Innoculating

[Ahab]

I'm nearly 62 years old, and my ideas are pretty entrenched at this point. So I'll probably die thinking that way. Doesn't mean I opposed to changing them, but it will take something pretty big to do that.

We know so very little about both, that if that day does comes when they are joined in harmony. Today probably isn't that day. Until that day I'm content to let science tell me the HOW God did it, and have God tell me the WHY.

Okaaaay. Just sayin, God could tell you both HOW and WHY he did what he did, though, and he actually has already told us quite a bit about it. Some people seem to just want more than God's word on all of it.

[thesometimesaint]

Okaaaay. Just sayin, God could tell you both HOW and WHY he did what he did, though, and he actually has already told us quite a bit about it. Some people seem to just want more than God's word on all of it.

He obviously could. I think that what we do know is but a small thimble in the vast ocean of our ignorance. God has just begun to reveal the great and important things concerning his kingdom. I firmly believe he will reveal a great many more.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Are you saying that when a BYU professor assembles some materials and makes his case in a Church magazine, that we have heard the final and "disturbing" official word, as though it is Scripture?

I'm saying that when the first presidency oversees the publication of said magazine and an article contained therein makes a statement about what latter-saints believe, then yes, the church is aware of the statement and is at the very least not opposed to it. Furthermore, many church leaders have personally made statements about a global flood and I am aware of none that have suggested that it was other than literal. Is it the "final and "disturbing" official word"? No, nothing is final as we are in a church that has leaders who receive continuous revelation which not too infrequently refines or completely contradicts former doctrines. Is it "disturbing"? To me, yes, to many others, no.

Or might we make our own judgment based on all the materials available to us?

Absolutely, and I would advocate such an approach.

We have discussed the Flood question before on this board. Where were you?

I'm sure it's been discussed, I'm a relatively new member to this forum, however, and have not seen it come across in the few weeks I've been participating. In any case, my review of past threads has indicated that this is one area where science and a literal reading of the Noah story conflict and many members who are aware of this fact have no problem taking a less literal approach to the Noah story. The church, however, has not seemed to budge in this respect.

[Johnnie Cake]

The Brethren have always said that the Creation account is to be taken figuratively

Good to know that Adam was not a literal being....I stand mistaken...Mormon doctrine does sync with science....

[Ahab]

Good to know that Adam was not a literal being....I stand mistaken...Mormon doctrine does sync with science....

Careful about believing whatever you read. Or is it just whatever that guy tells you?

[canard78]

I'm not remembering these teachings, do you mind a CFR or some talks to read?

Seconded. Not because I don't believe Robert, but because I'd love to read who said it/when.

[Johnnie Cake]

Careful about believing whatever you read. Or is it just whatever that guy tells you?

Trust me....my tougue is firmly planted in my cheek...

[canard78]

Thank you for your thoughts canard78, I love your reactions to the article!

Thanks. I thought ERayR made a fair challenge that many of us had joined the conversation with out actually reading the source material. I'd jumped straight in to reply to my own question.

Having read the article in full I've now realised the talk is not an inoculation. It's a patch.

I particularly found the idea at the start that only the brethren should be listened to. Of other inspired leaders: "turn and run from them as fast as they can..."

I'm hoping ERayR will get back to me on why he feels it is good advice to teach our rising generation to effectively close their mind. It's not inoculating.

[Nevo]

Of other inspired leaders: "turn and run from them as fast as they can..."

Elder Ballard is speaking here of false prophets, not of "inspired leaders." I don't think avoiding such individuals is closed-minded; I think it's wise.

[Ahab]

I'm hoping ERayR will get back to me on why he feels it is good advice to teach our rising generation to effectively close their mind. It's not inoculating.

Maybe I can help explain that, a little bit.

Why would you want to always have an open mind? Once you found the right answer to an issue, wouldn't you want to lock it in... you know, like on one of those game shows where they ask you if that is your final answer. You wouldn't want to keep skipping around from answer to answer to answer, would you? When you're sure you know the answer, and nothing has come along to convince you that your answer is wrong, I think you should be sticking with your answer, thus effectively having your mind closed to any other answer but the one you are sure about.

