"the Things We've Taught In The Past Are Wrong"

[Brian 2.0]

There are some things that if what we are taught change...forget a "living Church", it would be a "dead Church". I can think of many things that cannot change, that we believe to be true...things unique to "our" faith. Some the Church might survive and others we could not.

 

Here's the way out of if...

 

1 - Take a doctrine that will never change

2 - Discount the past teachings that said doctrine will never change as personal opinion

3 - Change the doctrine

 

Easy as pie.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wow, you must hate science. 

Cholesterol anyone?

[JLHPROF]

Here's the way out of if...

 

1 - Take a doctrine that will never change

2 - Discount the past teachings that said doctrine will never change as personal opinion

3 - Change the doctrine

 

Easy as pie.

 

:cray:   - here comes Isaiah 24:5 again...thank heaven for the setting in order or we would be so screwed.

[Teancum]

Yep.  At least as far as personal belief goes.  But I behave myself too.

 

 

Good thing. If you were vocal about some of the things here you claim as truth and doctrine you might join the ranks of John Dehlin.

 

You and I have one thing in common. We keep our mouth shut at church about a variety of things, albeit differing things.  Too bad we need to in order to survive.

[name]

We keep our mouth shut at church about a variety of things, albeit differing things.  Too bad we need to in order to survive.

Too bad indeed!

(One would think that if there was one place on this planet where our human bondage could to be removed - where we could be at rest - and complete tolerance for open communication should be encouraged, supported and practiced........it ought to be in God's presence with and among our very own brethren)

[Pahoran]

Too bad indeed!

(One would think that if there was one place on this planet where our human bondage could to be removed - where we could be at rest - and complete tolerance for open communication should be encouraged, supported and practiced........it ought to be in God's presence with and among our very own brethren)

Except that the ideal of Zion is one where people are of one heart and one mind, and dwell in righteousness.

Which is a little hard to reconcile with the idea that every possible shade of opinion on every possible subject ought to be completely welcome, don't you think?

Regards,

Pahoran

[JLHPROF]

Good thing. If you were vocal about some of the things here you claim as truth and doctrine you might join the ranks of John Dehlin.

 

You and I have one thing in common. We keep our mouth shut at church about a variety of things, albeit differing things.  Too bad we need to in order to survive.

 

Yeah, the teaching of Joseph Smith that

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

is long in our past.

[name]

Hi Pahoran,

Except that the ideal of Zion is one where people are of one heart and one mind, and dwell in righteousness.

Which is a little hard to reconcile with the idea that every possible shade of opinion on every possible subject ought to be completely welcome, don't you think?

Regards,

Pahoran

I think you may be missing my point (Perhaps my "pointing" needs some work?)

I was responding to feeling like one needs to keep their mouth shut in order to survive within a church.

I was talking about human beings - people - with all of our struggles, with all of our various pains, with all of our sins - with all of our sickness - with all of our breaks .......... worrying about surviving in the very place they ought to feel most free from all of these things.

I was not talking about "opinions of every possible shade being welcome" - But since you bring it up - It is my strong opinion that the people (the ones who may or may not hold these various opinions) most certainly should be welcome! Welcome among their brethren as well as welcome in their church.

But, that's just my opinion and you may not welcome it!

[theplains]

Ah. Guilt by association.

All the best demagogues use it.

CFR, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

See attached image.

 

Jim

[Pahoran]

See attached image.

 

Jim

Thank you, Jim.

Now, if you bother to look at your own image, you'll see that it isn't The Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage. It's an extract from "The Lectures on Faith," probably authored by Sidney Rigdon, and for a time published with the Doctrine and Covenants; for similar purposes as appendices and other study aids are published with our scriptures today.

See now, if you want to pose as the go-to guy for Mormon history around here, you really ought not to make such blindingly elementary mistakes. Among your EV audience, I doubt anyone would notice; but you won't get away with it here.

Indeed, one could argue that you were either incompetent, in which case you're being dishonest when you pose as an expert on Mormon things, or else you told a fib and tried to brazen it out.

Either way, it doesn't make you look too good.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Dgal]

Additional light and knowledge is just that - additional.  It should always add to truth, never take away previously revealed truth.  I am completely uncomfortable with any doctrinal changes that give up previous revelatory knowledge.  Add more information, sure.  Tell me a previous revelation was wrong, no.

 

If previous revelation is wrong and current revelation is right then today's revelation can just be wrong tomorrow, and nothing is true or worth holding on to.  And then we might as well throw all revelation away.

Glad I am not the only one who finds the changes disconcerting. I'm left with what to believe in, if, in a couple of decades, it's gonna change. Why bother believing in it in the first place.

[JLHPROF]

Glad I am not the only one who finds the changes disconcerting. I'm left with what to believe in, if, in a couple of decades, it's gonna change. Why bother believing in it in the first place.

 

I go back to the original doctrines and revelations, trace the progression to the best of my ability, and look for indications of new revelation.  If I find additional light and no contradiction with previous revelation then  I accept the updated doctrines.  If I find no indication of additional light I usually stick to the originally restored doctrine.  And of course I pray about my decision.

