Lectures On Faith-

[Gray]

That's because you don't believe God literally speaks to us.  I don't see how he can hold us accountable to much then.  We would get to say "you never said".  We can only be held accountable for what we know and do with it.  I don't see how we can be held accountable if we are left to draw our own flawed conclusions on EVERYTHING.

 

Yes, exactly. If anyone is going to judge us, it should be based on what we did with what we were given. 

 

We ARE left to draw our own flawed conclusions on everything. But out of that chaos there arise true principles of kindness, compassion, mercy, forgiveness. As a species we awaken to these principles, and we frequently forget them as well. The challenge of the spiritual path is to keep on awakening, and to remind those who have forgotten. 

Edited April 17, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure why you brought up "The Family: A Proclamation To The World."

 

Because I thought that's what you brought up. I guess I don't know what you mean by POTC.

 

Sometimes, for the sake of clarity, it is good to take an extra second or two to spell something out rather than just assuming people will know the meaning of initials or an acronym.

 

CFR that they were bound for the sake of convenience. According to the preface the were included because they embraced the important doctrine of salvation.

 

Virtually every lesson manual produced by the Church and the proceedings of every general conference embrace "the important doctrine of salvation." That doesn't make them canonical.

 

And all of those things are included together with the scriptures in the Church-published "Gospel Libary" app I access with my mobile device, plus a bunch of other stuff besides. Should I conclude that the whole kit and kaboodle is canonical?

Edited April 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Vaguely.  I don't have all the particulars.  I know his detractors like to claim he allowed some handcart pioneers to suffer by using resources on a pet project involving one.

It's been a while since I heard anything about it.  Seems to me like it's probably another MMM type claim, a who said what to who and who knew what when kind of thing.  I prefer to give Brigham the benefit of the doubt on such things since history is at best unclear.

If Brigham did indeed choose a steam engine over helping some pioneers then it was a mistake and he will answer for it.

Didn't change the office that he held.

 

Wait, letting people die because you diverted resources is a "mistake" but doesn't change one's office, but accepting polygamy if it were not revealed from God would be adultery and therefore necessitate a loss of office? Why would sexual sins be treated more harshing than letting women and children freeze to death?

[Thinking]

Because I thought that's what you brought up. I guess I don't know what you mean by POTC.

 

Pirates Of The Caribbean - the guidelines quote.

 

Virtually every lesson manual produced by the Church and the proceedings of every general conference embrace "the important doctrine of salvation." That doesn't make them canonical.

 

That doesn't answer the CFR. Your claim was that they were placed there for convenience. That's not what the preface says.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott -- very sincere question here.

 

How can you not be at least somewhat selective in what you personally accept/believe when it comes to the various ideas and doctrines of the Church that have been taught/presented over the years?  Of course the core doctrines have never changed.  But there have been doctrines that were taught from both the pulpit and during the temple ceremony (Adam-God) that are completely rejected today.  I imagine that you reject Adam-God.  By so doing aren't you acknowledging that Brigham Young was mistaken in this specific instance?

 

Elder Benson said that the living Prophet is more important to us than anything else.  Elder McConkie taught that the scriptures trump even the Prophet's words (as he was putting to rest some of BY's teachings).  Both statements can't be correct as they contradict one another.  Which one do you find more persuasive?

 

In order for current Church leadership to be right, some of our past leaders must have been mistaken.  Conversely, if our past leaders were correct, our current leaders are incorrect.

 

How do you harmonize this without being, at least somewhat, a "cafeteria" Mormon?

Sincere answer: If it's something that has been taught here and there in the past but has either been disavowed by the Church or has simply fallen by the wayside, as a lot of doctrinal chaff has done over the years, then it's not something that is binding on me as a believer, is it?

 

This notion of "everybody's a cafeteria Mormon" too easily gives refuge to one trying to rationalize his own murmuring or his own rejection of settled doctrinal principles, such as the sanctity of marriage and the family.

