Thanks Skylla!!

[Palerider]

Oh he will probably make a wonderful Mission President.

 

[Palerider]

People have problems that can be solved, so all anyone needs to know how to fix the problems.

 

Hey! It's like magic!

[Robert F. Smith]

Not sure what you're saying here. I thought we were engaged in the real thing.

Not really.  We do try.  We go through the motions.  We laugh, cry, rant and rave.  All to no avail.  You said it yourself:  Its the experience we need.  Its part of a process.  A learning process for us children.  And at childhood's end, we go on to another sphere, in which we get to experience the really real.

 

As Frances Yates noted, Will Shakespeare had a vivid understanding of this fact:

 

The Globe Theatre was a magical theatre, a cosmic theatre, a religious theatre, an actors' theatre, designed to give fullest support to the voices and gestures of the players as they enacted the drama of the life of man within the Theatre of the World.  These meanings might not have been apparent to all, but they would have been known to the initiated.  His theatre would have been for Shakespeare the pattern of the universe, the idea of the Macrocosm, the world stage on which the Microcosm acted his parts.  All the world's a stage.*

 

* Yates, Theatre of the World, 189, going on to mention the "cosmic allusions, a liturgical element in this drama."

[Damien the Leper]

Nah. My first mission president and the second were two completely different people. The first was like unto Moses: Stern, the Lawgiver, Punctual, Intense, Austere The second was like unto a fluffy bunny, I loved them both, but they were very different personalities. The stake president here in Toronto is a soft-spoken, Biomolecular and Evolutionary Science professor from Finland. He doesn't like the spotlight, and barely speaks above a whisper. My father was involved in South American Liberation theology (Marxism crossed with Latin American Catholicism), still leans way far left, is a well-spoken, but kind of awkward man and is currently a Bishop. I could give other examples, from mission leadership, to general authorities, but I don't really see one underlying personality endemic in Latter-day Saint leadership.

President Beck hated me. I've only spoken to President Taylor once and he seems really good for the mission.

[BlueDreams]

Can't say I've noticed it myself. Most of the ones I've known who have been bishops, SP's, MP's, etc have been fairly successful in their career paths. That's the only immediate commonality that I can think of. Two (who weren't mine) are into psychology/therapy. My MP was extremely successful in the business world. I think he was more structured, but he was a very, very good mission president/in tune. The next was just sweet and gentle, stuck to the rules but wasn't an extreme stickler by nature I don't think and was enthusiastic about trying new ideas. Our mission was one of the first to have FB missionaries and test runs of the I'm-a-Mormon ads. Another SP was a successful lawyer. I've never heard anyone ever say anything bad about him ever. Very dynamic personality and extremely good at his calling. My current bishop is very caring and great at reaching out to those with problems. I've had one bishop who came off to me as extremely in the streamline, structured type of role. But the rest were across the board when it came to structure, rigidity, empathy, etc.

 

Funny story about leaders that connects to this: On my mission, we had a special YSA pre-stake conference meeting that Elder Anderson taught in. He was, at the time, brand new and I couldn't remember what he looked like. So the meeting had a large line-up of men/women leaders in the front who were sitting for the meeting and I was trying to decide which one came off as apostle material. There was this guy who had a stern more leaderish feel about him and I thought, that could be him. Then a short gentle looking man sitting next to his wife came in and made eye contact with my comp and I. His eyes glowed like a kid seeing Santa and pointed to his wife, Look! Missionaries! Nevermind, I thought that's definitely the apostle.    

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Robert F. Smith]

So Roberto,

 

How does one differentiate between "apparent uniformity" and "spiritual unity" in the church and does leadership get the two confused?

 

In my experience I think they do. I think the "unwritten order" is a prime example. It almost seems as if the church wants to create a hidden or unspoken language that avoids the critique that might come from actually having it written down. 

Sure they can and do.

However, for all the talk about individualism that I hear in Mormon country (along with all manner of political-economic implications), the Mormon people worldwide have their feet in two separate worlds:  (1) ordinary, everyday life with all its mundane demands, and (2) the Saints of the Congregation of God, His holy priesthood, preparing for the eschaton.

