How Critical Information Affects Members Of The Church

[DBMormon]

Wade and Selek - I agree

in regards to the list

1. Blood atonement in the temple.

In the temple... This I can't address unless we are in there. I will say I have an explanation. I assume we are talking about things taken out of the current ritual that was in it several years ago.

2. Adam/God taught in the temple.

Leadership didn't agree, wasn't a unanimous view, wasn't accepted by common consent

Beginning around 1892 and forward, the church decided to no longer support the earlier teachings of Adam-God. In a letter written on January 9, 1897, Joseph F. Smith, a member of the First Presidency, said, "With reference to Prest. B. Youngs remarks, in a discourse delivered in 1852. with reference to 'Adam being the only God with whom we have to do' &c. I will say:---Prest. Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as a revelation or commandment from the Lord. The Doctrine was never submitted to the Councils of the Priesthood not to the Church for approval or ratification and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church nor upon the consciences of any of the members thereof...."

the fundamentalist understandings of the doctrine was publicly denounced as false. Latter-day Saint president Spencer W. Kimball stated, "We denounce [the Adam–God] theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."[56][57]

In a private interview, Kimball reportedly clarified: "He said that he did not say that President Brigham Young did not make the statements which are attributed to him, nor did he claim that they were falsely reported. Neither did he say that Brigham Young taught false doctrine. What he did say and what he meant is that the Adam–God theory is false, and the Adam–God theory is that interpretation which is placed on Brigham Young's words by present day apostates and fundamentalists—their understanding of what Brigham Young meant is false."

The church did not accept it and denounced it both in private and in public. that is what you asked for... so this one goes to bed

3. 18 month missions in the 80s

Why is this right or wrong... Some married adult men served 3-5 year missions in the church in the beginning. Please explain. Time of a mission should not be an issue. something here I don't know?

4. Policy of denying black's the priesthood and inclusion in the temple rites.

Elder Holland PBS interview

I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

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.

This is no different then Peter the head apostle refusing to give Gentiles the gospel until a revelation came. Was it fair... maybe not but who am I to question God's time line. were there gentiles who died wanting the gospel but unable to have it before Peter received a revelation? likely... were they mad, probably. Did they protest? maybe Was Peter prejudiced? yeah these are human beings and God deals with us in his way and in his time

5. Church position in opposition to the civil rights movement.

I would need info here otherwise I am just throwing things out there.

6. The church position in the 70s and 80s that birth control was evil.

The church's stance here hasn't changed. If the church is true and there are spirits who need bodies then limiting families would not be pleasing unto God. That is still the stance, though the church backed away from staing it as balck and white because it isn't. Every situaion is different. They has allowed each family to pray and receive revelation on the matter for themselves as not every situation is the same. https://www.lds.org/...ontrol?lang=eng read the princples, only thing that changed was their reluctance to tell people outright.... allowed for more personal revelation.

7. Early church teachings about evolution.

never in agreement. The Church's stance was neutrality. Joseph Fielding Smith and his son in law Bruce R McConkie were against evoution and choose at times to share their opinion in church settings and their books but again this was not an accepted doctrine of the church. Please take 20 minutes and read this - http://www.mormonfor...m/evolution.pdf

This is too cut and dry... I feel embarrased after reading this that I ever let this issue bother me.

8. Polyandry.

We don't know enough.... no proof Joseph was doing anything here out of sexual libido needs. Complicated issue.

http://maxwellinstit...10&num=2&id=290 - good article about what we know and what we don't. difficult issue? yep but we don't have the facts so we are guessing and that is wrong either way

9. Church early position that homosexuality is a choice, and has nothing to do with biology.

http://www.lds.org/e...-sex-attraction

good article on the church's thoughts. I would love to know references for where the "church" taught wrong here.

