The Gospel And Always Giving Up Ground

[DBMormon]

There is a phenomenon in religion.  The more a religion tries to answer every question, the more this phenomenon occurs.  It is regarding "giving up of Ground" on issues.  I will list Mormonism's given ground but this certainly applies to other faiths as well and religion in general.

 

I am not saying that these changes are bad or good, only that they are indeed changes and they are to an extent a lessening of the grip we once proclaimed on these issues

 

The More that our social values change the more ground we give up in social issues

 

 

- Women now pray in conference and have leadership roles on missions.  Women shown for the first time among the centerfold in the Ensign of general leaders.

 

-  We have disavowed the racist Doctrines of the past and now deem them theories

 

- We have allowed being gay to be a "non choice" when we once taught otherwise

 

- We have stopped pronouncing as much depth on improper ideas of sexuality between husbands and wives in the Bedroom

 

 

 

 

The more knowledge we have in science the more we retreat from prior views

 

-  The age of the earth is no longer a prominent position taught as "quasi official"

 

- Evolution gains more and more popularity when at one time it was deemed a heresy

 

-  A local or figurative flood gains more and more followers when at one time it was assumed  that it was global

 

 

The more we progress in becoming a worldwide faith the more we let go of peripheral issues that once were among our trusted Doctrinal beliefs

 

- we no longer hold the BOM to be accross the entire americas

- We no longer think Lehi and his family were alone

- We no longer are certain that the BOA is connected to Papyri

- We no longer think the BOM was translated with the interpreters

- We are less and less likely to see April 6th as a revelation'

-  We make prophets more and more fallible with lower and lower expectations

- we create reasons why God speaks and does less versus olden times

- we create reasons why God still leads the Church and yet he  seems to allow so much to be out of whack without addressing it directly

 

On any issue that was once part of our core where new evidence forces us to re-examine the issue, we generally retreat.  The more knowledge available, the more information that can be attained, the less certain we are about absolutes we once shouted from the hilltops.  Religion is always retreating.  Conceding an issue here, releasing our grip on a fact there,  Letting go of some long held belief over in that corner.   The more we know in the world the less we are able to hold the ground we once had.

Religion seems to always be retreating and giving up ground until all it is left with are the absolute unknowables and one has wonder if we could in deed know those as well, would we give up more ground?

Edited July 23, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I should add.  This is not a across the board direction.  In other words we gain some ground on a few issues but it seems to generally work in the other direction

[ksfisher]

I religion retreating or is it learning and growing just as an individual learns and grows?  Should a religion freeze it's beliefs at a moment in time and refuse to admit more truth?

 

Many of the items you listed really have nothing to do with the gospel.  Whether Lehi was alone, the age of the earth, who prays in general conference, etc, these things have nothing to do with our testimony of Christ and his atoning mission. 

 

Perhaps what the church is doing is letting go of things that are peripheral and focusing more on our faith and in keeping covenants. 

[bluebell]

I'm not understanding how change automatically equals "giving up ground". Can you elaborate?

It seems to me that if the change moves us closer to truth, then it is gaining ground, not losing it.

[DBMormon]

I'm not understanding how change automatically equals "giving up ground". Can you elaborate?

It seems to me that if the change moves us closer to truth, then it is gaining ground, not losing it.

 

Claiming a position and seemingly seeing that as a firm position to take only to relinquish that position when your data no longer fits.  Your new position will often allow more human nature, more coincidence, more happenstance, and more mistakes, and more unknowns from your previous position.

[Storm Rider]

DB, I think you are stretching and confusing some issues, but there are some issues that I can readily see.  There was a time, due to the statements of the Brethren, that when they spoke it was God speaking.  This was a rather infantile teaching and was unworthy of the Church and the leaders that propagated such teachings.  Consequently, they had their hands burned and have abandoned the teaching even though some members still hold to it.

 

The higher we place leaders on pedestals the farther they must fall.  It is not healthy for them and it is not healthy for the membership.  

