False Doctrine At Conference

[Hamba Tuhan]

I feel like through out this thread I have distinguished between two entirely different ideas and some how a handful here either can't distinguish or choose not to because their argument would lose steam. 

 

I could be wrong, but I suspect the push-back you feel you've been encountering has far less to do with any particular argument or commitment thereto and far more to do with a propensity amongst the Saints to dislike being browbeaten into submission on a point that is, indeed, a doctrinal gnat.

[Kenngo1969]

actually my vocation is selling floorcovering and drawing up floor plans and estimates.

It's okay.  Don't feel bad; you can still quibble as an avocation.  (Apologies; I know how much you hate emoticons.)

[mfbukowski]

BULLSEYE!!! If I were allowed I'd give you a rep point.

Je suis Teddy.     

[DBMormon]

The historicity of the Bible

The historicity of the Book of Mormon

The Historicity of Book of Abraham

Whether or not Joseph was lying about all of D&C being "revelations"

Whether or not Joseph was lying about the first vision

Whether or not evolution is "true"

Whether or not it really took 6 days to create the earth

Who really wrote Isaiah, or any book of the bible- Do you want a list of each book?

Whether or not Jesus ever lived

Whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin

Whether or not Jesus is the Son of God

Whether or not God exists

Whether or not Heavenly Mother exists

Whether or not it is really "wrong" to kill people

Whether or not there is an afterlife at all- much less all the details like the three degrees of glory etc.

Whether or not Satan exists

Why women should or should not have the priesthood.

 

Except with each of these we don't have current church manuals, present Scholars with the Church history department, and the Church's own Newspaper Deseret News saying that while some leaders thought we knew, "We Don't Know".  Most importantly in regards to the list above, we also don't have other leaders who knowing both sides of the debate have taken the "We don't know" stance.  In regards to April 6th, the facts alone suggests "we as a whole Don't know" hence how can one person claim we "know" something we don't agree we know?

 

As a Church "We Don't Know" when Christ was born... it is all a guess and a personal belief not a communal one.  Again my issue is with what we as a community can claim as revealed truth and not what one individual claims he/she knows personally standing on their own

 

so yes while in your eyes you feel I am missing the point or straining at gnats I see those disagreeing not really understanding the distinction I am making.  

 

A Gnat to me would be arguing that a Leader can not possibly know something that we have not had God reveal to the whole.  But in this instance one person is claiming the whole group knows said truth is true by revelation.

 

To me there is a giant distinction.

 

For example if Elder Christofferson got up in Conference and said "We, the general membership, know by revelation that Jesus had a wife named Bertha in the Meridian of Time" ....   Would each of you simply brush this aside as no big deal or would there be a problem with claiming Communal knowledge that doesn't exist?  That it is fine for leaders to claim that all of as a whole believe things that we don't have any Doctrine or revealed truth to sustain

 

And if such a thing as that doesn't bother you at all, then we simply need to agree to disagree as claiming the general membership "knows" something that to date has no revelation to support it, well.... that bothers me a whole bunch and it will likely always will.  We are all different.

 

My issue is that I feel some here may possibly brush it aside as it is negative attention drawn to what a leader says and others may brush it aside because of a follow the leader mentality and yet other may brush it aside because they will always push back against anything that appears to be leader criticism.  But for those who simply don't see an issue with claiming the entire Church knows something it has no revelation on hand to know... God bless ya and know that I respect that but take a completely different stand.

 

At what point is the idea taught to be known by the church as True Doctrine when it isn't a known revealed truth, a big enough principle that it is worth speaking up?

Edited January 14, 2015 by DBMormon

[ERayR]

Except with each of these we don't have current church manuals, present Scholars with the Church history department, and the Church's own Newspaper Deseret News saying that while some leaders thought we knew, "We Don't Know".  We also don't have other leaders who knowing both sides of the debate have taken the "We don't know" stance.  Those facts alone suggests "we as a whole Don't know" hence how can one person claim we "know" something we don't agree we know?