I realize they have at times sought theraputic ways to help those with same sex attraction. From the bits I have read I don't see this being torture or abusive in any way. has the stance changed on causes? maybe but there are examples throughout scriptures of bad assumptions by those who received revealation. We sometimes think God commands in all things... he doesn't

D&C58

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

10. The 14 F's of the Prophet.

my only qualm at all is how #4 and #6 are interpreted

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

did Adam God lead the church astray?, did some not having priesthood lead the church astray?, did bad comments on evolution by a few leaders lead the church astray? nope. Those things are blips on the radar of the past as the church moves forward.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture. \

This is not the same as saying everything he says is scripture. We are left to have the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things"

Edited June 25, 2012 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

The closest example to a genuine mistake on the part of the Church I can think of might be the excommunication ofHelmuth Hübener (though most of the blame must be shouldered by Stake Branch President Arthur Zander).

First I ever heard this... awful. and yet we have one leader under duress making what seems to us now bad decisions. Hindsight....20/20. Awful

[cwald]

Selek and DB....I really appreciate your respectful response.

DB, and when you tone it down selek, I think you are pretty good "apologist" for the church, and make some valid points.

[cwald]

Mentalgymist....I agree with a lot of what you say.

For me, with most of these issues, the "perceived" cover up is much worse than the crime. If the church made or makes a mistake, just say so, admit it, and move on.....I think it really would help many in the DAMU find a middle way to stay Mormon.

[cwald]

Btw- DB....I did go to church today....first time in months.

[selek1]

For me, with most of these issues, the "perceived" cover up is much worse than the crime. If the church made or makes a mistake, just say so, admit it, and move on.....I think it really would help many in the DAMU find a middle way to stay Mormon.

The problem with this logic is that both the "mistake" and the "cover up" are perceived and alleged- rather than proven.

You cannot accuse me of "covering up" a crime unless you can demonstrate that the alleged "crime" actually took place.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than a straight-faced iteration of the silly canard "The complete lack of evidence is proof that the conspiracy is working."

Edited June 25, 2012 by selek1

[cwald]

I understand your opinion. I just don't share it. That I'd why I have an issue.

I think the church was wrong about the way they handled and dealt with black's and the temple and priesthood...you do not.

I got it.

[wenglund]

For me, with most of these issues, the "perceived" cover up is much worse than the crime. If the church made or makes a mistake, just say so, admit it, and move on.....I think it really would help many in the DAMU find a middle way to stay Mormon.

I am not sure the term "cover-up" is a fair description of the Church's actions in any case I am aware of. However, I believe I get what you are saying.

It is just that, in my opinion, when people correctly understand what the Church is really about, they won't be looking for middle ground, nor ought admittance by the Church of presumed mistakes and moving on make a difference in people staying or leaving the Church.

Rather, one's faith will rightly be conditioned upon whether the gospel bests brings people to Christ and enables them to become like him--this is, after all, what the Church and the gospel are all about. If it does, and assuming this is the end one desires, then it makes sense for one to stay and stay fully involved. If it doesn't, then one may wish to reconsider one's grasp of the gospel, or carefully consider other alternatives. The choice, though, rests with each individual.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cwald]

I do not need to prove I am right about my position in regards to black's and the priesthood...it is called faith.

I understand this board is all about proof and evidence. ...my faith does not work that way.

I feel....and I feel that it was wrong.

[selek1]

I understand your opinion. I just don't share it. That I'd why I have an issue.

I think the church was wrong about the way they handled and dealt with black's and the temple and priesthood...you do not.

I got it.

We each have our own opinions- that's a given.

The difference is that I don't wander around making random accusations and/or judging entire groups of people based on nothing more than my naked opinion.

As I warned you earlier- when you make blanket generalizations, you can expect to be called on them.

When you accuse us and condemn us (and don't be coy- that's precisely what you've done vis-a-vis the Church), you can expect to be asked for specific evidences to support your claims.

[cwald]

I like that Wade England.

[mentalgymnast]

Mentalgymist....I agree with a lot of what you say.

For me, with most of these issues, the "perceived" cover up is much worse than the crime. If the church made or makes a mistake, just say so, admit it, and move on.....I think it really would help many in the DAMU find a middle way to stay Mormon.

If you're waiting around for that to happen in regards to everything you may have on your New Mormon History shelf, hell will freeze over first. It's best to realize, IMO, that cover ups, or silence on many problematic issues is the natural course of things when things are messy. It's not the church that makes mistakes, it's people. And those people may not always understand/know when or if something said and/or done is a mistake, or not, until after the fact. After all, we are ALL encouraged to act and not be acted upon and do many things under our own initiative. I think that we ought to apply this to leaders also. Mistakes may be made in the process. But things tend to sort themselves out over time.

