Thoughts On Church History And Faith Crisis Part 2

[Deborah]

Best way I can say it is this. I have an expectation that the True church will be apparently and obviously true to an honest seeker of truth. The honest seeker will know beyond a doubt that the Lord's church is the Lord's church.

That has never been the pattern in the Lord's church. People have always been expected to exercise faith and seek for the truth. Now I admit when I found the church I knew immediately that I had found the true church but I had also spent a lot of time prior to this reading the Bible and looking into other churches and seeking the truth.

That aside of course there have been things I have heard that have caused moments of doubt but because I already knew what I knew I set those things aside until I could find the answers, and yes as someone else pointed out the answers eventually came.

Since then I have learned that history really is a matter of interpretation and is incomplete. However, the more I have read and learned of the history of the church from the journals of faithful members and from those who have really studied it from original sources and not hearsay, the more I am convinced that the history supports the truth claims of Joseph Smith.

I agree with those who say put aside the history and focus on reading the scriptures and being able to attain the spirit. It is amazing how answers will come eventually to the doubts one has.

[wenglund]

Here is what I said that invoked your latest neurotic retreat to condescension:

"I just find it inconceivable that an all knowing, all powerful God would place any value on an "outward sign" when he has the ability to look inward."

So, yes, I get that your snarky comment was premised on the assumption that when I said "place any value on" what I really meant to say was "benefit from".

I don't how I manage to function in life, when I don't have you telling me what I really meant to say.

Clueless stacked on top of clueless. Will it ever end?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, you are both thread banned for using personal insults.

[selek1]

Yes, you are both thread banned for using personal insults.

I don't believe this call is fair or just- and that it rewards the tactic of "kamikaze criticism".

Jaybear has spent half the thread throwing out one-liners, lies, insults, and provocations.

Wade, by contrast, has spent the thread trying to answer in charity and good faith.

When he finally responds to the relentless onslaught of deliberate provocation, both are thread-banned.*

Wade's very real and sincere contributions to the topic have been silenced- hobbling one side of the discussion.

Jaybear- was also removed, but he was adding nothing to the conversation at all- but by neutralizing Wade, he has made it more difficult to advance the causes of faith and reason.

That's kinda like sacrificing a pawn to take out a Bishop (no pun intended).

Jaybear has managed to silence a faith-promoting point of view at no real cost to himself*.

This is a simple and effective strategy that will increase in frequency on these boards for the simple fact that such behavior is rewarded.

It goes without saying that Wade should not have allowed Jaybear to goad him into responding- but one has to ask the question:

Would Wade have met Jaybear on his own level if the moderators had slapped down the latter in a timely fashion?

Would he have felt the need to respond insult-for-insult if the moderators had already intervened?

I think we all know the answer.

* I cannot recall the last time Jaybear, Xander, or other reliable provocatuers were given an extended time out for their antics. But I can recall faithful posters- including Wade- being publicly rebuked and "benched" for extended periods. So long as one side is removed from the field for bad behavior and the other is not, this sort of "kamikaze criticism" will be an attractive tactic to one side of the argument.

Take a break.

[altersteve]

I said: "I don't see a just and merciful God, who is also all powerful and all knowing, demanding ritualism, when he can simply look into one's heart."

That is my belief. I invite you to disagree, break down, challenge, criticize my belief.

If you are not interested in learning that other people have different beliefs, or if you are easily offended when your beliefs are challenged, perhaps you shouldn't be in a forum where nonmembers are allowed to express their opinions.

I understand very well that people have different beliefs, and I never implied (or meant to imply) that I am "easily offended" when someone challenges or criticizes my beliefs. All I said was that if you're going to criticize what I believe, then at least try to look at my beliefs from the perspective that I look at them from, as I try to do with yours. Try to understand why it is we believe something and how our beliefs look from our end first.

Sorry, but your post here does not answer what I said at all. If anything, it looks like you're avoiding what I said completely.

[DBMormon]

I think part of the issue as I have been reflecting on this for several weeks. the example I will use is Bruce R McConkie stating Evolution is a Heresy.

Elder McConkie gives the talk in 1980. "Seven Deadly Heresies" The church Leadership puts out at least two known letters saying the church has no official stance on Evolution, one before his talk and one after. And that having no stance is their current official stance. One in the church who is seeking learning and knowledge is 10 times more likely to find Elder McConkie's talk rather then info on the letters. He is also much more likely to find Elder McConkie's statement many times over the letters.

