False Doctrine At Conference

[Senator]

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-

 

Your church sounds cool. Which one is it?

[wenglund]

Your church sounds cool. Which one is it?

 

It isn't my Church, but Christ's--i.e. the one you belong to but may yet to maturely comprehend.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 15, 2014 by wenglund

[Senator]

It isn't my Church, but Christ's--i.e. the one you belong to but may yet to maturely comprehend.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

delete

Edited May 15, 2014 by Senator

[wenglund]

You might want to take another crack at the last part of your statement.

 

But knowing you, I'm sure it was a condescending jab.

 

Gotta love the unwitting hypocrisy in this kind of typically snide remarks from you.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Gotta love the unwitting hypocrisy in this kind of typically snide remarks from you.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The way you phrased it didn't make sense to me.  But then it clicked. So I had deleted my post.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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-

Couldn't agree more. This is a most excellent way to approach not just the church, but life in general. Now if we could only agree on what that entailed specifically...

[wenglund]

Couldn't agree more. This is a most excellent way to approach not just the church, but life in general. Now if we could only agree on what that entailed specifically...

 

I don't know that working towards an agreement is as necessary or useful as self discovery for each of us, individually, by working towards that end through humbly applying the precepts we have learn across all walks of our lives life (Alma 32 and the 13th article of faith).

 

For, as the saying goes: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

 

In other words, working towards agreement won't likely result from public debates and theoretical disputations, but through the realization of our shared goal resulting from "doing" the Word. Arguing about whether Christ was born on the 6th of April or not, or what date is or isn't doctrine and true, will do little if anything in making us better people, particularly in comparison with the edification of spirit during Conference and the enhancement that comes from living by the precepts conveyed thereat. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I don't know that working towards an agreement is as necessary or useful as self discovery for each of us, individually, by working towards that end through humbly applying the precepts we have learn across all walks of our lives life (Alma 32 and the 13th article of faith).

 

For, as the saying goes: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

 

In other words, working towards agreement won't likely result from public debates and theoretical disputations, but through the realization of our shared goal resulting from "doing" the Word. Arguing about whether Christ was born on the 6th of April or not, or what date is or isn't doctrine and true, will do little if anything in making us better people, particularly in comparison with the edification of spirit during Conference and the enhancement that comes from living by the precepts conveyed thereat. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I just couldn't let the thread die without bumping this one.

 

THAT is where it should have started in the first place my opinion.

 

Religion is about making us better people and giving life meaning through hope for something beyond this trash heap we all live in, not facts about dates.

 

You'd have to be nuts to give a fig about dates.

 

(sorry)

Edited May 18, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mnn727]

With apologies to Elder Bruce R. McConkie [i have bracketed my changes to his original text.]

 

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that [Jesus was not born on April 6th]. I have said the same things. All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet,[seer and Revelator - David Bednar]. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about [April 6th being the birth date of the Savior]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.
 

[canard78]

I just couldn't let the thread die without bumping this one.

THAT is where it should have started in the first place my opinion.

Religion is about making us better people and giving life meaning through hope for something beyond this trash heap we all live in, not facts about dates.

You'd have to be nuts to give a fig about dates.

(sorry)

Nice

I suppose this is not really about dates. It's a question of whether the church is lead by revelation.

If a prophet stands and says "we know by revelation that..." then one would hope that there is revelation backing that statement up.

Maybe Elder Bednar knows the date based on his own revelation. Given the reference offered in the talk is instead following a trail back to D&C 20 then it seems to be based on that instead.

If, when a prophet, seer and revelator claims to know something based on an interpretation of why they consider to be a revelation but is instead simply old assumptions, should we not have pause for concern?

The priesthood ban was embedded and perpetuated on old assumptions founded on a false interpretation of what was considered revelation.

I agree that the primary role of religion is to make us better people. The test of that is not whether a prophet receives revelation but is instead whether I'm a better person by being part of the religion.

But... If the principles that a religion asks us to live, in order to be better people, are claimed to be based on revelation and not on a tested method for making us better, should we be cautious of following those "revealed" principles?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

You'd have to be nuts to give a fig about dates.

