False Doctrine At Conference

[omni]

Ohhhh..........you're in big trouble now, buddy!

 

I've already grabbed my popcorn and a nice comfy chair.

[Tiki]

Ohhhh..........you're in big trouble now, buddy!

Obviously.

And thanks to M. DeGroote, my former Home Teaching companion, his articles are used to justify declaring False Doctrine was taught at General Conference. What a journey.

That should go well with your popcorn, Omni.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Tiki

[Scott Lloyd]

Obviously.

And thanks to M. DeGroote, my former Home Teaching companion, his articles are used to justify declaring False Doctrine was taught at General Conference. What a journey.

That should go well with your popcorn, Omni.

So this confirms what I suspected: Tiki is a sock puppet for an aggressive heartlander who, if memory serves me, has already been banned at least once. Edited April 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

It's a good thing the FAIRLDS CULT is around to correct the Apostles of The Lord Jesus Christ.

I bet if Elder Bednar had studied FAIR more intently, he would have declared as doctrine that Joseph Smith went to a grove of trees to pray because Joseph Smith discovered in the Bible that trees represent Asherah. Could this not have helped to appease the OW movement?

http://en.fairmormon.org/FAIR_Study_Aids/Gospel_Doctrine/Book_of_Mormon/Lesson_Three

Elder Bednar could also have declared that Adam and Eve evolved from two separate sets of monkeys, Noah's flood was a local event, the Garden of Eden was likely in present-day Iraq, and Joseph Smith made false statements about the geographical location of the Book of Mormon because F.A.R.M.S. was 100% accurate about Nephites living in the world of the Maya, but not of it.

Yes, thank you FAIRLDS CULT for keeping our priesthood leaders in line. Your cultists members steady the ark so very well.

 

First if by this post you are insinuating that I am a member of FairMormon, you would be technically incorrect.   FairMormon and I are no longer connected, in part because I have a tendency to say the first thing that comes to my mind rather then practice patience and grace.  Outside of that, you are right, in many ways apologists like FairMormon, myself and others share perspectives and opinions that are not found in the direct quotes of the brethren.  You can argue whether that is ok or not, but I can't survive any other way then make things fit as I do.  I can't eat sushi just beacause another loves it... I have to find my own way of putting some of it together... that said I think I do pretty well at it.

Edited April 12, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

If what the Leaders say = What God says, then what's the practical difference?

This is so black or white.

  It is not a Prophet speaks for God always or never..... anyone trying to fit the gospel into that perspective wil always miss the boat on both ends of the spectrum

Edited April 12, 2014 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

Three different methaphors in one post with two sentences, I think, my goodness!

Seriously, almost everything the church does is a decision make by the Brethren with the stamp of approval of the spirit, not God breathing some revelation. That is the NT formula.

When they pick a temple site, probably in most cases one city is as good as another. A temple at the Provo Tabernacle site would have been as inspired as one in Springville. One stake president selected by the spirit is as good as another, probably, in most cases.

[SamIam]

Elder Bednar stated it is our Doctrine by revelation that Jesus was born on April 6th

 

Incorrect

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700094707/What-was-the-real-date-of-Jesus-birth.html?pg=all

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Date_of_birth

 

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8651&linkURL=49.4ChadwickDating-61f85baf-ef24-4584-ba44-1892097daede.pdf

 

I find that often enough discussions of this nature do not clearly prove anything one way or another concerning the topic under discussion. However, they do seem to reveal, often enough very clearly, personal biases which reveal the heart of the debate...or perhaps more accurately the heart of the debaters. 

 

1.) We have a subject where we can choose from several venues of differing opinion about a statement of fact.

 

2.) The individuals developing the sources of evidence are in disagreement in their statements of absolute conclusion.

 

 In this discussion we can more or less define 3 perspectives.

 

      a.) We have a secular proof and evidence debate which is compelling and persuasive in which it's authors claim a final conclusion.  However, they select from a pool of disagreement among historical experts and isolate personal preferences for interpretation. However, bottom line, the nature of the pool of disagreement concerning historical placement of events in this discussion really, in spite of all efforts to paint a picture of definitive exactness must retain the conditional observation that because of the differing conclusions of the multitude of experts and the difficult almost impossible nature of pinning down historical events this far back in time that this really is simply our best guess -  we really don't know for sure.  

 

      b.) We have a religious source (McConkie et al) that clearly claims they do not know and that it is clearly not conclusive based on historical evidence but they take a poke at it and conclude a possible different date that is more acceptable to the secular point of view.  In a manner of speaking this is another "this is our best guess" scenario's which distills down to we really don't know for sure.

