2013 Curriculum: Lorenzo Snow (With Link!)

[Dcharle]

Quoted from the Salamander Society web site: (re-posted due to font size)

"Hiring Edelman World Wide Public Relations specifically for the task of mainstreaming and marketing the gospel product. Hinckley specifically selected a firm with non-Mormon leadership in order to accomplish this task. He wanted a fresher and more effective PR approach than what he was getting out of his own Mormon PR staff. Ironic, that Hinckley selected a "Jewish" PR company to promote his "Mormon Christian Mainstream" PR campaign.

Michael Deaver, Vice Chairman, Edelman Worldwide Director of Corporate Affairs, Edelman Washington, D.C. who served as President Ronald Reagan's deputy chief of staff from 1981 to 1985 is the LDS Church Account client representative. He flies out to Salt Lake City monthly to meet with Dallin Oaks and Bruce Olsen, the church's main inside PR staffer.

Maybe some professional PR person could provide an educated estimate as to how much the church pays Edelman World Wide annually for their services?

It appears to be no coincidence that the chairman of the board, Daniel Edelman's wife is a close friend of Larry King, the CNN talk show host.

The famous Larry King - Gordon Hinckley TV interviews did not just happen accidentally. The same goes for the positive "Sixty Minutes" piece Mike Wallace did on Hinckley and the church several years ago. There is nothing illegal or even unethical about this behind the scenes PR work, but it sure does blur the boundary between what is actually news and what is actually a PR infommercial for the church."

• 0
  

• Quote
  

Please don't use references from anti-Mormon sites.

[KevinG]

Does the Edelman firm identify itself as a "Jewish" PR Company? http://www.edelman.c.../about-edelman/ Nope.

Strike one for playing the "Jew" card.

Do you know that Hinkley selected the firm for their non-Mormon leadership? Could it be that they are the worlds largest PR firm?

Strike two for mind reading the Prophet.

Is it a problem that the Church pays money to make sure its image is positive so we can accomplish our missionary work? Or that someone has connections to get an interview with a national figure?

Strike three for class-envy.

You are already out in tabloid territory but just for fun lets go for #4.

Was it a sure thing that the interview with Larry King and Mike Wallance were going to have a positive outcome for the Church? Absolutely not. President Hinkley was quoted as saying if it didn't turn out well he wouldn't put his foot in that kind of bear trap again.

Strike four for conspiracy theory.

Forget quoting anti-Mormon sites being a problem. How about drink less anti-Mormon kook-aid.

Edited September 15, 2012 by KevinG

[MiserereNobis]

I'd like to add my observations on the idea that the LDS church is downplaying certain doctrines. I've seen right here on this discussion forum where some LDS members say that the idea that God was once a man is not a doctrine and others say that it is a doctrine When I ask which one is it, I get different answers. Some say that LDS doctrines are only those in the canonized scriptures (which makes me wonder why there should be modern prophets at all) while others say that any of the writings of the prophets are scripture and therefore doctrines. When I related the story of a Mormon family, in my presence, making jokes about creating their own worlds, I was told that they were misinformed, or speculating, or believing false doctrine.

Which is it? Where can someone find the doctrines of the LDS church?

I guess it is easy for me to see why some people would say that the LDS church leaves itself lots of wiggle room to avoid being pinned down on uncomfortable doctrines.

Finally, as a side note, I'll point out that the best rendition of Lorenzo Snow's famous couplet comes from an original Battlestar Gallactica episode where beings of light repeat it to explain their origins.

Ah, good ol' Battlestar Gallactica. I loved that show when I was a kid

[MiserereNobis]

I read that. I would say the doctrine is still speculative and not official; but it is included because it is an important part of the history and teachings of a great man. We don't censor things. If he said it, and he is famous for saying it, it should be included. Church members are free to make their own minds about it. He was a prophet of the Lord after all. If the Lord didn't care to correct him, why should we?

This seems to be contradictory. How can a pronouncement of a prophet of the Lord, whom the Lord didn't care to correct, be considered speculative and not official?

[KevinG]

I'd like to add my observations on the idea that the LDS church is downplaying certain doctrines. I've seen right here on this discussion forum where some LDS members say that the idea that God was once a man is not a doctrine and others say that it is a doctrine When I ask which one is it, I get different answers. Some say that LDS doctrines are only those in the canonized scriptures (which makes me wonder why there should be modern prophets at all) while others say that any of the writings of the prophets are scripture and therefore doctrines. When I related the story of a Mormon family, in my presence, making jokes about creating their own worlds, I was told that they were misinformed, or speculating, or believing false doctrine.