 

As a Church "We Don't Know" when Christ was born... it is all a guess and a personal belief not a communal one.  Again my issue is with what we as a community can claim as revealed truth and now what one individual claims he/she knows personally standing on their own

 

so yes while in your eyes you feel I am missing the point or straining at gnats I see those disagreeing not really understanding the distinction I am making.  

 

A Gnat to me would be arguing that a Leader can not possibly know something that we have not had God reveal to the whole.  But in this instance one person is claiming the whole group knows said truth is true by revelation.

 

To me there is a giant distinction.

 

For example if Elder Christofferson got up in Conference and said "We, the  know by revelation that Jesus had a wife named Bertha in the Meridian of Time"  and the WE he is referring to is the Church members....   Would each of you simply brush this aside as no big deal or would there be a problem with claiming Communal knowledge that doesn't exist?  That it is fine for leaders to claim that all of as a whole believe things that we don't have any Doctrine or revealed truth to sustain

 

And if such a thing as that doesn't bother you at all, then we simply need to agree to disagree as claiming the general membership "knows" something that to date has no revelation to support it, well.... that bothers me a whole bunch and it will likely always will.  We are all different.

 

My issue is that I feel some here simply want to brush it aside as it is negative attention drawn to what a leader says and others may brush it aside because of a follow the leader mentality and yet other may brush it aside because they will always push back against anything that appears to be leader criticism.  But for those who simply don't see an issue with claiming the entire Church knows something it has no revelation on hand to know... God bless ya and know that I respect that but take a completely different stand.

 

Outside of Mormon academia and a few discussion boards I think, from purely anecdotal sources, that most LDS consider D & C 20 as meaning that April 6 is Jesus birthday so when the majority of members when asked will affirm their understanding to be that it is April 6 then it seems quite communal to me.

 

Yes it seems to me you are straining at gnats but then that is what you do well.  You protest that it is not your vocation but it is a well practiced avocation.

 

Again great numbers interpret D & C 20 to be a revelation on it.

 

The Elder Christofferson analogy is . . well ridiculous

 

And a large part brush it aside as the ramblings of a professional nit picker.

[DBMormon]

And a large part brush it aside as the ramblings of a professional nit picker.

Have I called you a name?  Have I made our discussion personal?  Why do you choose to make a discussion personal as you and others do over and over again.   Rather than call names, address what is said rather than who is saying it.  

[DBMormon]

It's okay.  Don't feel bad; you can still quibble as an avocation.  (Apologies; I know how much you hate emoticons.)

Actually I love them.  My wife and daughters use them all the time.  Personally I don't use them and I just have never seen them so widely used before and it has taken some time for me to adjust to your comparatively high use of them.  That said please do, it makes it easy to find your posts later on.

Edited January 14, 2015 by DBMormon

[mfbukowski]

Except with each of these we don't have current church manuals, present Scholars with the Church history department, and the Church's own Newspaper Deseret News saying that while some leaders thought we knew, "We Don't Know".  Most importantly in regards to the list above, we also don't have other leaders who knowing both sides of the debate have taken the "We don't know" stance.  In regards to April 6th, the facts alone suggests "we as a whole Don't know" hence how can one person claim we "know" something we don't agree we know?

 

As a Church "We Don't Know" when Christ was born... it is all a guess and a personal belief not a communal one.  Again my issue is with what we as a community can claim as revealed truth and not what one individual claims he/she knows personally standing on their own

 

so yes while in your eyes you feel I am missing the point or straining at gnats I see those disagreeing not really understanding the distinction I am making.  

 

A Gnat to me would be arguing that a Leader can not possibly know something that we have not had God reveal to the whole.  But in this instance one person is claiming the whole group knows said truth is true by revelation.

 

To me there is a giant distinction.

 

For example if Elder Christofferson got up in Conference and said "We, the general membership, know by revelation that Jesus had a wife named Bertha in the Meridian of Time" ....   Would each of you simply brush this aside as no big deal or would there be a problem with claiming Communal knowledge that doesn't exist?  That it is fine for leaders to claim that all of as a whole believe things that we don't have any Doctrine or revealed truth to sustain

 

And if such a thing as that doesn't bother you at all, then we simply need to agree to disagree as claiming the general membership "knows" something that to date has no revelation to support it, well.... that bothers me a whole bunch and it will likely always will.  We are all different.

