliminated or changed today, and it would not affect the core doctrine of the Church. Pres Woodruff showed the difference between core doctrine and beliefs/policies/regular doctrine, when he banned plural marriage in order to save the temple and missionary work. The latter two will never go away, while plural marriage is just a blip on the radar.

As for Elder McConkie's quote given by mfbukowski, he was using a belief that followed down the Joseph F Smith/Joseph Fielding Smith/Bruce R. McConkie line of personal doctrine. We do not really know how God progresses. To say he does or does not learn, or only progresses in dominions, etc., is pure speculation on their part. I could quote President Brigham Young, who publicly denounced Orson Pratt on this matter, and say that God does progress in knowledge. And for those who have studied LDS philosophy, many do believe that God does not know the future, only all things that can be known right now. I recommend reading Blake Ostler's trilogy "Exploring Mormon Thought" to get a better understanding of this view. I do not know one way or the other, but keep an open mind to it, as he does have some compelling arguments.

Don't forget, it was Elder McConkie, among others, who insisted blacks would not receive the priesthood until the Millennium, and then after the 1978 revelation graciously acceded that he and all those who taught such things were dead wrong, and we now have to move on with the light of current revelation.

IOW, each of us as individuals are responsible for our own progression in light and truth. Once we gain a witness of the core doctrines, we are personally responsible for determining with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which of the other teachings we will embrace and follow. In my opinion, the person who believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is just as worthy of God's blessings as the one who questions the historicity, but fully accepts the divine nature of the sacred writings.

Thankfully, we are moving to a point where scholars can discuss and use textual criticism and scientific methodologies to study the scriptures and LDS philosophy, allowing us to move forward and upward in understanding God's great restoration and gospel. In truth, each of us mingles scripture with the philosophies of men. The question is whether we are insisting on the Church remain steadfast on the philosophies of men, or just using them as a method to better understand our religion until greater revelation is received?

[mfbukowski]

As for Elder McConkie's quote given by mfbukowski, he was using a belief that followed down the Joseph F Smith/Joseph Fielding Smith/Bruce R. McConkie line of personal doctrine. We do not really know how God progresses. To say he does or does not learn, or only progresses in dominions, etc., is pure speculation on their part. I could quote President Brigham Young, who publicly denounced Orson Pratt on this matter, and say that God does progress in knowledge. And for those who have studied LDS philosophy, many do believe that God does not know the future, only all things that can be known right now. I recommend reading Blake Ostler's trilogy "Exploring Mormon Thought" to get a better understanding of this view. I do not know one way or the other, but keep an open mind to it, as he does have some compelling arguments.

Agreed- just for the record

I only quoted that because the poster said something like "McConkie says God doesn't progress" when in fact that is not what McConkie said at all. Agreeing or disagreeing with McConkie is another issue- and I often don't agree with him.

My personal belief is that God changes and progresses. Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher who understood a changing universe, used the analogy of a massive river of "eternity"- and when you think of the Mississippi for example that fits well- it is hard to think of the Ms. river just ceasing to flow- in that sense it is an analogy for eternity- yet it is constantly changing- every leaf swirling in the eddies along the banks of every inch of it- its path during flood seasons, narrowing its banks during droughts, and yet, it can be compared to eternity.

The only constant is change itself- that is the concept. Yet it IS a constant. On this view, God is constant in his change and progression.

God knows everything that we can ever possibly know- in that sense he is all knowing.

But does he know what he has yet to decide to do, or doesn't he have agency? Was choosing the "Plan of Salvation" a real decision in the Council of the Gods, or just a story? Did God and all of us have agency then or not?

I choose agency. That means contingency and that things could have been otherwise.

Of course there is a point beyond which words get in the way

Edit: This is precisely what makes Mormonism unique- our break with Neoplatonic doctrine that "God is unchanging". God is of the same species we are- and organizes worlds through language just as we do, as little "mini-gods" with the potential to grow up and be like him

He hears our prayers and interacts with his children, and is our Father.

THESE are the concepts which set Mormonism apart for the sectarian Neoplatonic churches- let's not lose sight of those differences in our quest to be "politically correct" and duly inoffensive!

Edited July 19, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

There has been the rare occasion when I've disagreed with one of the prophets, but not on the core salvational doctrines... things like the age of the earth/creation, where I followed more with scientific evidence...

GG

Joseph was reported to have once said we should leave snakes alone they too are God’s creatures. My position…”The only good snake is a dead snake”. Made me question his Prophet-hood.

[alter idem]

Can God hear your prayers and answer them?

Then he is progressing.

Yes but, he says he knows what we need before we ask, so I'm not sure you can use that explanation to say he is progressing.

[mfbukowski]

Yes but, he says he knows what we need before we ask, so I'm not sure you can use that explanation to say he is progressing.

He has moved from state 1- "what he knew before we asked" to state 2- "what he does now that we actually asked".

If we pray "Please Lord let me know thee better", and he does, he has done something which means there is a change. What he knows may not have changed, but what he does has.

And of course as his children add kingdoms to his, his kingdoms, powers, principalities etc progress as well.

Surely you don't think his creation has ceased?

[alter idem]

He has moved from state 1- "what he knew before we asked" to state 2- "what he does now that we actually asked".

If we pray "Please Lord let me know thee better", and he does, he has done something which means there is a change. What he knows may not have changed, but what he does has.

And of course as his children add kingdoms to his, his kingdoms, powers, principalities etc progress as well.

Surely you don't think his creation has ceased?

No, I don't think his creation has ceased, but this whole argument over whether or not God is 'progressing' is futile, because we can only comprehend a fraction of God--only enough to get us through earthlife, IMO. 'Progression' means something to us, but I don't think it applies to God the way we understand it. I think we cannot understand God with our finite thinking and mortal brain limitations. I think God lives outside of time and therefore everything is present with him--the past, the present and the future and he really does know exactly what we need and what we'll ask for, before we do.

[ERayR]

So the progressing you are talking about is the expansion of his creation, but God himself, as a God, is not increasing in knowledge, not increasing in wisdom, etc. This is one area where we need to be very careful. We must not be too careless and leave any option for critics to take statements out of context. Thank you for kindly clarifying.

Neither do we need to be so rigid that we limit God's potential like our critics do.

Edited July 20, 2011 by ERayR

[ERayR]

No, I don't think his creation has ceased, but this whole argument over whether or not God is 'progressing' is futile, because we can only comprehend a fraction of God--only enough to get us through earthlife, IMO. 'Progression' means something to us, but I don't think it applies to God the way we understand it. I think we cannot understand God with our finite thinking and mortal brain limitations. I think God lives outside of time and therefore everything is present with him--the past, the present and the future and he really does know exactly what we need and what we'll ask for, before we do.

I think this whole "we can't know or we can't comprehend" arguement is bogus. We certainly are capable of learning and growing and we are xommanded to ..."become like our heavenly father...". It may take some of us a lot longer to know than it takes others but, as children of our father in heaven, we are certainly capable of knowing.

[mfbukowski]

I think this whole "we can't know or we can't comprehend" arguement is bogus. We certainly are capable of learning and growing and we are xommanded to ..."become like our heavenly father...". It may take some of us a lot longer to know than it takes others but, as children of our father in heaven, we are certainly capable of knowing.

I also think that surely God is smart enough to teach us in a way that even we dummies can understand.

I'm not even going to try to explain Quantum Mechanics or the pragmatic theory of truth to a 4 year old. On the other hand, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle........ nah, fergetaboutit.