 

      c.)  Finally, we have a third group (Prophets) who have no horse in the secular race and process of evaluation and simply state with a surety of conviction that it is definitely an opposing perspective that seems to distance itself from the facts of the situation and has been portrayed by others as a misreading of intent of the original writers.   So independent of our own private revelation which confirms their perspective we really have to accept that while we may believe these conclusions by a prophet that in the purest sense, we still do not know for sure.

 

So when all options lead to a conclusion that as an individual I can't possibly know for sure using deductive reasoning, what is it that we do know for sure? 

 

What we know is that individuals will choose, usually from a subconscious origin, the conclusion that satisfies our personal preferences for sources that we find most acceptable to us.  In a manner of speaking, these sorts of questions reveal the true heart of a person - what really is most important to them.

 

So perhaps we don't have a definitive answer to the question of Christ's birth but the choice of the three that we feel motivated to defend and sustain, perhaps with all our heart, might mind and strength is perhaps in its way a subconscious declaration of what source is most significant for us.  

 

Perhaps a very weak analogy but maybe it could be kind of like the card trick where you lay down 3 perpendicular rows of cards of 7 cards each face up.  The performer has the observer pick out a card without revealing which card he selects. The performer doesn't know what card was chosen but he knows that by applying a series of steps he can have the observer unknowingly declare the exact card without ever knowingly doing so. If the observer will only tell him what row the card shows up in, the performer places the row which the observer picks as the middle stack and then redistributes them into the three rows. While the performer does NOT know for sure which card, and the observer DOES know for sure which card, the observer does not know how the performer is going to know for sure by the time the card trick is complete. Eventually, the observer chooses the middle row twice in a row, which produces a mathematical inevitability that the card is the 11th card. Not knowing the trick he doesn't know how he was made to reveal his choice and if he is never educated he may never figure it out.  Again a weak analogy but hopefully sufficient to illustrate how we reveal our choices through out our lives by simply revealing the position of our choice. 

 

Now I don't see God in any way shape or form as a common trickster but I am very comfortable with the reality that life is designed to repeatedly place us in circumstances where we think we know what the objective is but in reality it is an entirely different perspective being measured. Nonetheless, I often wonder if the question asked that is of significant interest to God at the start of every life circumstance is the one asked by Moses, Who is on the Lord's side? Who? 

Edited April 12, 2014 by SamIam

[strappinglad]

If the Lord himself were to appear and state He was born on April 6th at 11:45 pm, some here would still be anxious to know which calendar was used , what time zone, and whether it was standard time or daylight saving. They might even debate which second based on the leap seconds passed on in the last 2000 years. They miss the more important fact, not when He was born , but THAT He was born.

[DBMormon]

Samlam, I appreciate your words.  Your are right in that the words we choose say more about us then the facts or the case to make them.  But I would also pause all here and ask them again to keep their eyes open.  I am assurred this will be given attention and addressed.  While some statement acknowledging the issue does not address the "how" we speak of such things, I think to draw a conclusion as you have off one issue or even you handpicking several issues will fall short.  Take me for instance (weird, I would choose me huh?).  I see this issue as completely scholarly and historical, and one we can at least arrive at a good grasp of what we "know" by revelation and what others have assumed was revealation when it wasn't.  There are also other isses which are completely faith based.  For instance you will never see me argue the first vision as having occrred because of what is in the historical account, there simply is no smoking gun there.  (in the case of april 6th I feel the research on john Whitmer and the more recent sources' use of his (Whitmer's) insertion of verse one is extremely convincing)

 

I don't need or even should take every single event or issue or belief on faith.  I don't need to look to prophets seers and revelators for answers on who shot Lincoln, was Ronald Reagan a good president, and if the person who won last night's lottery actually had the winning ticket.  I am to learn knowledge and experience by wisdom and by faith.  While I am willing to have faith if the brethren claim truth I can not possibly know outside of faith (what God looks like, if Joseph had a vision, Does the lord desire me to not drink Ice Tea), I also do not feel bound to discard my own intelligence at every turn, and discard scriptures that teach me the Lord's mouthpieces are not perfect nor speak every word as the mind and wil of God.  I allow them that.  That said I worry that those who go too far the other way to be setting up a false expectation of infaliable leaders.

 

In the end I defend some ideas on faith others on study, and while I need to be more longsuffering in how I deal with such agitations and conflicts and apologize to all here for that side of this, I also will not apoligize for holding the view I do and trusting the historical source over what I percieve as a false assumption by leader who I do not expect to always speak for the Lord and allow them to be less then infalliable.