When God tells me something is true, that's when I lock in my answer. Why would I ever change it with God as my witness?

[TruthSeeker2013]

Maybe I can help explain that, a little bit.

Why would you want to always have an open mind? Once you found the right answer to an issue, wouldn't you want to lock it in... you know, like on one of those game shows where they ask you if that is your final answer. You wouldn't want to keep skipping around from answer to answer to answer, would you? When you're sure you know the answer, and nothing has come along to convince you that your answer is wrong, I think you should be sticking with your answer, thus effectively having your mind closed to any other answer but the one you are sure about.

When God tells me something is true, that's when I lock in my answer. Why would I ever change it with God as my witness?

This approach seems dangerous to me if you're trying to avoid a faith crisis. Ours is an evolving religion with leaders who receive revelation and speak for God. Their teachings sometimes change and members are required (if they wish to follow the current leader's teachings) to shift their beliefs. For example, Adam-God doctrine, polygamy, Blacks and the priesthood, contraception, interracial marriage, cause of homosexuality, etc. So if in 1977 I "locked in" my beliefs that Blacks were not to have the priesthood and then 1978 came along I might have a faith crisis and leave the church. Or if I participated in polygamy in the 1800's and then was told it was wrong, I might similarly have a faith crisis and leave the church.

[canard78]

Elder Ballard is speaking here of false prophets, not of "inspired leaders." I don't think avoiding such individuals is closed-minded; I think it's wise.

Based on reading the article the dominant message is 'follow the brethren, they can not lead you astray. Reject people who do not have priesthood key and yet say they have received God's guidance/word.'

[tagriffy]

Maybe I can help explain that, a little bit.

Why would you want to always have an open mind? Once you found the right answer to an issue, wouldn't you want to lock it in... you know, like on one of those game shows where they ask you if that is your final answer. You wouldn't want to keep skipping around from answer to answer to answer, would you? When you're sure you know the answer, and nothing has come along to convince you that your answer is wrong, I think you should be sticking with your answer, thus effectively having your mind closed to any other answer but the one you are sure about.

When God tells me something is true, that's when I lock in my answer. Why would I ever change it with God as my witness?

Besides TruthSeeker2013's objections, I would add that unless we're talking about math, there is never a "right" answer. There is only the best we can do with the information we do have.

[canard78]

Maybe I can help explain that, a little bit.

Why would you want to always have an open mind? Once you found the right answer to an issue, wouldn't you want to lock it in... you know, like on one of those game shows where they ask you if that is your final answer. You wouldn't want to keep skipping around from answer to answer to answer, would you? When you're sure you know the answer, and nothing has come along to convince you that your answer is wrong, I think you should be sticking with your answer, thus effectively having your mind closed to any other answer but the one you are sure about.

When God tells me something is true, that's when I lock in my answer. Why would I ever change it with God as my witness?

I can understand why that works for some people. It doesn't for me.

Elder Uchtdorf has said:

...we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it—because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.

When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive.

Unfortunately, this tendency can spread to all areas of our lives—from sports to family relationships and from religion to politics.

http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/c ... h?lang=eng

CES Fireside, January 2013.

[Ahab]

This approach seems dangerous to me if you're trying to avoid a faith crisis. Ours is an evolving religion with leaders who receive revelation and speak for God. Their teachings sometimes change and members are required (if they wish to follow the current leader's teachings) to shift their beliefs. For example, Adam-God doctrine, polygamy, Blacks and the priesthood, contraception, interracial marriage, cause of homosexuality, etc. So if in 1977 I "locked in" my beliefs that Blacks were not to have the priesthood and then 1978 came along I might have a faith crisis and leave the church. Or if I participated in polygamy in the 1800's and then was told it was wrong, I might similarly have a faith crisis and leave the church.

You're missing the point. I don't rely on what people in the Church call revelation from God, as if I trust the people in the Church to tell me when something really is revelation from God. I go to God, myself, for his answers, and only when God tells me something is what he revealed do I accept as revelation from God.

[Ahab]

I can understand why that works for some people. It doesn't for me.