Most of the time I come to believe the Church is correct.  Occasionally I consider the changes to be wrong and not from God so I believe as I see fit and keep my mouth shut.  Nobody (outside the anonymity of this board) needs to know what I believe and what I don't.

Edited March 12, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Pahoran]

Hi Pahoran,

I think you may be missing my point (Perhaps my "pointing" needs some work?)

I was responding to feeling like one needs to keep their mouth shut in order to survive within a church.

I was talking about human beings - people - with all of our struggles, with all of our various pains, with all of our sins - with all of our sickness - with all of our breaks .......... worrying about surviving in the very place they ought to feel most free from all of these things.

I was not talking about "opinions of every possible shade being welcome" - But since you bring it up - It is my strong opinion that the people (the ones who may or may not hold these various opinions) most certainly should be welcome! Welcome among their brethren as well as welcome in their church.

But, that's just my opinion and you may not welcome it!

And the people are welcome.

Everyone is welcome to be part of a community of shared belief. (That's pretty much what a church is.)

Wanting to be part of it creates the rather reasonable expectation that they do share the defining beliefs of that community.

Those who reject those beliefs -- and actively try to lead others out of that community -- clearly don't want to be part of it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kevin Christensen]

Glad I am not the only one who finds the changes disconcerting. I'm left with what to believe in, if, in a couple of decades, it's gonna change. Why bother believing in it in the first place.

It's been a while since I posted the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/Perry%20Scheme.pdf

Perry studied the transitions by watching the how incoming students at Harvard reacted in response to the diverse university environment compared to provincial backgrounds.

It starts like this:

PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION

POSITION 1 - Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)

The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them. Agency is "Out there". The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary.

Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified. (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty. But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems. It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.

(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed. It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind." When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced. When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.

TRANSITION: 2-3 - Dualism modified

Now the person admits that good authorities can admit to not knowing all the answers yet, but they will teach what they know now and teach the rest when they have it. They accept that disciplines are divided into the definite and the vague, but that in the end even science fails. Though they have given up dividing meaning into just two realms, they still feel knowledge and goodness are quantitative and that agency is "out there".

POSITION 3 - Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate. (Snake's logic considered)

The person still feels that the nature of things naturally produces differing opinions, but it's as it should be, because the Authorities will figure it all out and hand on their conclusions eventually.

ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME. (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.)

There are seven ways a person can go.

If a person is able to make the transitions successfully, they may get to Position 9.

 

POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.

Part of my Sophic Box and Mantic Vista essay in Interpreter last year made the case that our scriptures try to lead us to position 9.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited March 12, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Senator]

  Occasionally I consider the changes to be wrong and not from God so I believe as I see fit and keep my mouth shut.  Nobody (outside the anonymity of this board) needs to know what I believe and what I don't.

 

Except if your applying for a temple recommend.

[JLHPROF]

Except if your applying for a temple recommend.

 

No, the temple recommend questions don't pry into personal beliefs on doctrine:

 

 

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

12 Do you have financial or other oblgations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?

Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

Exactly which question concerns any personal doctrinal beliefs that disagree with the current church teaching?

[Senator]

No, the temple recommend questions don't pry into personal beliefs on doctrine:

Exactly which question concerns any personal doctrinal beliefs that disagree with the current church teaching?

 

Ummm......all of them.

 

Obviously I'm not understanding your argument.

[JLHPROF]

Ummm......all of them.

 

Obviously I'm not understanding your argument.

 

Obviously.  I can disagree with the Church on almost any point of theology without violating a single question on this recommend interview.  I could be a trinitarian and still not violate the questions, even number 1.

Edited March 12, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Senator]

Obviously.  I can disagree with the Church on almost any point of theology without violating a single question on this recommend interview.  I could be a trinitarian and still not violate the questions, even number 1.

 

"almost" being key.

 

So, if you held a contrary belief in a point of theology that happened to be outside of the "almost any" catagory, would it then be something your Bishop or SP  needed to know if you where applying for a TR?

[JLHPROF]

"almost" being key.

 

So, if you held a contrary belief in a point of theology that happened to be outside of the "almost any" catagory, would it then be something your Bishop or SP  needed to know if you where applying for a TR?

 

Of course.  If I disagreed that Christ was my Savior, denied the restoration, or didn't believe in tithing or the word of wisdom then any of those would violate the TR questions.

But there are many points of doctrine where I disagree with the Church that don't violate the TR questions in any way.

[Robert F. Smith]

I may not understand everything about "science", but I know enough to know that if I'm discussing a particular claim with someone, and the "science" appears to be going against them, and they're telling me I should ignore "science" and re-evaluate "how I know things", they're probably at the end of their rope and they've tied a knot and are holding on for dear life.

No one, including scientists, should be talking out of both sides of their mouth (engaged in special pleading), nor should they only use the latest science just when it seems convenient.  However, that applies as much to the pro- as well as to the anti-Mormons.  Indeed, we should have more dispassionate research and reportage than the partisan stuff we are usually subjected to -- with a healthy sense of perspective.