 

My issue is that I feel some here may possibly brush it aside as it is negative attention drawn to what a leader says and others may brush it aside because of a follow the leader mentality and yet other may brush it aside because they will always push back against anything that appears to be leader criticism.  But for those who simply don't see an issue with claiming the entire Church knows something it has no revelation on hand to know... God bless ya and know that I respect that but take a completely different stand.

 

At what point is the idea taught to be known by the church as True Doctrine when it isn't a known revealed truth, a big enough principle that it is worth speaking up?

There's nothing here.

 

This is just the old "What is doctrine"? discussion all over again- that's all.  Obviously if someone said "we all know that April 6th is the birthday of the savior" they would be wrong.  So what?  This thread would not exist if "everyone" knew that April 6 was the right date. 

 

The whole notion that the precise date can be known with precision is just ridiculous.  Adults would accept that on faith as a nice story, giving us something to think about, and something to exercise faith about, and see it as a "real possibility" that has a better than 1/365 chance of being accurate

 

But what does "April" even mean when there was no month called "April"??  What date did the calendar use for the beginning of the year?  What exact spot on the earth's rotation around the sun is now known as "April 6th"??  But wait!  The entire galaxy is moving, so we cannot get back to that exact spot, so what does "April 6"  REALLY mean anyway?

 

It is a handy convention- that is all it is.  We reckon dates the way we do based on what we have come up with to reckon dates with.  It is all a man-made convenetion anyway, so what does God care about what we call "April 6"??

 

Maybe God wants to tell us a story so that all our other stories link up nicely in some cosmic theory about the importance of a given date, so he "reveals" it to some who like the story and not to others who don't care.

 

All this is about is creating meaning in our lives- that MIGHT be "true".  Faith is the substance of things HOPED FOR, which, according to Alma 32, grow "sweet" to us and therefore become "knowledge" in the same way we instinctively know that murder is wrong.  It's inside of us- not outside of us!

 

Why worry about all this trivial ..... stuff.... when we are facing REAL ISSUES?  What about the breakdown of the family?  What about living the gospel?  What about losing our youth?

 

Do we really want to worry about April 6 and teach our kids fables to confuse them- by arguing about them and giving this nonsense attention- or do we want to save our youth by teaching them what religion REALLY for and how it can enrich our lives??

 

We have kids leaving the church because we argue about stupid stuff like April 6, or how many wives Joseph had.  Who cares about any of that??

 

What we need to teach is that God lives, and that believing in the savior can CHANGE YOUR LIFE.  We need to be teaching them that FOLLOWING THE COMMANDMENTS is the path to eternal happiness.  Getting a temple recommend will open up a new world of spirituality and symbolism that will enlarge your mind- we should be going to the temple as much as we can-  THAT is what this church is about!   Seek out your ancestors so you know who you are and learn what it means to be an eternal family.

 

This world is going to pot- in more ways than one- and we are arguing about this drivel?   What a waste!  Wake up and grow up and throw away childish things, and see the reality around you.

[mfbukowski]

THIRTY EIGHT PAGES?

 

You have to be kidding me.

[thesometimesaint]

Could it have been April 6th? Sure, and I believe it has a better than 1/365 chances. December in the Middle East is cold so it is unlikely that shepherds would be out in the fields with their flocks at that time of year.

 

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December

 

December gets its name from the Latin word decem (meaning ten) because it was originally the tenth month of the year in the Roman calendar, which began in March. The winter days following December were not included as part of any month. Later, the months of January and February were created out of the monthless period and added to the beginning of the calendar, but December retained its name.

[stemelbow]

THIRTY EIGHT PAGES?

 

You have to be kidding me.

That's nothing. Did you see the 144 pages of whether a Mormon can be a Christian thread?

[HappyJackWagon]

THIRTY EIGHT PAGES?

 

You have to be kidding me.

I know. It seems strange that so many are incapable of understanding DB's very basic and foundational point to this. Oh well.