[Chronos]

Tiki, you seem to lack an understand of the difference between challenging ideas through debate and ridiculing or mocking. I am not concerned with your assertions but more of how you are making them. Become respectful with your posts.

 

~Chronos

[DBMormon]

Samlam, I appreciate your words.  Your are right in that the words we choose say more about us then the facts or the case to make them.  But I would also pause all here and ask them again to keep their eyes open.  I am assurred this will be given attention and addressed.  While some statement acknowledging the issue does not address the "how" we speak of such things, I think to draw a conclusion as you have off one issue or even you handpicking several issues will fall short.  Take me for instance (weird, I would choose me huh?).  I see this issue as completely scholarly and historical, and one we can at least arrive at a good grasp of what we "know" by revelation and what others have assumed was revealation when it wasn't.  There are also other isses which are completely faith based.  For instance you will never see me argue the first vision as having occrred because of what is in the historical account, there simply is no smoking gun there.  (in the case of april 6th I feel the research on john Whitmer and the more recent sources' use of his (Whitmer's) insertion of verse one is extremely convincing)

 

I don't need or even should take every single event or issue or belief on faith.  I don't need to look to prophets seers and revelators for answers on who shot Lincoln, was Ronald Reagan a good president, and if the person who won last night's lottery actually had the winning ticket.  I am to learn knowledge and experience by wisdom and by faith.  Not that I can know these as 100% but rather I am inclined to make a call on these without needing to consult God.  While I am willing to have faith if the brethren claim truth I can not possibly know outside of faith (what God looks like, if Joseph had a vision, Does the lord desire me to not drink Ice Tea), I also do not feel bound to discard my own intelligence at every turn, and discard scriptures that teach me the Lord's mouthpieces are not perfect nor speak every word as the mind and wil of God.  I allow them that.  That said I worry that those who go too far the other way to be setting up a false expectation of infaliable leaders.

 

In the end I defend some ideas on faith others on study, and while I need to be more longsuffering in how I deal with such agitations and conflicts and apologize to all here for that side of this, I also will not apoligize for holding the view I do and trusting the historical source over what I percieve as a false assumption by leader who I do not expect to always speak for the Lord and allow them to be less then infalliable.

 

Edited April 12, 2014 by DBMormon

[wtrdog]

I found an interesting link.

 

http://www.staylds.com/docs/WhatIsOfficialMormonDoctrine.html

 

One of the best-kept secrets in Mormondom is “What is Official Doctrine, and how is it established.” Church leaders seldom discuss the process, because Official Doctrine is rarely introduced. Yet Church history reveals a clearly established procedure that has been carefully followed for over 180 years. D&C 28:13 explains “all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith."  Since the Church was founded in 1830, new doctrine has been accepted six times. On every occasion, a three-step process was followed to add Official Doctrine:  It requires the approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and then it must be accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership. 

Only then is it binding on the membership of the Church. The change will then be made to the body of accepted (canonized) scriptures. Those occasions are:

1. 1830, Bible and Book of Mormon were officially accepted with the organization of the Church
2. 1835, Doctrine and Covenants, first 103 sections were officially accepted
3. 1880, Doctrine and Covenants additional 32 sections were accepted along with the Pearl of Great Price
4. 1890, Polygamy was repealed (Official Declaration, p. 291)
5. 1976, D&C sections 137 & 138 were officially accepted
6. 1978, The priesthood was made available to all worthy males regardless of race (Official Declaration 2, p. 292)

Also, in 1921 the Church removed the Lectures on Faith from the Doctrine and Covenants, with the explanation that they were never presented to the Church as being divinely revealed scripture.  As lectures and lessons, it was determined that they simply did not measure up to standard of Official Doctrine.¹   

 

 

This guys seems to have done his homework quite well.  I guess we could then ask what is the difference between revelation vs. doctrine.  Shouldn't any revelation be doctrine worthy?  If a revelation is a real revelation, and the person who received it has any confidence at all that it's truly divine and came from God, assuming it's meant for public consumption, would he not declare such?

 

So, repeating what I said before, has there been even one revelation since 1978?  It would seem not.

 

With regards to Bednar and D&C 20:1 I wonder what the implications are.  D&C Chapter 20 was certainly accepted.  So it then becomes a matter of interpreting the meaning of the scripture.  To what extent is revelation required to interpret scripture?  Is it "false doctrine" to misinterpret the scriptures?