 

(sorry)

You dork.

[thesometimesaint]

You dork.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/paris-gray.jpg

[wenglund]

But... If the principles that a religion asks us to live, in order to be better people, are claimed to be based on revelation and not on a tested method for making us better, should we be cautious of following those "revealed" principles?

 

As I and others understand the gospel, it isn't an either/or proposition like what you may suppose. The claim of "revelation" isn't intended to be taken blindly, but on faith--i.e the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

 

To me and mfbukowski and others, the best evidence to verify revelation isn't had in non-definitively affirmable and oft fruitless disputations over dates or the like, but in personal witnesses from the source (Moroni 10) as confirmed and strengthened by whether the alleged revelations further our growth, or not, towards Christ (Alma 32).

 

Indeed, disputations over dates and the like may distract attention away from the best evidence and perhaps thereby limit our efforts in drawing pragmatic faith conclusions, if not also inadvertently impede the divinely instituted process of becoming like Christ.

 

Many ships of faith have been tossed to and fro by every wind of supposed fact and doctrine because their captains have lost sight of the intended destination, failed to use the divinely instituted rudders, and have been serious distracted by the siren songs of their own methods and powers of "reason."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[canard78]

As I and others understand the gospel, it isn't an either/or proposition like what you may suppose. The claim of "revelation" isn't intended to be taken blindly, but on faith--i.e the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

 

To me and mfbukowski and others, the best evidence to verify revelation isn't had in non-definitively affirmable and oft fruitless disputations over dates or the like, but in personal witnesses from the source (Moroni 10) as confirmed and strengthened by whether the alleged revelations further our growth, or not, towards Christ (Alma 32).

 

Indeed, disputations over dates and the like may distract attention away from the best evidence and perhaps thereby limit our efforts in drawing pragmatic faith conclusions, if not also inadvertently impede the divinely instituted process of becoming like Christ.

 

Many ships of faith have been tossed to and fro by every wind of supposed fact and doctrine because their captains have lost sight of the intended destination, failed to use the divinely instituted rudders, and have been serious distracted by the siren songs of their own methods and powers of "reason."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Thanks, I really liked this post.

 

I don't really care what date he was born. It is of no consequence to me. I'm also very comfortable going through the process of praying and either embracing or rejecting the teachings of prophets.

 

Does that extend beyond dates though? If I prayerfully reach the conclusion that the revelation on what we eat or the money we pay to the church or the clothes we wear or the gender people marry was not applicable to me or was not in fact a divine revelation, does that still leave me as a member in good standing?

 

Can I accept and reject from the entire array of doctrines and still stay "in" or can I only brush aside the inconsequential ones like the date of someone's birthday?

[changed]

Are we going by the Jewish calendar, the Chinese calendar, etc.?

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

Seems like "April 6th" could mean different things depending on what reference you are going by.

[wenglund]

Thanks, I really liked this post.

 

I don't really care what date he was born. It is of no consequence to me. I'm also very comfortable going through the process of praying and either embracing or rejecting the teachings of prophets.

 

Does that extend beyond dates though? If I prayerfully reach the conclusion that the revelation on what we eat or the money we pay to the church or the clothes we wear or the gender people marry was not applicable to me or was not in fact a divine revelation, does that still leave me as a member in good standing?

 

Can I accept and reject from the entire array of doctrines and still stay "in" or can I only brush aside the inconsequential ones like the date of someone's birthday?

 

Again, to me, it isn't just about praying about whether this point or that is true or not. Rather, it is more about following Christ and his chosen leaders and living the gospel precepts so as to see if they magnify the soul and make bad men good and good men better. It is about humbly trusting more in God and those who represent him rather than pridefully in man. Christ's reference to disciples as sheep may not have been coincidental.

 

And, the issue ought not be whether one is in good standing or not for believing this point or that, but whether one is becoming more like Christ. Too often we lose the wonderfully edifying forest for dogmatically nit picking the presumed doctrinal trees. 

