Chasm Between Lds Scholarship And Church Curriculum

[wenglund]

If Christ is running the church then why did he allow McConkie to publish that book of inaccuracies?

What, in your mind, causes you to presume that the one (Christ running the Church) would necessarily preclude the other (Church leaders making mistakes), and that the two are somehow mutually exclusive? Are you suffering under the mistaken, and oft fundamentalist belief that Christ micro-manages his kingdom and his chosen leaders are infallible?

Rameupton makes a good point that we should officially clear out all the folk stories about our doctrine. I know I grew up believing a lot stuff through four years of seminary that apparently are bunk according to the apologists on this board. But if I went home and called them bunk with my former classmates around they'd say I was an anti-mormon.

The good news is, while Christ may not micro-manage his earthly kingdom, and while his chosen leaders may be fallible, they are endowed with certain keys and authority and guidance and revelations, and have been included in the loop so to speak, and contrary to what your personal egos may suggest, these rightly chosen leaders are in a far better position than either you or rameumptom to know what they are talking about and what is best for the Church, and in a far better position to do anything about it, In short, if anyone is deserving of trust and credibility in this regard, it is them, and not the two of you.

Feel free, then, to divest yourself of the usurped responsibility. Be at liberty to off-load all these things that are really none of your business. That way, the weight won't be so insurmountable for you when you turn your attention to where it ought to be, and effectively manage and take care of your own business. Sound like a good plan?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 16, 2012 by wenglund

[rameumptom]

Drawing upon my several decades of experience in LDS apologetics, I happen to think it has to do far more with a shift of trust from God and the things of God, to man and the things of man. This is born out in numerous exit narratives that attribute their loss of faith to what they have learned from so-called scholars, and are conspicuously silent about what they learned from God or by living gospel principles. I can't be certain, but I don't believe they would have lost faith were they to have kept their eye single to God and continued to live the gospel as it is designed and to the end to which it is intended. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But there have been previous statements from some GAs that could ostensibly test a person's faith. Elder McConkie's Seven Deadly Heresies can be very challenging to a young person who attends his freshman biology class, for example. That Elder McConkie's statements against evolution go beyond the First Presidency statement saying the Church does not have a stance on evolution, shows it to be very problematic to have individual GAs to run faster than the Church does. It is one thing to have a BYU instructor speak against evolution, another to have a major apostle do so, only to have the Church move away quietly from that stance after his death. Of course, the curse of Cain is another of several issues we must now deal with.

So, when GAs speak out beyond the actual doctrines of the gospel in an unofficial statement of their personal opinions (stated strongly as if it is doctrine), those opinions risk leading people into a choice of one or the other.

[ERMD]

If Christ is running the church then why did he allow McConkie to publish that book of inaccuracies? Rameupton makes a good point that we should officially clear out all the folk stories about our doctrine. I know I grew up believing a lot stuff through four years of seminary that apparently are bunk according to the apologists on this board. But if I went home and called them bunk with my former classmates around they'd say I was an anti-mormon.

If Christ were running the church, why did he allow his cousin to be beheaded, Peter to deny him, Stephen to be stoned etc., etc.

[cinepro]

It is one thing to have a BYU instructor speak against evolution, another to have a major apostle do so, only to have the Church move away quietly from that stance after his death.

The "Church" hasn't moved quietly away from McConkie's anti-evolutionary ideas since his death in 1985. While not as frequent or strident, Church leaders and publications have continued their anti-evolution tack, with a total absence of moderating or counter-arguments.

For example, Elder Nelson in 1988:

Others have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been a natural selection of the species, or organic evolution from one form to another. Many of these people have concluded that the universe began as a “big bang” that eventually resulted in the creation of our planet and life upon it. To me, such theories are unbelievable!

The New Era in 2004:

When your biology teacher says the facts point to evolution, what do you say?"

This quote does at least hedges a little...