So one is left overwhelmed hearing an apostle says something false and portray it as truth. Until one confronts the issue and others like it head on (Leaders being much more frail and mortal then one hopes for a leader in a God led church) ... he/she will hesitate to reconcile this as it leaves the apostle as less then the view one had been taught to hold of them. Mouthpieces of the Lord. each utterance when they are acting in their authority is the very Word of God.

what I also find odd is the Elder McConkie felt empowered to do so multiple times in his life, exactly that which the church had already spoken on and had a different view on. Why did he feel that what he thought and believed trumped what the church had already stated. Why did he have the gall to state that his book was "Mormon Doctrine" and that he as a Seventy (later as an apostle) had authority to set in stone God's theology and Doctrine?

While correlation may have been needed... it seems to have extended far past the line of a positive benefeit, and has extended into the realm of not allowing others to think for themselves and be permitted to dissent when they strongly dissagreed. Yet dissention and common consent are fundamental to Mormon thought. Each having good principles and governing themselves. No blind faith. an example of this blind obedience is when McConkie himself staed to a lay member - "It is my province to teach the Church .... It is your province to echo what l say or to remain silent"

I think almost every issue I stated in these two threads goes back to unrealistic expectations I was taught to hold due to Sunday School Lessons, Talks from Apostles, Lessons from Missionaries, books from Deseret Book, ect... Even now I stare at those sources and say... really..... You don't see how a newer member gets the wrong unrealistic expectations. We teach it to them..... at the very least regardless of whether we agree or not if there is no good way to fix it..... it must be done.

One excuse on here has been to say that while this generation doesn't understand all the baggage attached to a term, the previous generation knew all that. EX: previous generation knew that urim and thummin also meant the seer stone. Well this generation doesn't, so we must change the term we use or thoroughly explain it..

Edited May 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[CV75]

I think almost every issue I stated in these two threads goes back to unrealistic expectations

So much of this seems to be a function of personalities and comfort zones, and the resulting clashes that result in unmet expectations and the tension against managing the things of the Spirit.

I maintain that no matter how badly a truth gets taught, it gets taught so well enough of the time (or so many other truths get taught well enough) that the Spirit has plenty of room to make His point. Likewise, no matter what gets taught, so much truth gets taught that the Spirit has room to work. Correlation supports the latter (clear, simple truth); agency allows the former (bad teaching).

I was a new member once, and I would bristle at certain things I’d hear (I voraciously read Mormon Doctrine cover-to-cover, including cross-references--so I ended up reading essentialy all the articles more than once) and conclude that something was “off.” It never for an instant challenged the essential truth that I did know by the Spirit. We each need to be in tune with “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” (the D&C 88:66 version) to overcome what the Church will never be able (and shouldn’t be able) to control (personality and comfort zone).

[Calm]

While correlation may have been needed... it seems to have extended far past the line of a positive benefeit, and has extended into the realm of not allowing others to think for themselves and be permitted to dissent when they strongly dissagreed.

Isn't your example of Elder McKonkie an example of the confusion that can come when someone does not teach in a "correlated" fashion?

I may have misunderstood your point, but as I am currently reading your post, it appears to demonstrate the value of very thing you are criticizing.

[DBMormon]

Isn't your example of Elder McKonkie an example of the confusion that can come when someone does not teach in a "correlated" fashion?

I may have misunderstood your point, but as I am currently reading your post, it appears to demonstrate the value of very thing you are criticizing.

True.... It is. That does seem odd doesn't it. So maybe I should split it into more of a dichotomy. I want the committee that develops manuals and lesson material to allow members an environment that is not so correlated. I also want members through this openess to better understand that Leaders can make mistakes in their assumptions of Doctrine. I want flexibility in lessons, so that lay members may feel confident enough to speak up and share different points of view allowing us all to see there are multiple lenses one can see the gospel, when this occurs one is less likely to fixate their beliefs thinking false = true.