 

Hugh Nibley applied a devastating social critique to the tendency toward uniformity (dress & grooming standards, and the like), and I have seen him do it with some of the Brethren sitting on the dais behind him.  He asked them once whether he ought to cease and desist.  They said, by no means.

 

I think that we underestimate the value of the gadfly and independent thinker among us, whether from Orson Pratt, B. H. Roberts, J. Golden Kimball, or Hugh Nibley.  The infighting which has gone on among the Brethren is legendary and has had great value for the Church.

 

I have often said (and a number of scholars agree) that the work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner strengthened the LDS Church.  There must needs be opposition.  In all things.

[Palerider]

Sure they can and do.

However, for all the talk about individualism that I hear in Mormon country (along with all manner of political-economic implications), the Mormon people worldwide have their feet in two separate worlds:  (1) ordinary, everyday life with all its mundane demands, and (2) the Saints of the Congregation of God, His holy priesthood, preparing for the eschaton.

 

Hugh Nibley applied a devastating social critique to the tendency toward uniformity (dress & grooming standards, and the like), and I have seen him do it with some of the Brethren sitting on the dais behind him.  He asked them once whether he ought to cease and desist.  They said, by no means.

 

I think that we underestimate the value of the gadfly and independent thinker among us, whether from Orson Pratt, B. H. Roberts, J. Golden Kimball, or Hugh Nibley.  The infighting which has gone on among the Brethren is legendary and has had great value for the Church.

 

I have often said (and a number of scholars agree) that the work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner strengthened the LDS Church.  There must needs be opposition.  In all things.

 

Then if uniformity can be mistaken for spiritual unity, and you can develop "culture" from either one, isn't it possible to have a zealous, well intentioned people, that does much good (regardless of the reason for doing that good) but still is the result of a hybrid theology?

 

What if the analogy for this culture is not whether the tree brings forth good fruit but that it is a tree that has been hybridized with "wild branches"? Or even more likely, a "strange" tree that has been hybridized with "domestic" or good branches.

Some branches bring forth good fruit and others bring forth strange or even in some cases, bad fruit.  

[Robert F. Smith]

Then if uniformity can be mistaken for spiritual unity, and you can develop "culture" from either one, isn't it possible to have a zealous, well intentioned people, that does much good (regardless of the reason for doing that good) but still is the result of a hybrid theology?

 

What if the analogy for this culture is not whether the tree brings forth good fruit but that it is a tree that has been hybridized with "wild branches"? Or even more likely, a "strange" tree that has been hybridized with "domestic" or good branches.

Some branches bring forth good fruit and others bring forth strange or even in some cases, bad fruit.  

About the branches, well . . . Why wouldn't the actual Church of Jesus Christ exhibit the culture of its time and place?

 

Indeed, Sterling McMurrin used to say that Mormon culture did much good and was admirable, even though he did not believe that Joseph was a prophet, nor that the Book of Mormon was authentic.  He was always a gentleman about it, and I never took umbrage, even though I am a believer.

[halconero]

President Beck hated me. I've only spoken to President Taylor once and he seems really good for the mission.

I heard the stories.

I think you and Taylor would get a long really well. And I agree, he was very good for the Phoenix mission.

[Palerider]

About the branches, well . . . Why wouldn't the actual Church of Jesus Christ exhibit the culture of its time and place?

 

Indeed, Sterling McMurrin used to say that Mormon culture did much good and was admirable, even though he did not believe that Joseph was a prophet, nor that the Book of Mormon was authentic.  He was always a gentleman about it, and I never took umbrage, even though I am a believer.

 

Because culture is built out of the underlying structure that grows out of the theological or philisophical roots. The church has long maintained they were/are a "peculiar people". But if that peculiarity grows out of the structure and quest for "uniformity", rather than "spiritual unity", it is a sign to me of inauthenticity. And yet it draws those who crave structure, because there is an imagined safety or "comfort" in structure and tradition. And that was something that the Jewish leadership in the time of Christ loved more than the Gospel itself. They taught for doctrine the traditions of men.