Heck, Joseph Smith was open to the possibility that revelation could be misplaced. Didn't he say something along the line that some revelations are of man, some are of God, and some are of devils? He, if I'm not mistaken, was owning up to a mistaken prophecy/revelation that he had made and others came to him asking "what gives?"

When your room was a messy disaster as a kid, didn't you just keep the door shut as long as you could before mom found you out? And when she did find you out and told you to clean up your room, it was a bit difficult to know where to start or even if you were going to our wanted to...right? The church has been tackling one thing at a time as some of the messes have had to be cleaned up. Mountain Meadows being one of the most recent.

Regards,

MG

[cwald]

We each have our own opinions- that's a given.

The difference is that I don't wander around making random accusations and/or judging entire groups of people based on nothing more than my naked opinion....

And I have been very upfront that that is exactly why I am here. I want to know if my perception of Mormonism and the faithful membership is accurate or false

[selek1]

And I have been very upfront that that is exactly why I am here. I want to know if my perception of Mormonism and the faithful membership is accurate or false

Yet every time it is demonstrated that your opinions are unfounded, your accusations baseless, and your characterizations just plain wrong, you fall back on "But hey- it's just my opinion."

I am not aware that you've conceded a single point in your ongoing "conversation", let alone admitted a single instance where your perceptions and assumptions were wrong.

If anything, it seems (and feel free to prove my perception wrong) that your litany of complaints against the Church is sancrosanct- and that you just like watching the faithful line up and bark at your behest.

[Calm]

difficult issue? yep but we don't have the facts so we are guessing and that is wrong either way

I am certain that sometime somehow the Church (in the sense of the leadership in consensus) has made a mistake. While I believe God is in charge, I don't see him as a constant micromanager and anytime humans are involved, something is going to go wrong.

The problem for me is that I don't have enough knowledge or perfect judgment to point to any one thing and say with as much certainty as I can say 'something was wrong' that "this thing is wrong".

And since I do believe that God guides the Church in his own way and time, I believe that any errors that have occurred can and will also be healed by the Lord.

So I don't feel any great need (well, really no need at all) to go looking for where the Church has gone wrong. I know it will end up in the right place and I will as well as long as I desire to stay a part of its community because this is where God has told me to be and all of that is more than enough for me.

[cwald]

Yet every time it is demonstrated that your opinions are unfounded, your accusations baseless, and your characterizations just plain wrong, you fall back on "But hey- it's just my opinion."

I am not aware that you've conceded a single point in your ongoing "conversation", let alone admitted a single instance where your perceptions and assumptions were wrong.

If anything, it seems (and feel

free to prove my perception wrong) that your litany of complaints against the Church is sancrosanct- and that you just like watching the faithful line up and bark at your behest.

You've proved nothing. You can't prove the church true anymore than I prove it false. I learned that in primary.

[Calm]

I do not need to prove I am right about my position in regards to black's and the priesthood...it is called faith.

I understand this board is all about proof and evidence. ...my faith does not work that way.

I feel....and I feel that it was wrong.

As long as it's a personal feeling, then is it fair to insist that others (whether people on the board or the Church as an institution) respond to such as if they were proven facts? Edited June 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[cwald]

Yet every time it is demonstrated that your opinions are unfounded, your accusations baseless, and your characterizations just plain wrong, you fall back on "But hey- it's just my opinion."

I am not aware that you've conceded a single point in your ongoing "conversation", let alone admitted a single instance where your perceptions and assumptions were wrong.

If anything, it seems (and feel

free to prove my perception wrong) that your litany of complaints against the Church is sancrosanct- and that you just like watching the faithful line up and bark at your behest.

You've proved nothing. You can't prove the church true anymore than I prove it false. I learned that in primary.

[cwald]

As long as it's a personal feeling, then is it fair to insist that others (whether people on the board or the Church as an institution) respond to such as if they were proven facts?

No.