Which is it? Where can someone find the doctrines of the LDS church?

I guess it is easy for me to see why some people would say that the LDS church leaves itself lots of wiggle room to avoid being pinned down on uncomfortable doctrines.

Finally, as a side note, I'll point out that the best rendition of Lorenzo Snow's famous couplet comes from an original Battlestar Gallactica episode where beings of light repeat it to explain their origins.

Ah, good ol' Battlestar Gallactica. I loved that show when I was a kid

The problem is when we get into very speculative areas and people try to teach their own interpretation of doctrines.

For example we may know that our eventual destiny is to become a joint heir with Christ but the doctrines don't spell out many specifics about that eternal nature.

Critics have a field day with making mountains out of molehills. The Sunday School curricula puts the lie to the claim the institutional church is de-emphasizing Lorenzo Snows teaching about deification.

[altersteve]

I'd like to add my observations on the idea that the LDS church is downplaying certain doctrines. I've seen right here on this discussion forum where some LDS members say that the idea that God was once a man is not a doctrine and others say that it is a doctrine When I ask which one is it, I get different answers. Some say that LDS doctrines are only those in the canonized scriptures (which makes me wonder why there should be modern prophets at all) while others say that any of the writings of the prophets are scripture and therefore doctrines. When I related the story of a Mormon family, in my presence, making jokes about creating their own worlds, I was told that they were misinformed, or speculating, or believing false doctrine.

Which is it? Where can someone find the doctrines of the LDS church?

I guess it is easy for me to see why some people would say that the LDS church leaves itself lots of wiggle room to avoid being pinned down on uncomfortable doctrines.

There's nothing "uncomfortable" about these doctrines; the Church simply has yet to receive a firm answer on them. We don't know. Members are free to believe as they wish, although the more traditional understanding is so common that many members may consider it doctrine. To quote the Church's official newsletter on the matter of doctrine:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Ultimately, the only thing we should believe is what the Spirit has revealed to us is true. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for why prophets are necessary, I think that's obvious. They are there to guide God's children toward Jesus Christ and act as special witnesses of Him. They speak for Him on earth. They hold all the keys of the priesthood. There's more to being a prophet than just declaring doctrine.

Edited September 15, 2012 by altersteve

[KevinG]

This seems to be contradictory. How can a pronouncement of a prophet of the Lord, whom the Lord didn't care to correct, be considered speculative and not official?

There is a delicate balance between prophetic inerrancy (which the LDS do not hold to be true) and following those the Lord has called to be in authority. The answers lie in church counsels, individual revelation and the grace of God keeping us from being led off a cliff.

We do not claim a perfect knowledge of eternal things, only that we see through a glass darkly. Any errors made by a prophet short of leading his people astray and away from salvation are not worth rejecting his teachings and leadership. We learn individually and as a church line by line and precept by precept. It is understandable, especially in light of more speculative or fuzzy areas of eternal life that we are not always correct. Yet right or wrong on specific points Lorenzo Snow did much for the temporal leadership and eternal salvation of man by bringing them unto Christ.

[Calm]

I guess it is easy for me to see why some people would say that the LDS church leaves itself lots of wiggle room to avoid being pinned down on uncomfortable doctrines.

Uncertainty can appear to be intentional even when it is not. The LDS Church does not create doctrine using reason, but solely from revelation. If it hasn't been revealed yet, it isn't doctrine. And it has to be revealed and placed before the Church in a certain way before it becomes official church doctrine....even if it is truth.

It would be a betrayal of our own principles if we were to create doctrine through reason or speculation to avoid the appearance of "wiggling" or uncertainty to others.

Edited September 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[MiserereNobis]

There's nothing "uncomfortable" about these doctrines; the Church simply has yet to receive a firm answer on them. We don't know. Members are free to believe as they wish, although the more traditional understanding is so common that many members may consider it doctrine.

I'm sorry -- perhaps the use of "uncomfortable" was not the best choice. How about I say "extremely distinct." The doctrines/ideas I am referring to are those most attacked by Christians.

Ultimately, the only thing we should believe is what the Spirit has revealed to us is true. Nothing more, nothing less.