In regards to Leaders... Leaders will at times say things that are wrong.. that is inevitable. We must do a better job to help others see that not every word spoken by a prophet or apostle is not scripture... Elder Christofferson's recent conference talk is a nice hedge in that direction

Edited May 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[CV75]

I want the committee that develops manuals and lesson material to allow members an environment that is not so correlated. I also want members through this openess to better understand that Leaders can make mistakes in their assumptions of Doctrine. I want flexibility in lessons, so that lay members may feel confident enough to speak up and share different points of view allowing us all to see there are multiple lenses one can see the gospel, when this occurs one is less likely to fixate their beliefs thinking false = true.

“Teaching No Greater Call”, “Preach My Gospel” and especially D&C 88:122 (and other references to "edifying"; this site won't allow links to the classic lds scriptures) set the tone for this to occur.

In regards to Leaders... Leaders will at times say things that are wrong.. that is inevitable. We must do a better job to help others see that not every word spoken by a prophet or apostle is not scripture... Elder Christofferson's recent conference talk is a nice hedge in that direction

I have to say this was done for me in the 1970’s in the “Podunk” branches in the “mission field” where I joined the Church, and very effectively, without any spirit of criticism or undermining.

Edited May 15, 2012 by CV75

[zerinus]

I think almost every issue I stated in these two threads goes back to unrealistic expectations I was taught to hold due to Sunday School Lessons, Talks from Apostles, Lessons from Missionaries, books from Deseret Book, ect...

I noticed that you did not mention even once the scriptures, the Book of Mormon and the other revelations Joseph Smith received, which are the theological foundations of the Church. If you are not really interested in what God has revealed, who cares what you are interested in, as far as the theological position of the Church is concerned with regard to any issue?

Even now I stare at those sources and say... really..... You don't see how a newer member gets the wrong unrealistic expectations.

What has that got to do with you? I was a "new member" once, and none of this has ever bothered me. And there are (and have been) millions of "new members" like me. It looks like you are the one who has a problem, not "new members" as such. I think you should hold on to your own hat so it won't get blown away, rather than worry about other people's hats.

We teach it to them..... at the very least regardless of whether we agree or not if there is no good way to fix it..... it must be done.

Who are "we"? Maybe you do, but I don't, and neither does the Church. Why do you insist on projecting yourself onto the Church? You are not the Church, and what the Church does has nothing to do with you. I have no complaint about what the Church does, or how it does it, and neither does anybody else that matters. If you have a problem with it, the easiest solution is to leave it---assuming that you are a member of it in the first place, which I very much doubt.

Expelled for rudeness

[Grundelwalken]

No, I get that.

I said: "I don't see a just and merciful God, who is also all powerful and all knowing, demanding ritualism, when he can simply look into one's heart."

That is my belief. I invite you to disagree, break down, challenge, criticize my belief.

What I see is a God who is interested in teaching, lifting and exalting His children so that they can become like He is. Part of that process is helping us to REMEMBER the sacredness of the process. What better way to impress on our minds than to create rituals that are considered holy and essential to our salvation.

It seems Jesus understood this aspect. He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, even though He never committed sin. MW

[Grundelwalken]

I think part of the issue as I have been reflecting on this for several weeks. the example I will use is Bruce R McConkie stating Evolution is a Heresy.

So one is left overwhelmed hearing an apostle says something false and portray it as truth. Until one confronts the issue and others like it head on (Leaders being much more frail and mortal then one hopes for a leader in a God led church) ... he/she will hesitate to reconcile this as it leaves the apostle as less then the view one had been taught to hold of them. Mouthpieces of the Lord. each utterance when they are acting in their authority is the very Word of God.

I realize that many on this forum consider the 'doctrine' of evolution to be truth (and it sure may be) but I think it is possible for others to also have some claim on truth as they understand it.

And an even more vocal group seem to have something against some of the older Brethren (McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, Brigham, Orson Pratt/Hyde, etc.). But to say that an Apostle of God is teaching false doctrine simply because you don't want to believe what he says seems a little presumptuous. Wouldn't you feel a little silly when you go to the your first day of school in the Spirit World and are told that all you believe about evolution was just "poppycock". Then you'd have to go back to remedial school over in "Prison" to learn the REAL method of creation (whether or not it is as the scriptures teach). MW

[Log]

I think part of the issue as I have been reflecting on this for several weeks. the example I will use is Bruce R McConkie stating Evolution is a Heresy.