 

Essentially, what it comes down to is the aeronautical saying: "attitude determines altitude." Humbling trusting in God and his kingdom will enable one to soar high into the heavens, 

 

My apologies for the smorgasbord of mixed metaphors. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

Are we going by the Jewish calendar, the Chinese calendar, etc.?

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

Seems like "April 6th" could mean different things depending on what reference you are going by.

 

We're going by the Dilbert desktop calendar.  So whichever one that's based on.

[mfbukowski]

Nice

I suppose this is not really about dates. It's a question of whether the church is lead by revelation.

If a prophet stands and says "we know by revelation that..." then one would hope that there is revelation backing that statement up.

Maybe Elder Bednar knows the date based on his own revelation. Given the reference offered in the talk is instead following a trail back to D&C 20 then it seems to be based on that instead.

If, when a prophet, seer and revelator claims to know something based on an interpretation of why they consider to be a revelation but is instead simply old assumptions, should we not have pause for concern?

The priesthood ban was embedded and perpetuated on old assumptions founded on a false interpretation of what was considered revelation.

I agree that the primary role of religion is to make us better people. The test of that is not whether a prophet receives revelation but is instead whether I'm a better person by being part of the religion.

But... If the principles that a religion asks us to live, in order to be better people, are claimed to be based on revelation and not on a tested method for making us better, should we be cautious of following those "revealed" principles?

The problem is that revelation is not objective.  It's not like that revelation reveals "facts"  It doesn't reveal that God is six feet one inch tall and weighs 170 pounds.  People would laugh at that idea, yet somehow they think that all revelations should agree with each other or they could not be "true".

 

I see revelation as completely personal.  It is a dialogue with my Higher Self if you want to see it that way, and my Higher Self, I believe is a source of infinite intelligence.  It is called the Holy Spirit, and indeed it is.

 

But I am firmly convinced that what is the right path for me might not be the right path for you, because your Higher Self is different than mine- because it is ultimately your SELF.  You are different than me.

 

Another way of saying the same thing is that God directs us individually in what we need to do to return to him.  The belief that April 6 is THE important day does something to help that individual get closer to God for some reason, but such ideas are not important for others.  Some may have an internal need to tie their salvation to historical facts, and others don't.

 

I don't, but I have no problem with others that do.  In my little brain, it is important to see the Holy Ghost as my higher self, which is somehow outside me, and yet in perfect communication with me.  Praying is internal dialogue with what is best WITHIN me, directing me to what is best FOR me.  The question of whether or not it is from a source "outside" is no more important than pondering if what I call "red" is the same as what you call "red" if somehow we could switch brains and compare the experience.

 

I will never be able to tell if it is internal or not- but I experience revelation as if it is coming from an external source, and I feel that with great certainty.

 

So to me, having different revelations than others is no different than having different shaped noses, or being taller or shorter than anyone else, or having different hair color, etc.  You are you and I am me, and of course our revelations would be different.

 

God directs us differently.  Is that really so surprising??

 

Atheists say things like "it's all just brainstates" and I say- "So what?"  They might say "You are making it all up!" and I say "So what?" 

 

The kingdom of heaven is within you- not out there to be compared with someone else's kingdom of heaven. There is a reason faith is called "Faith".

 

We are here to learn how to build our own worlds- not someone else's world.  But amazingly in many many many cases, I find that my revelations cohere with those of the scriptures.  Amazing!  I think Alma 32 is just plain absolute truth- THAT is the way it all really is.  Moroni 10:4-5 tells me that it is ok for me to feel as I do- that God can and will teach me personally "THE TRUTH OF ALL THINGS"

 

In all the important areas, my revelations cohere with the scriptures.  That works fine for me.  But if the prophet told me to eat nothing but string beans, I would look at it and decide if that was in line with what my Higher Self was telling me I should do, if that was the right thing for me personally.

That is what is called gaining one's own testimony of the principle taught.  We all need to do that.