Could this be too black-and-white? I choose to believe many things that I do not know. I think that is part of faith -- to make a choice. I don't have to know something in order to choose to believe it, and sometimes making the choice in the face of a lack of knowledge of the truth is the act of faith that then helps us understand the truth better. I guess I'm speaking from my own experience here.

As for why prophets are necessary, I think that's obvious. They are there to guide God's children toward Jesus Christ and act as special witnesses of Him. They speak for Him on earth. They hold all the keys of the priesthood. There's more to being a prophet than just declaring doctrine.

Ok, I can see what you mean here. I can see a comparison to the Holy Father and his many roles as the Vicar of Christ. There is more to being the Pope than just declaring doctrine, though he is the final word on doctrine.

[MiserereNobis]

There is a delicate balance between prophetic inerrancy (which the LDS do not hold to be true) and following those the Lord has called to be in authority. The answers lie in church counsels, individual revelation and the grace of God keeping us from being led off a cliff.

We do not claim a perfect knowledge of eternal things, only that we see through a glass darkly. Any errors made by a prophet short of leading his people astray and away from salvation are not worth rejecting his teachings and leadership. We learn individually and as a church line by line and precept by precept. It is understandable, especially in light of more speculative or fuzzy areas of eternal life that we are not always correct. Yet right or wrong on specific points Lorenzo Snow did much for the temporal leadership and eternal salvation of man by bringing them unto Christ.

I can understand this by comparing it to the Papacy. If, in the part I bolded, we exchange "prophet" for "pope" I can agree completely. There have been some very unseemly Popes in the past and might be in the future, but they never taught anything that would lead people away from salvation, so we do not reject the authority of their office.

[mfbukowski]

I can understand this by comparing it to the Papacy. If, in the part I bolded, we exchange "prophet" for "pope" I can agree completely. There have been some very unseemly Popes in the past and might be in the future, but they never taught anything that would lead people away from salvation, so we do not reject the authority of their office.

When I first joined the church, that is pretty much the way I saw it. Now my view has gotten stricter, including moral worthiness as a criterion for a true prophet, but that is a good start.

I do not believe that the priesthood can exist within an immoral man- the LDS view is that one can lose one's Priesthood through immorality as well as other ways.

Edited September 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

When I first joined the church, that is pretty much the way I saw it. Now my view has gotten stricter, including moral worthiness as a criterion for a true prophet, but that is a good start.

I do not believe that the priesthood can exist within an immoral man- the LDS view is that one can lose one's Priesthood through immorality as well as other ways.

From the Catholic point-of-view, one can never lose the priesthood, only the jurisdiction to exercise it. The priesthood is an indelible mark upon the priest's soul; it changes him ontologically. This is also true of baptism. When a person is baptized, his ontology changes. That is why Catholics are never rebaptized (like excommunicated Mormons returning to the LDS church), though someone may be baptized conditionally if there is a question whether or not an original baptism occured or was valid.

[altersteve]

Could this be too black-and-white? I choose to believe many things that I do not know. I think that is part of faith -- to make a choice. I don't have to know something in order to choose to believe it, and sometimes making the choice in the face of a lack of knowledge of the truth is the act of faith that then helps us understand the truth better. I guess I'm speaking from my own experience here.

I don't think it's very black and white at all. I think it's reasonable. If you don't believe God has told you something is true, then why should you be required to believe it? You shouldn't. If you believe God has told you to remain in the Catholic Church, for example, then that's what you should do. Maybe there's something in the Catholic Church specifically for you; maybe He can draw you closest to Him through the teachings of the Catholic Church until you're ready for His gospel in its complete fullness. After all, He does know your heart better than anyone does, including yourself, so we are in no place to make a statement on whether He has a plan for you elsewhere. Only you do. So follow your heart. If the Spirit tells you to go somewhere, then go there. If He doesn't, then you don't have to go there. Simple as that, and that's true for everyone.

I do get what you're saying, though, and I do agree. I've never received a spiritual confirmation that Jesus was married, for example, but I choose to believe it based on what I understand about the doctrine of marriage, and of course about who Jesus was. And that's just one example out of many. So of course we can believe something we don't know, and that is indeed very much part of having faith. We're required to think and make educated decisions for ourselves sometimes—and I think that's exactly what God expects of us. He wants us to learn and think and use these amazing minds He's blessed us with.