 

as Paul said: "For I bear them (the Jews) record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge."

 

Which brings me back to the original thought. That rather than deal in truth with the anomalies, it's much easier to rely on the "policies and proceedures" handbook that comes with the franchise, and eliminate the problem by reading or reiterating the scripted answer. I don't recall this being the Savior's method of dealing with sincere seekers.

 

For example, I think early in the church, it was a common tactic to brand dissenters as being immoral, when that really wasn't the case. That tactic became engrained as a part of the culture and I think that's why it has been relied upon heavily since the inception of the church. It seems to be the first place leadership runs to when confronted with a questioning member. That and the mechanical "bear testimony of BofM at this point in the discussion" and the "advise prayer and scripture study" formula.

 

Elder Uchtdorf's recent talk has been the first attempt I've seen to correct that black idiosyncrasy.

 

I've read somewhat of Sterling McMurrin and would like to read more. I think we would have agreed on some things, but as I understand it he was somewhat of an agnostic?

 

I agree being a gentleman usually keeps one in good stead but coming from a farm background, I also know there are some jobs that only a well wielded hammer will do.

[Stone holm]

Then if uniformity can be mistaken for spiritual unity, and you can develop "culture" from either one, isn't it possible to have a zealous, well intentioned people, that does much good (regardless of the reason for doing that good) but still is the result of a hybrid theology?

 

What if the analogy for this culture is not whether the tree brings forth good fruit but that it is a tree that has been hybridized with "wild branches"? Or even more likely, a "strange" tree that has been hybridized with "domestic" or good branches.

Some branches bring forth good fruit and others bring forth strange or even in some cases, bad fruit.  

 

You know I always was a little offended with those trees in the tree catalogue that purported to have like five different types of apples on one tree -- you really think we were intended to be like that?

[Palerider]

You know I always was a little offended with those trees in the tree catalogue that purported to have like five different types of apples on one tree -- you really think we were intended to be like that?

 

I just know what I consider to be good fruit and what I consider to be strange or bad fruit.

 

In the primitive church I never saw the acceptance of plural marriage as playing a vital role in one's salvation.

 

Once the promises were fulfilled to Israel that their Messiah would come to them, all indications were that ALL men should be treated with equanimity regardless of race or color. And yet the church is still tap dancing around this issue. They won't say it was "revelation" but they won't say it was a mistake either. Does that remind you of anything?

 

John's baptism, was it of men or of heaven? And they would not answer him because they feared the people. For they knew that all men took John for a prophet.

 

 

I don't see any indication that a man's glory will be influenced by the size of his family.

 

Luke 24: 34-36 states:

 

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

 

In many ways I would love to have my companion as my wife through the eternities, but what if the next life is quite different than what we've been told?  How can we be in such direct conflict with what the Savior has said here?

 

After the Savior's ascension, did the early saints decide to build their own temples? Doesn't that seem like it would have been high on the list of "to do's" since they no longer had access to the Jewish temple and in light of the modern emphasis placed on temples?

 

But Paul says "we" or the members of the church are the temple. 

 

And there's a lot more.....I just don't have time here.

[Robert F. Smith]

Because culture is built out of the underlying structure that grows out of the theological or philisophical roots. The church has long maintained they were/are a "peculiar people". But if that peculiarity grows out of the structure and quest for "uniformity", rather than "spiritual unity", it is a sign to me of inauthenticity. And yet it draws those who crave structure, because there is an imagined safety or "comfort" in structure and tradition. And that was something that the Jewish leadership in the time of Christ loved more than the Gospel itself. They taught for doctrine the traditions of men.

Sociologists and anthropologists I know would invert that equation, arguing that the underlying culture is at base a stream of lifeways and thought which is more likely to produce philosophico-theological branches.  And, if God intervenes in that stream of tradition, His intervention will be interpreted in light of already extant ideological notions.  After all, God speaks to man according to his language and understanding (II Ne 31:3), according to his Sitz im Leben.