Elder McConkie gives the talk in 1980. "Seven Deadly Heresies" The church Leadership puts out at least two known letters saying the church has no official stance on Evolution, one before his talk and one after. And that having no stance is their current official stance. One in the church who is seeking learning and knowledge is 10 times more likely to find Elder McConkie's talk rather then info on the letters. He is also much more likely to find Elder McConkie's statement many times over the letters.

So one is left overwhelmed hearing an apostle says something false and portray it as truth. Until one confronts the issue and others like it head on (Leaders being much more frail and mortal then one hopes for a leader in a God led church) ... he/she will hesitate to reconcile this as it leaves the apostle as less then the view one had been taught to hold of them. Mouthpieces of the Lord. each utterance when they are acting in their authority is the very Word of God.

what I also find odd is the Elder McConkie felt empowered to do so multiple times in his life, exactly that which the church had already spoken on and had a different view on. Why did he feel that what he thought and believed trumped what the church had already stated.

RM - does the fact that the Church has no official position on whether evolution can be reconciled with the Gospel somehow in and of itself make what Elder McConkie said wrong?

What prevents BRM from being correct? (For my part, I believe he is correct on this issue.)

On the other hand, I have seen at least one example where BRM was acting as an apostle and also was clearly wrong, by his own later admission.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Log

[DBMormon]

RM - does the fact that the Church has no official position on whether evolution can be reconciled with the Gospel somehow in and of itself make what Elder McConkie said wrong?

no, not wrong. But also not Doctrine. Yet his talk seems to bind people into either accepting it as Doctrine or Saying he spoke out of turn because the Church's stance is that we don't know one way or another. In other words he wasn't in a place to decalre it heresy or true.... and anything he says to that effect is his opinion or guess. Could he be right... sure I could also be right in saying that Adam had a belly button. But I have no right to declare it heresy or truth for the church until the Prophet has declared it so under the voice of revelation and that other thing..... what was it?.... oh yeah common consent...lol by the way good to see you on here LOG, hadn't seen you in a while

What prevents BRM from being correct? (For my part, I believe he is correct on this issue.)

He being right or wrong isn't the issue... it is he declaring it heresy and seeming to speak for the church as he does it... that is the error

On the other hand, I have seen at least one example where BRM was acting as an apostle and also was clearly wrong, by his own later admission.

Yes, and he took it back as well as asking us to ignore what anyone else said on the subject.

It is more about speaking out of turn.

Edited May 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[Log]

no, not wrong. But also not Doctrine. Yet his talk seems to bind people into either accepting it as Doctrine or Saying he spoke out of turn because the Church's stance is that we don't know one way or another. In other words he wasn't in a place to decalre it heresy or true.... and anything he says to that effect is his opinion or guess. Could he be right... sure I could also be right in saying that Adam had a belly button. But I have no right to declare it heresy or truth for the church until the Prophet has declared it so under the voice of revelation and that other thing..... what was it?.... oh yeah common consent...lol by the way good to see you on here LOG, hadn't seen you in a while

Ok, so BRM committed no actual error. He defended an unpopular position which, while the Church takes no official position on, the Brethren have consistently proclaimed throughout the years.

And yes, Adam had a belly button.

As for where I've been, well... I'm not very comfortable on this board.

He being right or wrong isn't the issue... it is he declaring it heresy and seeming to speak for the church as he does it... that is the error

Ok. As an Apostle, what is the scope of his authority? Now, if I recall, he never declared his position to be the official position of the Church. Does the irreconcilability of evolution with the Gospel - which irreconcilability is a logical fact, by definition of the word evolution - have to be the official position of the Church for an Apostle to legitimately teach that evolution is irreconcilable with the Gospel?

Yes, and he took it back as well as asking us to ignore what anyone else said on the subject.

It is more about speaking out of turn.

Here's what I'm getting at: was he indeed speaking out of turn? How do we go about showing that? We agree he wasn't necessarily wrong in what he was, in fact, saying, so how exactly did he overstep his authority in his teachings?

[DBMormon]

Ok. As an Apostle, what is the scope of his authority? Now, if I recall, he never declared his position to be the official position of the Church. Does the irreconcilability of evolution with the Gospel - which irreconcilability is a logical fact, by definition of the word evolution - have to be the official position of the Church for an Apostle to legitimately teach that evolution is irreconcilable with the Gospel?