 

I am a sexist in some ways.  I see the greatest, highest calling of woman is to be a mother.  Unfortunately, due to economic burdens and social upheaval we now have a society that has pretty much devalued the worth of motherhood.  In the minds of our own membership motherhood is seen as something that some may endure as a drudgery; the enlightened ones have freed themselves from its shackles and they are "professional" women with much more important things to do than be burdened by a child.  

 

There was always a situations in history that women would lend a hand in providing for the family.  This occurred when the man, the family, was burdened with extra hardships.  However, there are times now when it is not about lending a hand but outright shirking of any concept of home and hearth.  

 

Women have not paid this price alone; the far weightier portion ha been placed on the backs of our children.  They have been put on the sidelines without sensing the love of a mother's hand and enjoying the stability that a functioning, inspired family unit exists.  

 

I have focused too much on the woman thing, but it has been heavy on my mind the last many weeks and I have not addressed it.  If I have offended some, I don't apologize.  It should offend each of us because we recognize our own guilt and will fight against accepting it.  

Edited July 24, 2014 by Storm Rider

[thesometimesaint]

Article of faith # 9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[bluebell]

Claiming a position and seemingly seeing that as a firm position to take only to relinquish that position when your data no longer fits.  Your new position will often allow more human nature, more coincidence, more happenstance, and more mistakes, and more unknowns from your previous position.

 

Ok.  Can you explain how "Women now pray in conference and have leadership roles on missions.  Women shown for the first time among the centerfold in the Ensign of general leaders" is an example of losing ground then because i'm really not seeing it (I just picked this one example out of your list because it was first)?

 

I'm not seeing any 'data' involved in the change in this policy, nor am i seeing that this change includes more allowances for human nature, more coincidence, more happenstance, and more mistakes, and more unknown.

Edited July 23, 2014 by bluebell

[ksfisher]

"There is a phenomenon in religion. The more a religion tries to answer every question,"

Perhaps we shouldn't be looking to religion to answer EVERY question.

[cinepro]

Many of the items you listed really have nothing to do with the gospel.  Whether Lehi was alone, the age of the earth, who prays in general conference, etc, these things have nothing to do with our testimony of Christ and his atoning mission.

 

Well sure, it's easy to say they have "nothing to do with the gospel" now...

Edited July 23, 2014 by cinepro

[Kevin Christensen]

There is a phenomenon in religion.  The more a religion tries to answer every question, the more this phenomenon occurs.  It is regarding "giving up of Ground" on issues.  I will list Mormonism's given ground but this certainly applies to other faiths as well and religion in general.

 

I am not saying that these changes are bad or good, only that they are indeed changes and they are to an extent a lessening of the grip we once proclaimed on these issues

 

The More that our social values change the more ground we give up in social issues

 

 

- Women now pray in conference and have leadership roles on missions.  Women shown for the first time among the centerfold in the Ensign of general leaders.

 

-  We have disavowed the racist Doctrines of the past and now deem them theories

 

- We have allowed being gay to be a "non choice" when we once taught otherwise

 

- We have stopped pronouncing as much depth on improper ideas of sexuality between husbands and wives in the Bedroom

 

 

 

 

The more knowledge we have in science the more we retreat from prior views

 

-  The age of the earth is no longer a prominent position taught as "quasi official"

 

- Evolution gains more and more popularity when at one time it was deemed a heresy

 

-  A local or figurative flood gains more and more followers when at one time it was assumed  that it was global

 

 

The more we progress in becoming a worldwide faith the more we let go of peripheral issues that once were among our trusted Doctrinal beliefs

 

- we no longer hold the BOM to be accross the entire americas

- We no longer think Lehi and his family were alone

- We no longer are certain that the BOA is connected to Papyri

- We no longer think the BOM was translated with the interpreters

- We are less and less likely to see April 6th as a revelation'

-  We make prophets more and more fallible with lower and lower expectations

- we create reasons why God speaks and does less versus olden times

- we create reasons why God still leads the Church and yet he  seems to allow so much to be out of whack without addressing it directly

 

On any issue that was once part of our core where new evidence forces us to re-examine the issue, we generally retreat.  The more knowledge available, the more information that can be attained, the less certain we are about absolutes we once shouted from the hilltops.  Religion is always retreating.  Conceding an issue here, releasing our grip on a fact there,  Letting go of some long held belief over in that corner.   The more we know in the world the less we are able to hold the ground we once had.