 

As for the KJV "peculiar people" set on a pedestal (only so they can be knocked down?), the phrase actually means "personal possession, the elect," not that they are weird non-comformists.  Hebrew ˁam sěgūllâ = Greek genos elekton (Deut 14:2, I Pt 2:9), or perousios "special." Nahum Sarna has a discussion of the meaning in his Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel (N.Y.: Schocken, 1986), 131.  Compare cognate Akkadian sikiltum, and Ugaritic sglth "his special (politico-legal) possession."  The context of this phrase is very important in Zoramite liturgy (Alma 31:16-17), as well as in the most important of Jewish prayers, the Amida "Standing-Prayer."

 

...................................................   

 

Which brings me back to the original thought. That rather than deal in truth with the anomalies, it's much easier to rely on the "policies and proceedures" handbook that comes with the franchise, and eliminate the problem by reading or reiterating the scripted answer. I don't recall this being the Savior's method of dealing with sincere seekers.

 

For example, I think early in the church, it was a common tactic to brand dissenters as being immoral, when that really wasn't the case. That tactic became engrained as a part of the culture and I think that's why it has been relied upon heavily since the inception of the church. It seems to be the first place leadership runs to when confronted with a questioning member. That and the mechanical "bear testimony of BofM at this point in the discussion" and the "advise prayer and scripture study" formula.

 

Elder Uchtdorf's recent talk has been the first attempt I've seen to correct that black idiosyncrasy.

 

I've read somewhat of Sterling McMurrin and would like to read more. I think we would have agreed on some things, but as I understand it he was somewhat of an agnostic?

 

I agree being a gentleman usually keeps one in good stead but coming from a farm background, I also know there are some jobs that only a well wielded hammer will do.

If we are going to be held up to the ultra-high standard set by the Savior, we might just as well cry "Uncle!" now and have done with it.

 

I think, rather, that patience and forbearance is called for.  Not only for our own shortcomings, but also for those annoying and unforgivable missteps of others.  Moreover, what actually comes first, the readiness of the people to hear, or the willingness of a leader to say what needs to be said?  We have already had this chicken & egg debate in another context.

 

McMurrin might have been an agnostic, but he was so nice about it, and would never even contemplate wielding "Maxwell's silver hammer" in order to drive his point home.

[Robert F. Smith]

.....................................................   

In the primitive church I never saw the acceptance of plural marriage as playing a vital role in one's salvation.

 

....................................................   

 

I don't see any indication that a man's glory will be influenced by the size of his family.

 

Luke 24: 34-36 states:

 

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

 

In many ways I would love to have my companion as my wife through the eternities, but what if the next life is quite different than what we've been told?  How can we be in such direct conflict with what the Savior has said here?

 

After the Savior's ascension, did the early saints decide to build their own temples? Doesn't that seem like it would have been high on the list of "to do's" since they no longer had access to the Jewish temple and in light of the modern emphasis placed on temples?

 

But Paul says "we" or the members of the church are the temple. 

 

.....................................................   

Sounds like indulging in the either-or fallacy, when other options are clearly evident.

 

I once before noted that the Restoration of all Things hardly demands programmatic adherence to the primitive Christian Church only, and you didn't deign to reply.

I also asked you what the primitive church consisted of, and again no reply.

[Palerider]

Sounds like indulging in the either-or fallacy, when other options are clearly evident.

 

I once before noted that the Restoration of all Things hardly demands programmatic adherence to the primitive Christian Church only, and you didn't deign to reply.

I also asked you what the primitive church consisted of, and again no reply.

 

I believe I did reply. Perhaps you either forgot or didn't care for the reply? Here's the copy:

 

 

Robert F. Smith, on 03 Jan 2014 - 12:37 AM, said:

So you admit first off that the Patriarchs gave patriarchal blessings, but, since they seem absent from early Christianity, therefore they are "without foundation"?  I thought that the Restoration was about the Restoration of all things.

 

I think like numerous principles given in the early history of God's people they had their time and place. But when people have access to the Second Comforter through faith in Christ, I don't believe they have the necessity of an intermediary, when they can go directly to the source.