 

If I prayerfully reach the conclusion that the revelation on what we eat or the money we pay to the church or the clothes we wear or the gender people marry was not applicable to me or was not in fact a divine revelation, does that still leave me as a member in good standing?

I was an only child, and didn't live near a lot of other kids.

 

I have never been one for joining clubs or group activities.  I am not interested in being a fan of a team- and why people do so is a mystery to me.  My wife says I am a hermit, and she is probably right.  I lived much of my life alone before I met her and did the family thing, no roomates.  I joined the church too old to go on a mission.

 

If I were a member of a club that decided I should be kicked out for my beliefs, I would not care.  I don't like clubs anyway.  Keeping in tune with my higher self is far more important than what others think of me.  I would not be "me" if I let others influence me to that extent.

Edited May 20, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

You dork.

[canard78]

Wade and mfb... thank you both.

 

Plenty to ponder in your last couple of posts. I'll let it distill for a while

Edited May 20, 2014 by canard78

[why me]

Wow.... if we can't even acknowledge when really do get it wrong and feel such a need to defend even when wrong then we simply will never apply Elder Uchtdorf's words.  

 

 

 

The fact is Elder Bednar beleives Jeusus was born on April 6th and he bases that belief on Section 20 as he beleive the april 6th mention was part of Joseph revelation.... It is historical fact it was not.  It was written in by John Whitmer on April 10 to signify the dat and Bro. Whitmer did this with other revelations NOT received on April 6th

I  don't think that it is false doctrine. Even if a GA gets it wrong, he may have just made a mistake. I have no idea why members use loaded words such as false doctrine as in this case and why members wish to find fault here and there and attempt to make a touch down? Why can't someone just say it was a mistake? Why use the words such as false doctrine?

Edited May 21, 2014 by why me

[sethpayne]

I  don't think that it is false doctrine. Even if a GA gets it wrong, he may have just made a mistake. I have no idea why members use loaded words such as false doctrine as in this case and why members wish to find fault here and there and attempt to make a touch down? Why can't someone just say it was a mistake? Why use the words such as false doctrine?

 

Really?  The GAs consistently tell us that Conference = Scripture.

 

Scripture contains Church doctrine.  Therefore, General Conference = Church doctrine.

 

I can see why someone may want clarification on something stated in GC.  Saying something is "false doctrine" doesn't disparage the one who may have stated something incorrectly.  It merely identifies a given proposition as being outside accepted Church Doctrine.

 

Of course, now that Elder Bednar has made this statement in GC that Jesus was born on April 6th is now official Church doctrine according to BCSpace's Grand Unified Theory of Mormon Doctrine.  

[Calm]

 

I can see why someone may want clarification on something stated in GC.  Saying something is "false doctrine" doesn't disparage the one who may have stated something incorrectly.  It merely identifies a given proposition as being outside accepted Church Doctrine.

Wouldn't that be more "nondoctrinal" as opposed to false doctrine which implies an untruth/falsehood.

[why me]

Really?  The GAs consistently tell us that Conference = Scripture.

 

Scripture contains Church doctrine.  Therefore, General Conference = Church doctrine.

 

I can see why someone may want clarification on something stated in GC.  Saying something is "false doctrine" doesn't disparage the one who may have stated something incorrectly.  It merely identifies a given proposition as being outside accepted Church Doctrine.

 

Of course, now that Elder Bednar has made this statement in GC that Jesus was born on April 6th is now official Church doctrine according to BCSpace's Grand Unified Theory of Mormon Doctrine.  

I  have never taken such talks as scripture. I do believe that they are not being literal when they have said this. If it were scripture, it would be in the scriptures etc. I have always taken the conference talks as advice on how to do life etc. I think that to claim false doctrine is rather negative and has all sorts of negative connotations that the critics love to create to lead people away. I think that members should use their words more carefully.

[why me]

Wouldn't that be more "nondoctrinal" as opposed to false doctrine which implies an untruth/falsehood.

That was my point exactly. There is no reason to adopt the language of the critic in such cases. If I were a GA and I had to give a conference talk and if I believed that such talks would be taken as scripture, I would get a panic attack.