Elder George Hill in 1993:

The theory of evolution as presently taught posits that higher forms of life arose gradually from lower stages of living matter. Inheritable genetic changes in offspring are assumed to be spontaneous rather than the result of arranged or directed forces external to the system.

This theory conflicts with a basic law of chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics, which states in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process to produce a system of higher order than the system possessed at the beginning of the change.

----------------------------------------------

Many Latter-day Saints recognize that the processes involved in evolution are valid. We see improved strains and varieties of plants and animals developed through judicious selection of their parents. But we would have to agree with those who understand the limitation defined in the second law of thermodynamics limitation that such changes can only occur if guided or if outside energy is available to improve the system.

And to the degree that the theory of evolution supports the idea that Adam's body was a result of evolution from lower life forms, the reprinted First Presidency statement in 2002 reiterates:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men.

Edited April 16, 2012 by cinepro

[wenglund]

But there have been previous statements from some GAs that could ostensibly test a person's faith. Elder McConkie's Seven Deadly Heresies can be very challenging to a young person who attends his freshman biology class, for example. That Elder McConkie's statements against evolution go beyond the First Presidency statement saying the Church does not have a stance on evolution, shows it to be very problematic to have individual GAs to run faster than the Church does. It is one thing to have a BYU instructor speak against evolution, another to have a major apostle do so, only to have the Church move away quietly from that stance after his death. Of course, the curse of Cain is another of several issues we must now deal with.

So, when GAs speak out beyond the actual doctrines of the gospel in an unofficial statement of their personal opinions (stated strongly as if it is doctrine), those opinions risk leading people into a choice of one or the other.

To me, the problem isn't with faith being tested--even by statements of fallible leaders.

Indeed, testing of faith, and the risks associated therewith, in various ways are integral to growth in faith.

Rather, the problem may lay with how we respond to the test--i.e. among other things, what methods we may employ when faced with the test (do we turn to and trust God, or rebel against God and turn to and trust man? Do we plant and nurture, as a seeds, the precepts being tested to see if they enlarge our souls, or do we demand to be spoon-fed and commanded in all things?), and how we put the test into perspective (do we consider and prioritize the test in relation to the ultimate objective of our coming to Christ and becoming like him, or do we give the test utmost importance, regardless of its relevance and importance, and rest our faith on the test?).

How else is someone supposed to learn to discern between when a man is speaking as a prophet or as a man, except there are times when the prophet speaks as a man?

How better is it for us who have grown beyond the fundamentalist level of spiritual development, to learn such thing except through working it out, and even wrestling, between us and God? (Yesterdays Sunday School lesson comes to mind)

I realize that during our formative years in the gospel we became used to being taught things in very clear and neat and unambiguous terms. However, in order for us to mature into spiritual adulthood, things need to be seen in their somewhat oblique, messy, and uncertain ways, and we need to be left somewhat to learn and discover on our own in consultation with God's spirit.

In short, the tests of faith are requisite to transition us from the fundamentalist/primary stage of our spiritual development, to becoming grown up in Christ.

What you are proposing, as well intended as it may be, may defy the growth process and may even in some ways inadvertently conflict with the growth process. Again, as previously intimated, your well intended but relatively uninformed advise may produce the opposite results from what you may have hoped for. And, it is for this reason, and perhaps others, that it would be wise for you to trust in those who actually know what they are talking about, and who have been called and endowed and empowered to rightly administer in the affairs of Christ's kingdom, and devote your attention instead in minding your own affairs. Make sense?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bob Crockett]

It's not Canaanite folk religion, it's parallels with Canaanite religion that contextualize the Bible in our favor.

I don't agree. Baal is not God. Asherah is not God's wife. But I understand the theory such as it is.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[selek1]

If Christ is running the church then why did he allow McConkie to publish that book of inaccuracies?

Gotta love the unprecendented arrogance and unjustified smugness that surrounds this statement.

Setting aside the laughable and inane idea that Christ must be the celestial version of a helicopter parent, your "book of inaccuracies" caricature is ignorant, offensive, and inflammatory.