 

After all, when all people (Jew and Gentile) are accepted as children of the covenant that Christ has made with us, what is the real purpose of having someone declare lineage? Lineage is no longer a factor. More than being redundant it is unnecessary.

 

Since we are restoring "all things" should we also restore the prohibition regarding the eating of pork?

Edited January 17, 2014 by Palerider

[Palerider]

Sounds like indulging in the either-or fallacy, when other options are clearly evident.

 

I once before noted that the Restoration of all Things hardly demands programmatic adherence to the primitive Christian Church only, and you didn't deign to reply.

I also asked you what the primitive church consisted of, and again no reply.

 

I am beginning a more thorough study of that very topic and want to be able to speak more intelligently to it.

 

I'm thinking that the development experienced by the primitive church is much more complex than the simplified version put forth in the past by the LDS faith.

 

I think the CES broadcast by Elder Callister, which I happened to see this past weekend and is currently under discussion in another thread started today, is a prime example of that over-simplification. There were numerous "holes" in his argument.

[Coreyb]

My favorite bishop ever was a fat and jolly old truck driver who often fell asleep on the stand because of his many hours on the road. He did many unconventional things, but his ward was the friendliest I have ever been in, and was just exploding with missionary work.

[Palerider]

Sociologists and anthropologists I know would invert that equation, arguing that the underlying culture is at base a stream of lifeways and thought which is more likely to produce philosophico-theological branches.  And, if God intervenes in that stream of tradition, His intervention will be interpreted in light of already extant ideological notions.  After all, God speaks to man according to his language and understanding (II Ne 31:3), according to his Sitz im Leben.

 

 

 

If you broaden the definition enough, the rabbit hole will be quite deep, so let's not go there.

 

Since the church has all the characteristics of and claims to be a corporation, lets start there.

 

From Dictionary.com

 

Corporate culture:

 

"the shared values, traditions, customs, philosophy, and policies of a corporation; also, the professional atmosphere that grows from this and affects behavior and performance."

 

From Wiki:

 

Organizational culture is the behavior of humans who are part of an organization and the meanings that the people attach to their actions. Culture includes the organization values, visions, norms, working language, systems, symbols, beliefs and habits. It is also the pattern of such collective behaviors and assumptions that are taught to new organizational members as a way of perceiving, and even thinking and feeling. Organizational culture affects the way people and groups interact with each other. Corporate culture...refers to those cultures deliberately created by management to acheive specific strategic ends."

 

 

[Palerider]

Sociologists and anthropologists I know would invert that equation, arguing that the underlying culture is at base a stream of lifeways and thought which is more likely to produce philosophico-theological branches.  And, if God intervenes in that stream of tradition, His intervention will be interpreted in light of already extant ideological notions.  After all, God speaks to man according to his language and understanding (II Ne 31:3), according to his Sitz im Leben.

 

As for the KJV "peculiar people" set on a pedestal (only so they can be knocked down?), the phrase actually means "personal possession, the elect," not that they are weird non-comformists.  Hebrew ˁam sěgūllâ = Greek genos elekton (Deut 14:2, I Pt 2:9), or perousios "special." Nahum Sarna has a discussion of the meaning in his Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel (N.Y.: Schocken, 1986), 131.  Compare cognate Akkadian sikiltum, and Ugaritic sglth "his special (politico-legal) possession."  The context of this phrase is very important in Zoramite liturgy (Alma 31:16-17), as well as in the most important of Jewish prayers, the Amida "Standing-Prayer."

 

If we are going to be held up to the ultra-high standard set by the Savior, we might just as well cry "Uncle!" now and have done with it.

 

I think, rather, that patience and forbearance is called for.  Not only for our own shortcomings, but also for those annoying and unforgivable missteps of others.  Moreover, what actually comes first, the readiness of the people to hear, or the willingness of a leader to say what needs to be said?  We have already had this chicken & egg debate in another context.

 

McMurrin might have been an agnostic, but he was so nice about it, and would never even contemplate wielding "Maxwell's silver hammer" in order to drive his point home.