 

As for epistemology -- by far the most important question in philosophy -- it is very dangerous to ignore the question of how we know what we know.  Philosophers (especially philosophers of science) and theologians are constantly wrangling over this issue.  Yet it is so central to religious discussions.  One claims that he knows something via intuition or the Holy Spirit, while another claims to depend wholly upon science and logic.  Are the two positions at loggerheads?  Or can they be combined?  Is it possible for humans to know anything at all for certain?  While we should not spend all our time hemming and hawwing, it is also foolish to be heedless of the best thinking on such issues.  Mormons should certainly not hide within a cocoon of their own make, and they should not be fearful of engaging the larger world of scientific and religious thought.  There is much to be learned from all that.

 

It appears to me (although I may be mistaken) that you have taken Gee & Muhlstein outside of this larger context, and misunderstood them at a fundamental level.  Of course it is not really possible to say much in such a short video.

[Senator]

Of course.  If I disagreed that Christ was my Savior, denied the restoration, or didn't believe in tithing or the word of wisdom then any of those would violate the TR questions.

But there are many points of doctrine where I disagree with the Church that don't violate the TR questions in any way.

 

I can agree with that modified argument.

[pogi]

No, the temple recommend questions don't pry into personal beliefs on doctrine:

Exactly which question concerns any personal doctrinal beliefs that disagree with the current church teaching?

 

How 'bout number 7?  This, to me, can be a very difficult question to answer.  What exactly constitutes a teaching of the church?  Anything published by the church in teaching manuals?  If that is the case, the teachings "accepted by the church" speak of Elohim as the father of our spirits and Jehovah as Christ.  It could potentially be a sticking point for you and worth placing before the judge in Israel.  The fact that you would be "affiliating with" an individual who was a prophet of the Church who taught contrary to the current teachings of the church might give you a little leeway however.  So many gray areas, perhaps it is best to let the judge in Israel judge those gray areas in order to stand blameless.  

 

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[JLHPROF]

How 'bout number 7?  This, to me, can be a very difficult question to answer.  What exactly constitutes a teaching of the church?  Anything published by the church in teaching manuals?  If that is the case, the teachings "accepted by the church" speak of Elohim as the father of our spirits and Jehovah as Christ.  It could potentially be a sticking point for you and worth placing before the judge in Israel.  The fact that you would be "affiliating with" an individual who was a prophet of the Church who taught contrary to the current teachings of the church might give you a little leeway however.  So many gray areas, perhaps it is best to let the judge in Israel judge those gray areas in order to stand blameless.  

 

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

 

#7 is probably the most tricky.  But I don't think there is a member who can honestly answer that they don't agree with anyone who teaches anything contrary to the Church.  Whether it's agreeing with SSM, OW, or like myself, believing in Adam-God (which just happens to be taught by fundamentalists too).  And there are dozens of smaller issues too.

 

Almost everyone has something point of belief they accept personally that doesn't fit 100% with Church teachings and probably has another person out there who teaching it that agrees with them.   It could be political, religious, social, cultural, familial, financial, and many others.

 

I think they'd have to close half the temples overnight if this question was taken literally.  Most members would lose their recommends.

Edited March 12, 2015 by JLHPROF

[pogi]

#7 is probably the most tricky.  But I don't think there is a member who can honestly answer that they don't agree with anyone who teaches anything contrary to the Church.  Whether it's agreeing with SSM, OW, or like myself, believing in Adam-God (which just happens to be taught by fundamentalists too).  And there are dozens of smaller issues too.

 

Almost everyone has something point of belief they accept personally that doesn't fit 100% with Church teachings and probably has another person out there who teaching it that agrees with them.   It could be political, religious, social, cultural, familial, financial, and many others.

 

I think they'd have to close half the temples overnight if this question was taken literally.  Most members would lose their recommends.

 

I agree that if most of us would have to answer "yes" to that question if we were honest with ourselves.  It should be known however, that simply because we cannot answer every single question in the affirmative, it does not necessarily mean that we will be found unworthy. 

 

The way I approach that question, and all questions, is to answer honestly and truthfully, as best I understand the teachings and let the bishop perform his appointed role as judge.  I learned this from my dad.  For example, when my dad was asked if he lives the word of wisdom, he answered "no", not as he understands it.  He assured the bishop that he doesn't drink, smoke, etc. but that he does not follow the rest of the word of wisdom as outlined in scripture.  He was still found worthy and granted a recommend.  He thought it better to come completely clean instead of assuming that the bishop would find him worthy.  Are we really allowing the bishop to perform his role as judge if we are pre-judging ourselves on those questions and justifying an affirmative answer based on that judgement?

 

Simply because we don't, or can't answer all of the answers in the affirmative, does not necessarily mean that we will be found unworthy to hold a recommend.  If we withhold any information that may prevent the bishop from making a sound judgement, then we will be the ones held accountable for possibly entering the temple unworthily.  I don't want that on my shoulders, so I make it a point to turn it all over to the bishop and let the burden be upon his shoulder as judge.