Religion seems to always be retreating and giving up ground until all it is left with are the absolute unknowables and one has wonder if we could in deed know those as well, would we give up more ground?

Think about how much of the emotional distress comes from the framing metaphor of "giving up ground" compared to another framework, say "further light and knowledge," or "improved understanding" or "refining our map" or the notion that "We believe that God will yet reveal" much information.

Behind the notion of "giving up ground" is a military notion of retreat and defeat. Frankly, I don't buy into the metaphor as a proper organizing framework. And it is the metaphor that does all the heavy lifting here. This is not about honestly facing cruel facts in a masochistic show of pure integrity, but about selecting which framework into which to place a set of information, and granting that the our choice of framework also influences what we select and value as significant. It is the framework of defeat that directs your attention in making your selections of what information is significant enough to notice and mention. Unless, of course, this represents all knowledge that could be noticed and mentioned.

There is a notion that Truth ought to come prepackaged, certified, bound, shelved and unchangeable. When all sorts of changes happen in science, say shifting from Ptolomy to Copernicus, to a spiral arm of a huge galaxy, and then billions of galaxies, is that science giving up the foundational ground doctrine of Aristotle that logic proves there there can only be one heavy center? So has logic, science and reason failed utterly in that light? Or does "retreat" from a position only count as a defeat if it happens in religion?

Truth, according to LDS scriptural definition, is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come. Has there even been a book or manual, or shelf that contains pure static truth by that definition? The definitions we adopt color the expectations we have, and our expectations color our experience to additional information and knowledge.

Does calling all sorts of social practices and attitudes inherited from the larger culture "LDS Doctrine" when our own scriptures have a very different, much more limited definition of what constitutes doctrine? Does acknowledging that fact constitute another retreat from truth, or does it amount to a step into the light?

"We make prophets more more and more fallible with lower and lower expectations"

I don't think it has ever been us that makes a prophet what he is. That is something that God does or does not do. And you know that I spent considerable effort figuring out what I should expect from a prophet. (See my Fair Paper on the topic.)

Paul talked a little about expectations. When I was a child, I thought as a child. When I became a man, I sat in the corner and sulked because someone broke my childish things and that is all I want to play with, ever. Is that what he said? Or was he trying to expressing a rather different idea, and urge us on to a more open-ended and optimistic attitude about changing understanding and improved perception and the experience of gaining maturity and wisdom?

Given that we start out ignorant, and that learning more on any topic changes that ignorance, what about that process demands that we call it suffocating, depressing, inevitable defeat, rather than just part of what Campbell calls the Hero's Journey? Leaving the mundane, everyday world, and going off for an initiation into higher understanding, and returning with a boon that can transform our communities?

"our core?" Not mine. Does the morality of the 1950s count as the foundation of LDS faith, the rock upon which all else must stand?

Isn't there anything cool and impressive about our LDS scriptures and the findings of the best LDS scholars?

God doesn't speak today? I can think of four of my personal friends who reported mountain top epiphanies, none of whom knew each other, and all of whom separately reported nearly identical experiences. I have also heard my own wife speak with a voice and authority and insight and love that we both knew came outside of herself. And I've also read Greg Smith's impressive Interpreter article, which documented that far more goes on among LDS leadership than is, or should be, brought up for chat around the noise generated by a home entertainment system. The sacred has a time and a place to be acknowledged as such.

My personal life experience has been one of finding more and more exciting "cause to believe," as Alma 32 puts it, and as I keep saying. And I quite like the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth. I could put here again, but my profile has a link to a useful summary.