 

It appears that one is attempting to equate evidences of inauthenticity with minor human mistakes. I've noticed that it seems there is nothing that could ever be pointed to as evidence of the counterfeit, that is ever acceptable in the case of the church or it's past leadership.

 

And not because it doesn't exist, but because the illusion must be preserved at all costs.

 

I'm tempted to ask what information it would take to prove that there is dissimilation here but I'm afraid it would be a futile endeavor. 

 

Not all of the Savior's teachings are impossible to follow. Edit: to add: I'm also a little surprized that after the many conference talks I have personally heard advocating the following of the Savior's example, that the heretic is the one found defending that position and the TBM is saying it's impossible......Hmmmmm.

 

 I'm more than willing to accept the human frailties of someone like Peter or Paul. Their mistakes although regrettable are not of the type that would "lead the saints astray"......

 

But the realities and ambiguities of past leadership performance are so numerous and so indicting that it is truly death by a thousand cuts. I don't need to make the list. I'm sure you are just as aware of it's length as I am and each item with it's less than satisfactory excuse. 

Edited January 17, 2014 by Palerider

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................................   

Elder Uchtdorf's recent talk has been the first attempt I've seen to correct that black idiosyncrasy.

 

......................................................

Stephen Smoot's recent review in Interpreter at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/help-for-the-troubled-young-mormon/ , includes a note (7) on the this, showing that Dieter was far from the first to attempt to puncture the fallacy of infallibility as Mormon doctrine: Gregory L. Smith, ”Prophets and fallibility,” online at http://seesangelsinthearchitecture.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/prophets-and-fallibility/  .    

 

--edited to add that Smoot's review is of a book which deals realistically with advice to young people. I think that you might like the author of that book, Adam Miller.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

It appears that one is attempting to equate evidences of inauthenticity with minor human mistakes. I've noticed that it seems there is nothing that could ever be pointed to as evidence of the counterfeit, that is ever acceptable in the case of the church or it's past leadership.

 

And not because it doesn't exist, but because the illusion must be preserved at all costs.

 

I'm tempted to ask what information it would take to prove that there is dissimilation here but I'm afraid it would be a futile endeavor.

I would say that the shoe is on the other foot.  You are making impossible demands on the Brethren going back over a century, and assuming what has to be proved (QED).  Perhaps you are saying that the professional historical assessments made by Jan Shipps, Richard Bushman, or the like (you name them) are attempts to preserve "the illusion . . . at all costs."  What is the actual "evidence of the counterfeit" which you find so convincing that it automatically pales into insignificance anything else which might be said?  Are you actually being evenhanded?

 

Not all of the Savior's teachings are impossible to follow. Edit: to add: I'm also a little surprized that after the many conference talks I have personally heard advocating the following of the Savior's example, that the heretic is the one found defending that position and the TBM is saying it's impossible......Hmmmmm.

 

 I'm more than willing to accept the human frailties of someone like Peter or Paul. Their mistakes although regrettable are not of the type that would "lead the saints astray"......

 

But the realities and ambiguities of past leadership performance are so numerous and so indicting that it is truly death by a thousand cuts. I don't need to make the list. I'm sure you are just as aware of it's length as I am and each item with it's less than satisfactory excuse.

The Call to Perfection is a fallacy.  What is more, it is very cruel to expect people to follow the Savior and to get instant, complete, immaculate results.  Life is hard.  We are all flawed in a diversity of ways.  Our unrealistic expectations can be dashed by the wall of reality that faces us.  Those of us who know better should feel obligated to "tell it like it is," and present our leaders warts and all, so that our vulnerable young will not be too traumatized by inevitable failure.  They need to understand that there is no success without failure.  They also need to understand that, no matter how hard they try, they will never be perfect like Jesus -- till Kingdom Come (Marana tha)..

 

Having said that, it is certainly unfair to present only the most negative interpretations of history.  No one could survive such tight scrutiny, not our slaveholding Founding Fathers, nor the deeply anti-Jewish founder of the Protestant Reformation (Martin Luther), nor even Jesus himself -- who was criticized for hanging out with tax-collectors, drunks, and prostitutes (I love Jesus' masterful reply to his critics on that score).