[Mars]

I daresay I get the point.

 

Elder Bednar was wrong and I should come out and say it without trying to quibble over the words or dance around the definitions to preserve his status and keep it above the fray of criticism and being wrong.

 

Is that it?  Or did I miss something?

 

ETA: He was wrong in that he publicly declared something as 'doctrine' when the requirements to state a thing as doctrine were not met.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Mars

[DBMormon]

I daresay I get the point.

 

Elder Bednar was wrong and I should come out and say it without trying to quibble over the words or dance around the definitions to preserve his status and keep it above the fray of criticism and being wrong.

 

Is that it?  Or did I miss something?

 

ETA: He was wrong in that he publicly declared something as 'doctrine' when the requirements to state a thing as doctrine were not met.

If only we could of done that on page 1.... 

[Mars]

I'm kinda thinking more people got it, too, DBMormon.  They just might not have taken the trouble to make sure you knew they understood before disagreeing.

 

I'd hardly qualify this sort of incident as 'false doctrine.'  In a more verbose way of putting it, this sort of disagreement over the date, or over whether or not the date can be emphatically stated as doctrine, is first evaluated by my brain for content rather than breach of protocol.  The latter holds, the former is a non issue.  I would reserve 'false doctrine' for teachings that lead a person away from Christ. 

I don't even see Elder Bednar's breach of protocol (by this I mean how emphatic he was in stating it as doctrine when the requirements to do so were not met) as egregious.  It fits his personality and profile.  I don't see it as problematic for causing other people to fail to become closer to Christ, lose trust in who claims to be His special witnesses, nor anything of the sort.  I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on it.

 

So, for my part, it's not worth noting publicly, nor using CPU cycles on.  It appears that it is worthy of your time and energy.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Mars

[DBMormon]

I'm kinda thinking more people got it, too, DBMormon.  They just might not have taken the trouble to make sure you knew they understood before disagreeing.

 

I'd hardly qualify this sort of incident as 'false doctrine.'  In a more verbose way of putting it, this sort of disagreement over the date, or over whether or not the date can be emphatically stated as doctrine, is first evaluated by my brain for content rather than breach of protocol.  The latter holds, the former is a non issue.  I would reserve 'false doctrine' for teachings that lead a person away from Christ. 

I don't even see Elder Bednar's breach of protocol (by this I mean how emphatic he was in stating it as doctrine when the requirements to do so were not met) as egregious.  It fits his personality and profile.  I don't see it as problematic for causing other people to fail to become closer to Christ, lose trust in who claims to be His special witnesses, nor anything of the sort.  I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on it.

 

So, for my part, it's not worth noting publicly, nor using CPU cycles on.  It appears that it is worthy of your time and energy.

I agree that I am using "false Doctrine" differently than the standard way of using.  I also explained that early on as well.

 

To me to state something is Doctrine when it is not can also be phrased as false Doctrine.  meaning declaring falsely that something is Doctrine when it isn't.

 

The issue itself is gnats and I agree completely but I feel the over arching issue of declaring divine revealed truths that are incorrect to be of note and something the Saints need to be more on their toes about.

 

Thanks you for being civil and finding common ground while also disagreeing.  Have a great day!

[Mars]

Admittedly, after page 2, I began to skim...  I apologize if I missed something you clarified earlier, and condescended by telling you things you already enumerated previously.

[mfbukowski]

That's nothing. Did you see the 144 pages of whether a Mormon can be a Christian thread?

I didn't even go there for a reason.

[mfbukowski]

I daresay I get the point.

 

Elder Bednar was wrong and I should come out and say it without trying to quibble over the words or dance around the definitions to preserve his status and keep it above the fray of criticism and being wrong.

 

Is that it?  Or did I miss something?

 

ETA: He was wrong in that he publicly declared something as 'doctrine' when the requirements to state a thing as doctrine were not met.

In my never humble opinion, I think we all need to be comfortable enough with ambiguity to realize that God may reveal different "truths" to all of us to help our spiritual progression, because that is part of the story we need to believe "for now" until we get t a point where we don't need it anymore.