Just offering a bit of dissent in the direction of enthusiastic faith, and the sheer exuberance I feel in celebrating an expanded mind, and enlarged soul, and increased understanding, if you don't mind.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited July 24, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[cinepro]

Just offering a bit of dissent in the direction of enthusiastic faith, and the sheer exuberance I feel in celebrating an expanded mind, and enlarged soul, and increased understanding, if you don't mined.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I don't think anyone is arguing that the changes outlined in the OP weren't good (or even great) things. We're not FLDS here.

The point is one that has been made on this board before, but perhaps it is more pointed now after the "essays" have been released by the Church. The point being that the Church presents itself as having "The Standard Of Truth", as being a "Caravan" that moves inexorably towards its final destination without regard to the world, as having an understanding of "right and wrong" that is more stable and superior to anything offered by the world, as having a Prophet that "speaks for God" and teaches His "truth", and that Prophets should be taken very seriously when they talk about how many earrings a person should wear.

 

It's great that many LDS have adopted a wider and much more forgiving definition of what "the gospel" is, or what Church teachings actually mean, or when we should or shouldn't listen to our leaders.  Apologists have been at the forefront of these developments, and for this they should be commended.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask what this new approach might mean for the Church and its members if it becomes more widely adopted. 

 

I, for one, have long recognized it as a necessary shift if the Church is to have any chance of surviving as anything other than a relatively insignificant cultural artifact of a 20th century religous attempt at adaptation.  But I don't know that the alternative offers a pathway to anything better.  Only time will tell.

Edited July 23, 2014 by cinepro

[Ahab]

If I've ever given up any ground I hope it has always been where I didn't need to be standing. Gaining more knowledge of truth rather than holding on to any errors I accept as the truth. What I don't want to give up on is what I know is true that really is true, or at least whatever was true if the truth changes and has changed over time. All I really want to hold onto is what God has and will assure me is true, and good.

[bluebell]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the changes outlined in the OP weren't good (or even great) things. We're not FLDS here.

 

I think Kevin's point though is when has the metaphor of "giving up ground" ever been used to denote something good or great?

 

Isn't it pretty much universally known as a negative connotation or a negative description of something?

[ksfisher]

 And I've also read Greg Smith's impressive Interpreter article, which documented that far more goes on among LDS leadership than is, or should be, brought up for chat around the noise generated by a home entertainment system. The sacred has a time and a place to be acknowledged as such.

 

 

Which article are you referring to here?

[JLHPROF]

There is a phenomenon in religion.  The more a religion tries to answer every question, the more this phenomenon occurs.  It is regarding "giving up of Ground" on issues.  I will list Mormonism's given ground but this certainly applies to other faiths as well and religion in general.

 

I am not saying that these changes are bad or good, only that they are indeed changes and they are to an extent a lessening of the grip we once proclaimed on these issues

 

The More that our social values change the more ground we give up in social issues

 

 

- Women now pray in conference and have leadership roles on missions.  Women shown for the first time among the centerfold in the Ensign of general leaders.

 

-  We have disavowed the racist Doctrines of the past and now deem them theories

 

- We have allowed being gay to be a "non choice" when we once taught otherwise

 

- We have stopped pronouncing as much depth on improper ideas of sexuality between husbands and wives in the Bedroom

 

The more knowledge we have in science the more we retreat from prior views

 

-  The age of the earth is no longer a prominent position taught as "quasi official"

 

- Evolution gains more and more popularity when at one time it was deemed a heresy

 

-  A local or figurative flood gains more and more followers when at one time it was assumed  that it was global

 

 

The more we progress in becoming a worldwide faith the more we let go of peripheral issues that once were among our trusted Doctrinal beliefs

 

- we no longer hold the BOM to be accross the entire americas

- We no longer think Lehi and his family were alone

- We no longer are certain that the BOA is connected to Papyri

- We no longer think the BOM was translated with the interpreters

- We are less and less likely to see April 6th as a revelation'

-  We make prophets more and more fallible with lower and lower expectations

- we create reasons why God speaks and does less versus olden times

- we create reasons why God still leads the Church and yet he  seems to allow so much to be out of whack without addressing it directly

 

And I take it you consider this a good thing?