 

Presentism is another fallacious way of passing judgment, rather than taking people as they were and understanding them in the historical circumstances in which they found themselves.  This applies to Holy Writ going back thousands of years, and it is not always a pretty picture. These were humans, Oh Pale One!!  Have you no mercy?

[Robert F. Smith]

I believe I did reply. Perhaps you either forgot or didn't care for the reply? Here's the copy:

 

 

I think like numerous principles given in the early history of God's people they had their time and place. But when people have access to the Second Comforter through faith in Christ, I don't believe they have the necessity of an intermediary, when they can go directly to the source.

 

After all, when all people (Jew and Gentile) are accepted as children of the covenant that Christ has made with us, what is the real purpose of having someone declare lineage? Lineage is no longer a factor. More than being redundant it is unnecessary.

 

Since we are restoring "all things" should we also restore the prohibition regarding the eating of pork?

I was thinking of this comment I made (post 69) over at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62489-miraculous-anti-conversion-stories/page-4 ,

 

...........................................................    

Unfortunately, in spite of it's efforts, the LDS church doesn't fit the bill of a primitive restoration either........

Robert F. Smith said:

What, pray tell, do you think that the primitive Christian church was like?  We had a discussion on this board not long ago about that very issue:  See http://www.mormondia...cease-to-exist/ .

The separate categories of (1) restoration of all things and (2) primitive Christianity ought to be dealt with in a reasonable way, IMHO.

For example, I would never make the obviously absurd demand that we today obey the past command to Noah that he go out and build an ark.  Likewise, scholars generally differentiate Mosaic Law from Noachide Law.  The demands of one set of rules may not apply in other circumstances, which is why the rabbis always say that "it's not easy to be a Jew," and will try to dissuade those who wish to convert to Judaism.  Christianity presumably does away with several demands of the Mosaic Code.

 

As you know, one of the hallmarks of Mormonism is the principle of continuing revelation (an open canon), which means that, in the midst of diversity of views on the interpretation of Scripture, or on the immediate will of the Lord, a revelatory means is provided whereby the issue can be settled.  If one has an apriori belief that the LDS faith is false, then such doctrine can be disregarded.

 

In my view, rejecting Mormonism is O.K., and we can still be friends.  The calumnies and unfair criticisms do hurt, nevertheless, and it is always nice if those rejecting one's religion can at least be kind, considerate, and evenhanded.

 

[Stone holm]

It appears that one is attempting to equate evidences of inauthenticity with minor human mistakes. I've noticed that it seems there is nothing that could ever be pointed to as evidence of the counterfeit, that is ever acceptable in the case of the church or it's past leadership.

 

And not because it doesn't exist, but because the illusion must be preserved at all costs.

 

I'm tempted to ask what information it would take to prove that there is dissimilation here but I'm afraid it would be a futile endeavor. 

 

Not all of the Savior's teachings are impossible to follow. Edit: to add: I'm also a little surprized that after the many conference talks I have personally heard advocating the following of the Savior's example, that the heretic is the one found defending that position and the TBM is saying it's impossible......Hmmmmm.

 

 I'm more than willing to accept the human frailties of someone like Peter or Paul. Their mistakes although regrettable are not of the type that would "lead the saints astray"......

 

But the realities and ambiguities of past leadership performance are so numerous and so indicting that it is truly death by a thousand cuts. I don't need to make the list. I'm sure you are just as aware of it's length as I am and each item with it's less than satisfactory excuse.

Depends on your definition of "leading astray". Although I felt uncomfortable at times defending the ban when it was I force, and simply don't support the gender stereotyping that currently is blatant, and felt very uncomfortable with Pres. Hinckley's political activism, I have never felt the Church was leading me astray spiritually. Peter and Paul clearly had some political/cultural differences, and I see no logic in the concept that everything true stopped being added after Christ ascended. Quite frankly my biggest obstacle to be overcome before Baptism wasn't the B of M or modern revelation, but the verbose and confused babblings of Paul. So though I can understand your position, it is not a road I choose to follow.