[cinepro]

So, repeating what I said before, has there been even one revelation since 1978?  It would seem not.

 

You're getting confused between "official doctrine", "revelation" and "scripture".  They're not all the same thing.

[JLHPROF]

I found an interesting link.

 

http://www.staylds.com/docs/WhatIsOfficialMormonDoctrine.html

 

This guys seems to have done his homework quite well.

 

 

I really like that link.  Interestingly, he allows the sword of "not actually doctrine" to cut both ways.  We tend to use it to explain away things like:

 

 

Official Talks and Statements by General Authorities

Are Not Official Doctrine

While many members say statements by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are Official Doctrine, history shows GA’s statements occasionally are not reliable. 

• Several GA’s taught that polygamy is essential for salvation and would never be removed from the Church. ⁶
• Brigham Young vigorously taught the Adam-God theory, though Church leaders since have repeatedly disavowed it. ⁷
• Several GA’s from Brigham Young to Bruce R McConkie taught the Blacks would never get the Priesthood. ⁸
• Joseph Fielding Smith said man would never set foot on the moon. ⁹
• Apostle Franklin D. Richards promised the Martin and Wiley handcart companies the Lord would protect them on their journey so they would arrive unscathed.  Nevertheless, 200+ died in route. ¹⁰

 

But the author also correctly applies it to things we support like:

 

 

Official Teachings & Publications

Are Not Official Doctrine

The Church publishes a variety of books, videos, magazines, etc. for the religious instruction for its members.  Instructional manuals are prepared for seminary and institute classes, Sunday church classes, missionary materials, and General Conference addresses, among others.  

Since 1972, they have been prepared by the Church Correlation Committee to insure consistency, simplicity and orthodoxy. The resulting institutional mindset has devolved to the lowest common denominator. The same lesson is presented to a sixth-generation Mormon living on Bountiful East Bench who’s served a mission, been a Bishop, Stake President, etc, as a new member in a brand new branch in Bangkok, Thailand. The result is that profound spiritual principles are homogenized and watered down. 

 

Official Policy

Is Not Official Doctrine

Like any organization, the Church has a need to set policy so consistency and direction can be established.  Occasionally these policies incorrectly take on the aura of Official Doctrine.  

    

• The Family, Proclamation to the World is not official doctrine because it has not been approved by the membership. But this very formal statement on the family unequivocally states, “Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan”. In the very heated California Proposition 8 campaign in 2008 a sizable majority of members followed the Church’s prompting to campaign against gay marriage.  The Church authorities censured no members who opposed their stand against gay marriage. ¹²
• President McKay had a personal dislike for crucifixes and directed the Church building committee to not use them, though they had been used earlier.  But once initiated in the Church Building Committee, 50 years later, his personal preference has taken on a life of its own. Some GA’s even speculate on theological reasons without regard to its history. ¹³
• President Heber J. Grant, in 1921, made abstinence from the four forbidden WofW items a requirement for a temple recommend. But there is no claim to any revelation as a basis for the change. ¹⁴
• Temple Recommend questions are thought to be a constant guide for the faithful, yet they change every few years.  In the 19th century, temple goers were asked if they maintained proper fences to prevent their cows from wandering into a neighbor’s field. ¹⁵
• GA’s consistently taught that the Lamanites were the primary ancestors of the American Indians. In 2007, the introduction to the Book of Mormon changed to stating Lamanites were among the ancestors of American Indians.

 

Nice to see the "not doctrine" standard applied accurately.

[Rivers]

"Doctrine" is the official teachings currently being taught by the church.

"Absolute truth" is a whole different animal.

[mfbukowski]

... Rather I am dealing with how we arrive at a conclusion he was which we deem by revelation and KNOW it is the accurate and actual. .

We have been over this a number of times.

 

Remember the Rorty video you watched?  The entire point is that religion has nothing to do with ANYTHING "accurate and actual" and never has.

 

I don't know why that is so hard to understand.  It is a persistent error made by fundamentalists everywhere

[DBMormon]

Regardless of where you fall on this issue here is one of my best podcast episodes ever as I try to tackle this issue from all angles

 

Was Jesus Born on April 6th?

http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/e/was-jesus-born-on-april-6th/

 

Section 20 verse 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants says " The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April"

This has throughout Mormonism's history been interpreted as signifying the birth of Christ. We have several quotes by leaders including a recent comment by Elder Bednar from the April 2014 Conference. But is this the only way to see this issue and does other interpretations hold more weight? We examine this question and more in this weeks episode.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8651&linkURL=49.4ChadwickDating-61f85baf-ef24-4584-ba44-1892097daede.pdf

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/watch/2014/04?lang=eng&vid=3438350362001&cid=9 (at the 15 min mark)

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/05/remarks-and-dedication-of-the-fayette-new-york-buildings

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Date_of_birth

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700094707/What-was-the-real-date-of-Jesus-birth.html?pg=all

Edited May 13, 2014 by DBMormon

[canard78]

And yet oddly enough Joseph Smith approved the publication with no correction...