Edited September 15, 2012 by altersteve

[Calm]

There may be a confusion of a spiritual witness with a perfect knowledge of something (whether a spiritual knowledge or something else). A revelation from the Spirit may not give you a perfect knowledge as can be demonstrated by people coming to doubt spiritual witnesses in many cases. Thus faith can exist in such an environment.

Edited September 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

The priesthood is an indelible mark upon the priest's soul; it changes him ontologically.

Ah yes, my favorite word, "ontologically".

One of many examples where doctrine is dependent on philosophy in Catholicism, and why Neoplatonism is so vigorously defended. We get to argue about philosophy.

[MiserereNobis]

Ah yes, my favorite word, "ontologically".

One of many examples where doctrine is dependent on philosophy in Catholicism, and why Neoplatonism is so vigorously defended. We get to argue about philosophy.

Yeah, isn't it great fun?

[MiserereNobis]

Yeah, isn't it great fun?

ETA: The LDS church has its own ontology, it's just not neo-Platonism. From what I know, the LDS ontology seems to be of the monist materialist type, since spirit is defined in terms of matter.

[altersteve]

There may be a confusion of a spiritual witness with a perfect knowledge of something (whether a spiritual knowledge or something else). A revelation from the Spirit may not give you a perfect knowledge as can be demonstrated by people coming to doubt spiritual witnesses in many cases. Thus faith can exist in such an environment.

That's a good point. I was just saying it's important to go by whatever our current understanding may be about what God tells us. Joseph Smith did and obviously his understanding of the First Vision, for example, changed over time, which is made clear by the way he emphasized different parts of it at different times. What we understand about our spiritual experiences will likewise increase as we prayerfully ponder them.

[KevinG]

Ah yes, my favorite word, "ontologically".

One of many examples where doctrine is dependent on philosophy in Catholicism, and why Neoplatonism is so vigorously defended. We get to argue about philosophy.

Yeah, isn't it great fun?

This could be enjoyable. I'll get the popcorn.

[mfbukowski]

This could be enjoyable. I'll get the popcorn.

On the other hand....

[mfbukowski]

ETA: The LDS church has its own ontology, it's just not neo-Platonism. From what I know, the LDS ontology seems to be of the monist materialist type, since spirit is defined in terms of matter.

Really we don't have any ontology, and that's fine with me. But if you can get a prophet to issue a statement about ontology, I would follow it- but good luck getting someone to say something which is about the "philosophies of men".

As a Pragmatist following in the general line of William James, John Dewey, Wittgenstein (arguably) and Rorty we would say that discourse about ontology is largely made up of linguistic confusions, and I would agree.

In other words, as far as I am concerned, if you are looking for a Mormon ontology, there ain't any, thank goodness.

To me it is all mumbo jumbo that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

[mfbukowski]

Philosophy of mind

Both John Dewey in Experience and Nature (1929) and half a century later Richard Rorty in his monumental Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979) argued that much of the debate about the relation of the mind to the body results from conceptual confusions. They argue instead that there is no need to posit the mind or mindstuff as an ontological category.

Pragmatists disagree over whether philosophers ought to adopt a quietist or a naturalist stance toward the mind-body problem. The former (Rorty among them) want to do away with the problem because they believe it's a pseudo-problem, whereas the latter believe that it is a meaningful empirical question.

Ethics

Main article: Pragmatic ethics

Pragmatism sees no fundamental difference between practical and theoretical reason, nor any ontological difference between facts and values. Both facts and values have cognitive content: knowledge is what we should believe; values are hypotheses about what is good in action. Pragmatist ethics is broadly humanist because it sees no ultimate test of morality beyond what matters for us as humans. Good values are those for which we have good reasons, viz. the Good Reasons approach. The pragmatist formulation pre-dates those of other philosophers who have stressed important similarities between values and facts such as Jerome Schneewind and John Searle.

William James tried to show the meaningfulness of (some kinds of) spirituality but, like other pragmatists, did not see religion as the basis of meaning or morality.