If I understand correctly, he can't declare new doctrine without the president of the church on board. There were other members of the 12 who did not believe his position. The first presidency even after he said it restated their position of neutrality pertaining to it. Imagine being in the room when BRM gave that talk.... If you believed evolution when you walked in that night... BRM made you feel stupid for believing it, like you were the dummy in the room. That night he belittled anyone who fell on that side of the fence and yet without The church's stamp and their shortly thereafter digging in even further on the the position of neutrality. Was he wrong, maybe... maybe not. While an apostle, he can not declare new doctrine without the stamp of the other 14 as a group. BTW - good to have ya back..... I am also uncomfortable at times too, do you think anybody noticed? curious what your take is on my Grace and works thread

[Log]

RM, don't misunderstand - I'm not picking on you.

[Log]

If I understand correctly, he can't declare new doctrine without the president of the church on board. There were other members of the 12 who did not believe his position. The first presidency even after he said it restated their position of neutrality pertaining to it. Imagine being in the room when BRM gave that talk.... If you believed evolution when you walked in that night... BRM made you feel stupid for believing it, like you were the dummy in the room. That night he belittled anyone who fell on that side of the fence and yet without The church's stamp and their shortly thereafter digging in even further on the the position of neutrality. Was he wrong, maybe... maybe not. While an apostle, he can not declare new doctrine without the stamp of the other 14 as a group. BTW - good to have ya back..... I am also uncomfortable at times too, do you think anybody noticed? curious what your take is on my Grace and works thread

Well, I'm betting I get banned before you.

As for declaring new doctrine - BRM actually wasn't. It is the official position of the Church that Adam and Eve are the progenitors of the human race. If Adam and Eve themselves had parents, then those parents would themselves be the progenitors of the human race.

So, while the Church has no official position on the theory of evolution, it does have an official position on a competing claim with respect to the origins of humanity at the very least.

In any event, it's not my calling to try to bring otherwise faithful saints into turmoil by forcing a doctrinal confrontation between the Church and the reigning philosophy of the age - scientific naturalism. BRM felt differently at the time, and I haven't any knowledge by which to gainsay his choice.

As for grace and works - check out my profile page. I included links to three or four sources which, taken jointly, constitute my understanding of grace and works. Which reminds me, I need to add this: http://www.fairlds.o...-by-grace-alone

Edited May 15, 2012 by Log

[DBMormon]

tu shay

Edited May 16, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

RM, don't misunderstand - I'm not picking on you

You couldn't offend me if you tried... your too awesome.

so what don't you understand?

[Log]

I was asking you to forbear from hitting that "report" button.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Log

[CASteinman]

On the other hand, I have seen at least one example where BRM was acting as an apostle and also was clearly wrong, by his own later admission.

Years ago, I used to be slightly better connected than I am now. I was speaking to a GA who told an interesting story about McConkie and his wife. It seems that Elder McConkie, his wife and some other GA's were either at some archaeological site or else were at an archaeological exhibit that included some sort of extremely early Christian display of the Magi coming to visit Christ. The antiquity of this representation was its great fascination. Elder McConkie had long expressed the notion that we do not know how many Wise Men came to visit -- and that the number 3 and the names given to them were fabrications of the middle ages.

However this ancient record showed distinctly 3 kings or wise men on their travels and this was a very old source.

Sister McConkie jabbed Elder McConkie with her elbow and said "See -- there WERE Three!"

And Elder McConkie, still with that booming bass voice but slightly admonished said "I never said that there WEREN'T Three!"

[CASteinman]

he declaring it heresy and seeming to speak for the church as he does it... that is the error

If so, it is not our call. He is not accountable to us. We have no authority to say that a prophet, seer and revelator is in error.

[DBMormon]

If so, it is not our call. He is not accountable to us. We have no authority to say that a prophet, seer and revelator is in error.

The temple questions differ in what we answer about apostles and about the prophet. That difference is regarding one not only having the keys but having authority to use all of them. I think it is safe to say that an apostle can not declare doctrine for the whole church if the Prophet has not received revelation to the same effect. if that was permitted we would have Hiram Page chaos all over again

Edited May 17, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

I am accountable to dicern truth and I must beware when one speaks out of order... do I not?

you may do the same with me

Edited May 17, 2012 by reelmormon