[cwald]

As long as it's a personal feeling, then is it fair to insist that others (whether people on the board or the Church as an institution) respond to such as if they were proven facts?

I could be wrong...I leave the option open.

Perhaps some of you here are to focused on proof and evidence and facts....and have forgotten what we learned in primary about faith and listening to the spirit?

Edited June 25, 2012 by cwald

[SamIam]

1. Blood atonement in the temple.

2. Adam/God taught in the temple.

3. 18 month missions in the 80s

4. Policy of denying black's the priesthood and inclusion in the temple rites.

5. Church position in opposition to the civil rights movement.

6. The church position in the 70s and 80s that birth control was evil.

7. Early church teachings about evolution.

8. Polyandry.

9. Church early position that homosexuality is a choice, and has nothing to do with biology.

10. The 14 F's of the Prophet.

I'm assuming I don't need references for these as they are all well documented. Now, the question is, were they mistakes. I think so. I'm sure most here will disagree and want to debate it and start throwing out quotes...which just proves my point.

The church will not admit it was wrong. Ever. Sorry DB, but it is not a given.

In some respect, I think we are targeting a straw man to hang personal frustrations that we have developed against aspects of the church whether a person, place or thing. My point is I can also make a list of egregious sounding issues from the Old Testament and New Testament that out of context and without understanding seem horrible crimes. Murdering entire communities, Achan, whose entire family is slain because he stole a Gold Bar, Uzzah torched simply because he was trying to keep Israel's most sacred object from hitting the dirt, Ananias and Sapphira struck dead for keeping a few bucks from the sale of their house for popcorn and a movie etc etc...you can make a huge list.

However, the point is everyone of these is explainable upon the diligent efforts of the questioner to seek patiently answers to their questions and to take no answers from people who are naturally biased having an ax to grind. For myself I consider it profound how organized the effort is to destroy the LDS church. Doesn't it seem odd that based on the foundational Christian principles that we share with most Christian religions that we can't just get on by like all other religions. Why do they pick on the Church? There are several odd organizations JW's, Muslims etc that have unique methods of worship that could attract just as much bad press as the LDS. Sure they have little pockets of resistance. However they do not have near the level of focused attention as the LDS and that alone could catch our attention and beg for an answer.

Edited June 25, 2012 by SamIam

[Calm]

No.

So does this mean that if someone responds to your feeling that the Church has made a mistake with "no, I don't believe the Church has made that mistake" that you will not assume that this somehow proves your point about the Church or apologists in general never admitting it made a mistake when it has actually made one?

It is after all fair to expect the Church to never admit it has made a mistake if it has never actually made one and since it is a matter of faith at this point as to whether or not it has made mistakes.....logically speaking....(I assume you get where I am going as it leads to the answer I believe is the right one for the above question).

Edited June 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[selek1]

You can't prove the church true anymore than I prove it false.

I'm not trying to prove the Church true. I'm addressing the specific accusations you've made against the Church.

There is a fundamental and unsubtle difference between the two.

Perhaps some of you here are to focused on proof and evidence and facts....and have forgotten what we learned in primary about faith and listening to the spirit?

Call For Reference- what part of Sunday School taught us to disregard or abandon reason for baseless and uniformed speculation and gossip? Lesson number, chapter, verse, and page, if you please.

[wenglund]

Perhaps some of you here are to focused on proof and evidence and facts....and have forgotten what we learned in primary about faith and listening to the spirit?

I am not sure you are correctly understanding the proper use of the Spirit. As I see it, the Spirit is intended to guide and direct us in becoming like Christ, and is not intended as a selective tool for individual members to steady arks or judge the actions of Church leaders. At least that is what I have learned from primary and beyond.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 25, 2012 by wenglund

[Calm]

I could be wrong...I leave the option open.

Perhaps some of you here are to focused on proof and evidence and facts....and have forgotten what we learned in primary about faith and listening to the spirit?

I don't get the logic behind this. You have made an accusation against the Church and you then use the concept of faith and listening to the spirit as a counterargument to those who request or demand that you demonstrate the accuracy of your accusations?

Honestly, your response seems rather non sequitur....

Edited June 25, 2012 by calmoriah