William James' contribution to ethics, as laid out in his essay The Will to Believe has often been misunderstood as a plea for relativism or irrationality. On its own terms it argues that ethics always involves a certain degree of trust or faith and that we cannot always wait for adequate proof when making moral decisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

[mapman]

I think people miss the point when they complain that you can't pin down what is Mormon doctrine. Some Mormons are annoyed with this as well and will sometimes try to systematize our theology and equate that with absolute truth (Bruce R. McConkie'sMormon Doctrine is the most obvious example of this). In my humble opinion I think that they are missing the point as well. I think that Mormonism is better described as an epistemology than a creed. Its teachings describe how we are to be always learning. The whole reason the church started was because Joseph Smith wanted to learn more. We have prophets and gifts of the spirit so that we can be learning more. Joseph Smith and other prophets said that we should find truth from wherever it can be found, which I believe includes science and philosophy. Some beliefs have never changed and I don't think will ever change (for example, we have always believed that Jesus atoned for our sins), but there are lots of things that are more fuzzy. Mormons have lots of different views that would be considered important for a creed, like with how many Gods there are and how God became God. Our doctrines have changed, not because we are embarrassed or because God changed his mind, but because we have learned new things and have reconsidered things that we thought we knew. I don't know why people would hold it against us that we are not so vain as to think we know everything.

[mfbukowski]

The concept is that the very idea of "being" is making concrete something that is just a linguistic convenience- we know how to use the verb "to be" in all it's various forms, we know what it means for something to "exist" as in the question "Does life on other planets exist?" or "Is there a building two miles high anywhere in the world?- No that doesn't exist!" etc but to speak about "Being" as a thing to be examined or turned into a theory- it fits with the whole idea that "Being" ITSELF somehow exists outside of our use of the verb "to be"

It would be like talking about "virtue" existing independently of virtuous acts as some absolute Form floating around in the universe.

It is itself a category error, in my opinion, to even speak of "being" or really the science of being- called "ontology" as if you are examining a real thing.

It's like examining "Blueness" as a self-existent thing or "courage" as if it were something you could pour into a bottle and fill it with courage.

Even speaking of "monism" is fine I suppose as long as we know that it is an abstract way of classifying philosophies- a bin to sort the mail to monist philosophers as it were- this guy is a monist but that guy is not- but to speak metaphysically about a "monist" system like "Everything is x" really doesn't make much sense.

We were talking elsewhere about "ontological reality" which really is just a redundancy as far as I am concerned- "ontology" really means "the study of what is real" so "ontological reality" means "the study of what is real reality".

Real reality as opposed to fake reality? How do we know anything about "real reality" except through our experience? Reality is reality- it is what we experience. I have never experienced "Being" in my life. I exist and I know what those words mean but "Being" is not something one experiences, you can't pick it up or look at it or put it under a microscope. It doesn't have color, you can't even believe in it as opposed to not believing in it, unless perhaps you are psychotic. Neither is "real reality". What I see and feel and know are how things seem to me- their appearances and my perceptions and there is no reason to postulate a world out there which I cannot experience

So where does that leave God? No problem. I experience God daily a few times a day at least. I close my eyes and pray and feel his loving presence. I perceive him and I know he is there without question. He is just as real to me as anything in this world- in fact in many ways he has more influence in my life than anything physical around me.

I work on his behalf, try to spread his message and think about Him all the time. He is why I post here and is my main motivation for practically everything I do. Is he "real"? Beyond question!

So ontology? Who needs it? Is God real? No question!

It's all pretty simple when you see it that way.

[mfbukowski]

From the Catholic point-of-view, one can never lose the priesthood, only the jurisdiction to exercise it. The priesthood is an indelible mark upon the priest's soul; it changes him ontologically. This is also true of baptism. When a person is baptized, his ontology changes. That is why Catholics are never rebaptized (like excommunicated Mormons returning to the LDS church), though someone may be baptized conditionally if there is a question whether or not an original baptism occured or was valid.

If you want to believe that fine, but it would just be a lot simpler to postulate that God "remembers" who is a priest and who is not, and that never goes away because God doesn't forget.

Changing his "ontology" puts you into the whole mumbo-jumbo loop- like changing his substance or essence or whatever. How is it changed? Where is the mark? How does one mark a soul? Why does it have to be "marked"- because God will forget who has the priesthood if he does not have a brand marked on him? How does one change one's "Being"- and what do those words even mean?

I guess it is all a mystery though because God is ineffible and all.

All you have to do is get out Occam's razor and say God remembers and honors the priesthood of all who have it. Snip Snip- no more "ontology".

We of course do not believe that. If one is unworthy - poof- no priesthood!