 

You show again and again how we give up our beliefs.  Answers to doctrinal questions that were restored through prophets of God are now dismissed as speculation.

You show how society has forced us to change our beliefs.  You show how we put more faith in man's science than in God's scripture. 

 

The more knowledge available, the more information that can be attained, the less certain we are about absolutes we once shouted from the hilltops.  Religion is always retreating.  Conceding an issue here, releasing our grip on a fact there,  Letting go of some long held belief over in that corner.   The more we know in the world the less we are able to hold the ground we once had.

Religion seems to always be retreating and giving up ground until all it is left with are the absolute unknowables and one has wonder if we could in deed know those as well, would we give up more ground?

 

I wonder if the same statements were uttered by the early Christian fathers as they "progressed" into the Catholic Church and the Great Apostasy arrived.

 

No wonder there will need to be a setting in order before Christ can return to us.  If left to our own devices there would have to be another restoration to put the gospel back as revealed from heaven.  Fortunately, God has shown in prophecy that he won't allow the Church to go too far down this road away from the restored gospel and we will come off triumphant in the end.

 

I may be an old literalist, traditionalist, or whatever term you like, but I will continue to refuse to give up ground on ANY doctrine that can be shown to be revealed by God to a prophet.  Regardless of what we change.

[cinepro]

If I've ever given up any ground I hope it has always been where I didn't need to be standing. Gaining more knowledge of truth rather than holding on to any errors I accept as the truth. What I don't want to give up on is what I know is true that really is true, or at least whatever was true if the truth changes and has changed over time. All I really want to hold onto is what God has and will assure me is true, and good.

 

Perhaps the question is this:

 

How good are we, as Church members and leaders, at knowing where we need to be standing?  God isn't needed for 20/20 hindsight, He's needed for 20/20 foresight. 

 

If we went back to 1910 and presented a list of the issues in the OP, how many LDS would say "Oh, those are all optional, and it's entirely conceivable that the Church will be changing on those issues in the future"?

 

It's what gets brought up over and over in this forum and yet never answered:

 

What are the "optional" things that the Church leaders are wrong about right now (but they think they're not), and why don't they know it?  If we truly believe in fallible leaders, it shouldn't be too hard to answer the question.  Yet most LDS bristle at the idea that such a question could have an answer.

[Ahab]

What are the "optional" things that the Church leaders are wrong about right now (but they think they're not), and why don't they know it? If we truly believe in fallible leaders, it shouldn't be too hard to answer the question. Yet most LDS bristle at the idea that such a question could have an answer.

So what are your answers to those questions?

If they are wrong about anything I'm sure it's because they don't know they are wrong on whatever issue they are wrong about but I also know they have taught all of us how to find out if what they are saying is true.

[Guest]

There is a phenomenon in religion.  The more a religion tries to answer every question, the more this phenomenon occurs.  It is regarding "giving up of Ground" on issues.  I will list Mormonism's given ground but this certainly applies to other faiths as well and religion in general.

 

I am not saying that these changes are bad or good, only that they are indeed changes and they are to an extent a lessening of the grip we once proclaimed on these issues

 

The More that our social values change the more ground we give up in social issues

 

 

- Women now pray in conference and have leadership roles on missions.  Women shown for the first time among the centerfold in the Ensign of general leaders.

 

-  We have disavowed the racist Doctrines of the past and now deem them theories

 

- We have allowed being gay to be a "non choice" when we once taught otherwise

 

- We have stopped pronouncing as much depth on improper ideas of sexuality between husbands and wives in the Bedroom

 

 

 

 

The more knowledge we have in science the more we retreat from prior views

 

-  The age of the earth is no longer a prominent position taught as "quasi official"

 

- Evolution gains more and more popularity when at one time it was deemed a heresy

 

-  A local or figurative flood gains more and more followers when at one time it was assumed  that it was global

 

 

The more we progress in becoming a worldwide faith the more we let go of peripheral issues that once were among our trusted Doctrinal beliefs

 