The meaning that we've applied to it 100+ years later seems to be different from what was intended.

There are other times when Whitmer wrote the phrase "one thousand eight hundred and thirty (something) years since the birth of our lord." It was just a fancy way of writing the year. I'll try to find an example (I think one was given earlier in the thread)

[Tiki]

Apparently, we need to ignore the 1st verses of every section of the Doctine and Covenants, if they contain dates.

[DBMormon]

Apparently, we need to ignore the 1st verses of every section of the Doctine and Covenants, if they contain dates.

or just brush away the facts and historical context and create revelation where none was given or intended.  Sorry but your simply ignoring the issue.  That said when this happeneded I wrote the Church history department member, a friend in the know, and a top tier leader.  All agreed it was a mistake (by study and by faith).  But obviously not one worth correcting.

#1 - it wasn't in the written copy.  He added it impromptu.  

#2 - He is aware of the issue now and why this may not be a safe assumption

#3 - The Church considered adding a note to the talk acknowledging the issue but chose not to (my personal guess is that it is due to too many people losing faith in their assumption of words at GC being the word of God at all times and those who would lose faith as they change their assumption about what prophets are and are not.

Edited May 15, 2014 by DBMormon

[mfbukowski]

or just brush away the facts and historical context and create revelation where none was given or intended.

Which is precisely what we do with every General Conference, every talk, and every time we say that the speaker was "just speaking as a man".  Brigham Young was an absolute fountain of opportunities to decide when he was inspired or not, and probably every prophet since him has had their "moments" of lapses

 

We can't decide what revelation is when it comes to any doctrine- evolution, the flood, pick anything.  Doctrines become "policies" and out goes polygamy, the prohibitions in the priesthood, changes in the endowment, and yet this is a big deal.

 

Yawn.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

or just brush away the facts and historical context and create revelation where none was given or intended.  Sorry but your simply ignoring the issue.  That said when this happeneded I wrote the Church history department member, a friend in the know, and a top tier leader.  All agreed it was a mistake (by study and by faith).  But obviously not one worth correcting.

#1 - it wasn't in the written copy.  He added it impromptu.  

#2 - He is aware of the issue now and why this may not be a safe assumption

#3 - The Church considered adding a note to the talk acknowledging the issue but chose not to (my personal guess is that it is due to too many people losing faith in their assumption of words at GC being the word of God at all times and those who would lose faith as they change their assumption about what prophets are and are not.

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

[Senator]

or just brush away the facts and historical context and create revelation where none was given or intended.  Sorry but your simply ignoring the issue.  That said when this happeneded I wrote the Church history department member, a friend in the know, and a top tier leader.  All agreed it was a mistake (by study and by faith).  But obviously not one worth correcting.

#1 - it wasn't in the written copy.  He added it impromptu.  

#2 - He is aware of the issue now and why this may not be a safe assumption

#3 - The Church considered adding a note to the talk acknowledging the issue but chose not to (my personal guess is that it is due to too many people losing faith in their assumption of words at GC being the word of God at all times and those who would lose faith as they change their assumption about what prophets are and are not.

 

What will probably happen is that they will just let it ride for twenty years or so, until it is forgotten. Then they will go back and edit the talk.

[DBMormon]

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

YW.  that's your welcome not Young Women... Mormon acronyms can be confusing and heaven knows we have our fair share of them

[wenglund]

Which is precisely what we do with every General Conference, every talk, and every time we say that the speaker was "just speaking as a man".  Brigham Young was an absolute fountain of opportunities to decide when he was inspired or not, and probably every prophet since him has had their "moments" of lapses

 

We can't decide what revelation is when it comes to any doctrine- evolution, the flood, pick anything.  Doctrines become "policies" and out goes polygamy, the prohibitions in the priesthood, changes in the endowment, and yet this is a big deal.

 

Yawn.

 

Exactly. Fussing over what is "doctrine" or "revelation" or "true" or "correct" is fundamentalism/legalism at its worst, and ignores the real purpose of the gospel. What ought to be of concern is whether statements at Conference enable us to become better people and more like Christ.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-