Elder Uchtdorf has said:

http://www.lds.org/b... ... h?lang=eng

CES Fireside, January 2013.

The point is to accept what God tries to teach us. If all you want to do is accept what some group of men tell you is true then you can pick any group of men you want to believe, for whatever reason, and then just believe those men when they tell you something is true. I'm in this Church because God has told me this is his Church. I don't just take the word of those men for that, or for anything else for that matter. It just happens to work out that what they tell me and what God tells me is in agreement a lot of the time. But not always, and whenever in doubt I trust what God tells me regardless of what any other person tries to tell me is true.

[canard78]

The point is to accept what God tries to teach us. If all you want to do is accept what some group of men tell you is true then you can pick any group of men you want to believe, for whatever reason, and then just believe those men when they tell you something is true. I'm in this Church because God has told me this is his Church. I don't just take the word of those men for that, or for anything else for that matter. It just happens to work out that what they tell me and what God tells me is in agreement a lot of the time. But not always, and whenever in doubt I trust what God tells me regardless of what any other person tries to tell me is true.

I agree

[TruthSeeker2013]

The point is to accept what God tries to teach us. If all you want to do is accept what some group of men tell you is true then you can pick any group of men you want to believe, for whatever reason, and then just believe those men when they tell you something is true. I'm in this Church because God has told me this is his Church. I don't just take the word of those men for that, or for anything else for that matter. It just happens to work out that what they tell me and what God tells me is in agreement a lot of the time. But not always, and whenever in doubt I trust what God tells me regardless of what any other person tries to tell me is true.

Cool. I'm on board with that.

[DBMormon]

I agree. Give the Lord equal time and you wont have any doubts

really?

[ERayR]

really?

Yes really but that means equal time not just lip service.

[DBMormon]

Yes really but that means equal time not just lip service.

Ouch. You seem to be making the judgement that I do not give equal time, as I struggle at times with doubt. Has an angel appeared and told you this? Even Elder Holland in his Conference talk seem no where near making the jump you and the person who first stated this did. The Person elder Ballard referred to was speaking for himself and others may be inspired to have the same answer. But that doesn't allow one to assume all who struggle don't study the gospel adequately. Elder Ballard doesn't make that leap and neither did Elder Holland. And yet you and others do. I would be careful.

Edited June 17, 2013 by DBMormon

[canard78]

Yes really but that means equal time not just lip service.

So if I say "tried it and it doesn't work" would you presume I'm only paying 'equal time' lip service?

[canard78]

Ouch. You seem to be making the judgement that I do not give equal time, as I struggle at times with doubt. Has an angel appeared and told you this? Even Elder Holland in his Conference talk seem no where near making the jump you and the person who first stated this did. The Person elder Ballard referred to was speaking for himself and others may be inspired to have the same answer. But that doesn't allow one to assume all who struggle don't study the gospel adequately. Elder Ballard doesn't make that leap and neither did Elder Holland. And yet you and others do. I would be careful.

Don't worry DB - we get used to ERayR.

[ERayR]

Ouch. You seem to be making the judgement that I do not give equal time, as I struggle at times with doubt. Has an angel appeared and told you this? Even Elder Holland in his Conference talk seem no where near making the jump you and the person who first stated this did. The Person elder Ballard referred to was speaking for himself and others may be inspired to have the same answer. But that doesn't allow one to assume all who struggle don't study the gospel adequately. Elder Ballard doesn't make that leap and neither did Elder Holland. And yet you and others do. I would be careful.

So if I say "tried it and it doesn't work" would you presume I'm only paying 'equal time' lip service?

I don't make any presumptions at all. Its not my place to judge your efforts.

That you all would take umbrage at my post perhaps tells more than anything.

[Tacenda]

Do we indoctinate so well that we are in affect innoculating in that way? Starting out with Primary (songs etc.), Fast & Testimony Meetings, YM and YW's, Youth Conferences, YM and YW Camps, Trek, Seminary, EFY's, Missions, then as a missionary you make covenants in the temple, you get home and find a mate and marry in the temple, and have children and those children grow up in that faith and so on and so on and so on.