You conveniently omit the fact that McConkie was called as an Apostle (and served as such for 13 years) AFTER he published Mormon Doctrine.

You conveniently omit the fact that McConkie served as a trusted and respected General Authority of the Church for THIRTY NINE years.

You conveniently omit the fact that McConkie continued publication (after a number of corrections were made) with the First Presidency's approval and endorsement.

You conveniently omit the fact that "that book of inaccuracies" was in print and circulation (and was considered authoritative-after suitable corrections) for FIFTY-TWO years.

You conveniently omit the fact that the material contained in "that book of inaccuracies" remains in authoritative use through this day. It is the source for most of the material in the Bible Dictionary contained in the LDS Scriptures.

You conveniently omit the hundreds of General Conference talks and lessons which either draw directly from McConkie's seminal work or that stand in perfect agreement with the same.

Can you even cite any of the differences between the erroneous first edition and the edition approved by the First Presidency?

I realize that McConkie bashing is a very popular sport among NewOrder, name-only, and ex-Mormons....but the man was a leader and an authority in the Church for over five decades.

So why should we take your word over his?

Edited April 17, 2012 by selek1

[Hamilton Porter]

Let me rephrase it so everyone can just answer this one question.

1. Many people are leaving the church, and about 25% are joining other Christian faiths.

2. Our beliefs have become much more Biblical because of archaeological discoveries, even enjoying dominant scholarly opinion.

3. Is there no way to take advantage of all that?

[selek1]

Let me rephrase it so everyone can just answer this one question.

1. Many people are leaving the church, and about 25% are joining other Christian faiths.

2. Our beliefs have become much more Biblical because of archaeological discoveries, even enjoying dominant scholarly opinion.

3. Is there no way to take advantage of all that?

Many people are joining the Church (far more than are leaving)- most of whom come from other Christian faiths. Others are converts from non-Christian and even athiest religious traditions.

I consider your second premise to be of dubious accuracy and questionable authenticity.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Our beliefs were and are Biblical, independent of secular correlation or confirmation.

I, for one, am all for the scholarly push to understand the deeper intricacies and "mysteries" of the Gospel- but I also consider it crucial that one not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

We already have far too many who have lost sight of the Gospel as a whole while persuing hobbies such as "the Bible code".

We also know that the focus on the minutia of the Law- rather than it's greater purpose- was the primary failing of the Pharisees and Saducees.

Better, I think, to focus on the Gospel of Christ and allow the "mysteries of the Kingdom" to reveal themselves in their proper place and time (the Temple).

Edited April 17, 2012 by selek1

[Calm]

2. Our beliefs have become much more [accepted as] Biblical because of archaeological discoveries, even enjoying dominant scholarly opinion.

I am thinking besides benefit for personal study for those who enjoy that kind of stuff, the only real advantage of any sort of scholarly acceptance is for the entertainment of bringing up such scholarly comments in those who bash LDS for being nonbiblical.

Edited April 17, 2012 by calmoriah

[Uther]

If Christ were running the church, why did he allow his cousin to be beheaded, Peter to deny him, Stephen to be stoned etc., etc.

Maby because there is a stark difference between our current perception of Christ, and the description you can find of him in the early gospels like Mark.

[capples]

Nelson, Baby sister here. Unless there are young single women on this forum i think we need to have a talk about priorities.

[Calm]

There are a few, though not frequent posters.

PS: Man does not live by love alone.

Edited April 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

The answer to any question that starts with "Why does God allow..." is:

"Agency".

Those familiar with Mormonism should already know that answer.

[Hamilton Porter]

I don't agree. Baal is not God. Asherah is not God's wife. But I understand the theory such as it is.

Hey, good pun on the William Dever! Didn't notice that.

[Hamilton Porter]

Nelson, Baby sister here. Unless there are young single women on this forum i think we need to have a talk about priorities.

hahaha.