 

Yes, that means giving up on an objective, scientifically verifiable spiritual "reality" out there somewhere and actually believe that the gospel dwells in our hearts and not "out there" in a reality which is knowable to all of us NOW in this life.

 

There is not.  All we have is our own feeble attempts to put together what works to help us come unto Christ.

 

For now all we have is stories to bring us closer to Christ, and we get to have our own stories until we all come to a "unity of the faith" in the hereafter. 

 

But I guess that is too much to hope for, that we will all understand that.

[Calm]

"But I guess that is too much to hope for, that we will all understand that."

If we all understood it that way, that would mean God had revealed to all of us the identical truth...which contradicts the conclusion that God reveals to each what they need.

[tonie]

I could be wrong, but I suspect the push-back you feel you've been encountering has far less to do with any particular argument or commitment thereto and far more to do with a propensity amongst the Saints to dislike being browbeaten into submission on a point that is, indeed, a doctrinal gnat.

 

If you knew DBMormon, you would realize that his efforts are geared towards riding the Church of what amounts to "folklore" or other misconceptions that members perpetuate.

 

What does not help with this subject that Prophets are quoted as supporting the April 6 position, and others are quoted as not supporting the April 6 date.  I  think the pushback DBMormon recieves is because he is challenging people not to accept to every utterance as a truth.  I also think that DBMormon has experienced either himself personally, or from others by way of a calling, that perpetuated misconception can be a detriment to others.  

 

Use the lable "false Doctrine" was probably a little strong for people to think about the issue without having to feel like they must choose a position which does not acknowledge that Bednar may have been mistaken.

[Kenngo1969]

Actually I love them.  My wife and daughters use them all the time.  Personally I don't use them and I just have never seen them so widely used before and it has taken some time for me to adjust to your comparatively high use of them.  That said please do, it makes it easy to find your posts later on.

I aim to please ...

 

 

And, any disagreement we might have notwithstanding, I do wish you the best in both your vocation and in your avocations.

[DBMormon]

I aim to please ...

 

 

And, any disagreement we might have notwithstanding, I do wish you the best in both your vocation and in your avocations.

thanks.... I think

[mfbukowski]

"But I guess that is too much to hope for, that we will all understand that."

If we all understood it that way, that would mean God had revealed to all of us the identical truth...which contradicts the conclusion that God reveals to each what they need.

Not really because there are hierarchies of thought models which subsume others.

 

Some need to learn addition and subtraction, others need to learn algebra.  The algebraic idea that "two negatives make a positive" makes no sense to someone just learning addition, and so it might look contradictory, if addition is all you understand.  How could taking away something be a positive?

 

Yet when you understand both algebra AND addition, there is no conflict at all.  There is no such thing as an "identical truth" when none of us have identical minds.  THAT is the truth that includes both views- like the full view of the elephant includes the view that he is a snake, and a rope, and a wall, etc.

 

How many "more advanced" views are there?   Dunno.  YET.     By definition.  If I knew them I would not believe this one. 

[mfbukowski]

If you knew DBMormon, you would realize that his efforts are geared towards riding the Church of what amounts to "folklore" or other misconceptions that members perpetuate.

 

What does not help with this subject that Prophets are quoted as supporting the April 6 position, and others are quoted as not supporting the April 6 date.  I  think the pushback DBMormon recieves is because he is challenging people not to accept to every utterance as a truth.  I also think that DBMormon has experienced either himself personally, or from others by way of a calling, that perpetuated misconception can be a detriment to others.  

 

Use the lable "false Doctrine" was probably a little strong for people to think about the issue without having to feel like they must choose a position which does not acknowledge that Bednar may have been mistaken.

Incidentally that rep point was an error.

 

The problem is that he doesn't understand that it's ALL folklore but that's ok.

 

Science is folklore too, but just a different kind.  You should read up on theories of "aether".   Wait a few years and watch today's science become folklore.

 

All anyone has is what is "sweet" to them, just as Alma says.  The internet works because the principles upon which is based have been found to work for their intended purposes.

 

The gospel works because the principles upon which it is based have been found to work for their intended purposes.

 

Absolutely no difference.