- we no longer hold the BOM to be accross the entire americas

- We no longer think Lehi and his family were alone

- We no longer are certain that the BOA is connected to Papyri

- We no longer think the BOM was translated with the interpreters

- We are less and less likely to see April 6th as a revelation'

-  We make prophets more and more fallible with lower and lower expectations

- we create reasons why God speaks and does less versus olden times

- we create reasons why God still leads the Church and yet he  seems to allow so much to be out of whack without addressing it directly

 

On any issue that was once part of our core where new evidence forces us to re-examine the issue, we generally retreat.  The more knowledge available, the more information that can be attained, the less certain we are about absolutes we once shouted from the hilltops.  Religion is always retreating.  Conceding an issue here, releasing our grip on a fact there,  Letting go of some long held belief over in that corner.   The more we know in the world the less we are able to hold the ground we once had.

Religion seems to always be retreating and giving up ground until all it is left with are the absolute unknowables and one has wonder if we could in deed know those as well, would we give up more ground?

Maybe the ground you speak of, was bad ground and we needed to let go...the ground that will now grow anything is not needed for harvest and harvest is what we need to grow.

[Tacenda]

Well religion is mostly "manmade", but hopefully inspired "manmade".  Pretty soon I think we're going to have some "womenmade" religion too. 

[DBMormon]

Maybe the ground you speak of, was bad ground and we needed to let go...the ground that will now grow anything is not needed for harvest and harvest is what we need to grow.

 

I completely agree, it was ground that we needed to give up.  

[DBMormon]

Kevin, I agree that giving up ground has a negative connotation but that is what I see.  We claim God has given us our Doctrine and yet we have let much of our prior Doctrines and "historical facts" slip into something else.  I have been taught to follow the brethren and yet if we are honest, that has its weakness when we look with hindsight at what they have taught us.  And yes Kevin, I see a big dive between how I define "Church Doctrine" and "True Doctrine" as I don't believe all Church Doctrine is True Doctrine and I can show that holds up historically speaking

 

- blacks are cursed and inferior

- inter racial marriage is sin

- evolution is a heresy

- mentally handicapped people were less valiant in the pre existance (see below)

- Oral intimacy is a violation of gods command

- birth control is evil

- Families should never have their size limited by our choosing to not have kids

- gay is a choice

- blacks will be servants in the celestial kingdom

- Jesus was born on april 6th

 

So as Cinepro pointed out how much today do we insist is the gospel and how much is not.  What else will we eventually change on that was thought to be God's position but turns out not to be?

 

If I were a betting man I would venture to bet that in 100 years homosexual marriage will be accepted as not sin and Women will either be apostles or will be permitted to have a similar leadership role.  (Nemesis, can you save this quote in the archives so My grandchildren can see if I am right?)

 

"This privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valiant, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations....“
Prophet Harold B. Lee
Decisions for Successful Living, Pages 164-165

 

Edited July 24, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

And yes we can argue that none of these are doctrines, thought some were proclaimed to be, some were also taught in very official ways, and  combined with the fact that we teach to follow these men even when they are wrong (14 fundamentals) and that blind obedience is faith obedience - https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/04/faith-obedience?lang=eng%C2'>

 

for example this last talk I linked to burns me.  It is so incorrect to me and it oozes of blind obedience

[guerreiro9]

for example this last talk I linked to burns me. It is so incorrect to me and it oozes of blind obedience

How do you know it is incorrect? Basically what I see you saying on a number of issues is "their speculation doesn't agree with my speculation, so they are obviously wrong."

-guerreiro9

Edited July 24, 2014 by guerreiro9

[DBMormon]

How do you know it is incorrect? Basically what I see you saying on a number of issues is "their speculation doesn't agree with my speculation, so they are obviously wrong."

-guerreiro9

Guerriro - your ignoring the fact that they have acknowledged that they themselves made mistakes that violated Doctrine.  It is the Brthren who determined that Past Doctrines are now Racist theories.  It is not a matter of defending them as right and me as wrong.  On at least some of these issues, they themselves say they got it wrong