 

And for the record, to the extent I know well the people in my high priests group, or the attendees in my gospel doctrine class, or the leadership in my ward and stake, or the singers in the ward choir that I direct, none are cafeteria Mormons. Neither are my colleagues on the staff of the Church News or the leaders of the Church with whom I associate from time to time or the professionals who work under their direction, or the academic scholars in Church history and doctrine with whom I'm acquainted.

 

In fact, I only typically interact with cafeteria Mormons here on this board. And even here, there are a good many of the regulars whom I would not thus peg.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Pirates Of The Caribbean - the guidelines quote.

 

 

 

 

Whatever. When you put up a set of initials, maybe I'll get the meaning from context, but sometimes I'm left to guess.

 

That doesn't answer the CFR. Your claim was that they were placed there for convenience. That's not what the preface says.

 

 

Does the preface deny it? If not, why can't I reasonably assume it to be the case?

Edited April 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Sincere answer: If it's something that has been taught here and there in the past but has either been disavowed by the Church or has simply fallen by the wayside, as a lot of doctrinal chaff has done over the years, then it's not something that is binding on me as a believer, is it?

 

This notion of "everybody's a cafeteria Mormon" too easily gives refuge to one trying to rationalize his own murmuring or his own rejection of settled doctrinal principles, such as the sanctity of marriage and the family.

 

And for the record, to the extent I know well the people in my high priests group, or the attendees in my gospel doctrine class, or the leadership in my ward and stake, or the singers in the ward choir that I direct, none are cafeteria Mormons. Neither are my colleagues on the staff of the Church News.

 

In fact, I only typically interact with cafeteria Mormons here on this board. And even here, there are a good many of the regulars whom I would not thus peg.

 

Complete denial.

[JLHPROF]

Wait, letting people die because you diverted resources is a "mistake" but doesn't change one's office, but accepting polygamy if it were not revealed from God would be adultery and therefore necessitate a loss of office? Why would sexual sins be treated more harshing than letting women and children freeze to death?

 

Adultery is always a willful sin of commission in direct violation of Gods law.

 

What Brigham Young may or may not have done (most "history" makes a biased judge) is make a poor decision on where to allocate resources. 

Unless...are you seriously claiming that Brigham Young intentionally left women and children to freeze to death for some material items?  That he took an active part in allowing them to die?  That when presented with the choice of saving their lives or bringing back a steam engine he stood there and said "let them die, I want my engine"?

 

If so, then that is absolutely more than a mistake and to me would have cost him his priesthood and office (and probably his salvation - innocent blood).  But I don't for a second believe that interpretation of historical events.

Edited April 17, 2015 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

Sincere answer: If it's something that has been taught here and there in the past but has either been disavowed by the Church or has simply fallen by the wayside, as a lot of doctrinal chaff has done over the years, then it's not something that is binding on me as a believer, is it?

 

Of course not.  But to firmly believe something one day and then immediately stop believing it the next (or vice versa) just because the Church makes an announcement on doctrine strikes me as very wishywashy.  I don't think God operates or approves of such flimsy testimony.

"If it was right when you prayed about it and trusted in it, it is right now" - Jeffery Holland

 

 

This notion of "everybody's a cafeteria Mormon" too easily gives refuge to one trying to rationalize his own murmuring or his own rejection of settled doctrinal principles, such as the sanctity of marriage and the family.

 

And for the record, to the extent I know well the people in my high priests group, or the attendees in my gospel doctrine class, or the leadership in my ward and stake, or the singers in the ward choir that I direct, none are cafeteria Mormons. Neither are my colleagues on the staff of the Church News.

 

In fact, I only typically interact with cafeteria Mormons here on this board. And even here, there are a good many of the regulars whom I would not thus peg.

 

I think your definition of "cafeteria Mormon" is a bit narrow.  ANYONE who has a single belief that doesn't line up with the current Church at any given moment is picking and choosing which parts of the gospel they accept, and therefore a cafeteria Mormon.  It could be about anything.

 

I think that applies to the majority of members everywhere.  Unless we've all mastered the art of groupthink.

[Buckeye]

 

I think your definition of "cafeteria Mormon" is a bit narrow.  ANYONE who has a single belief that doesn't line up with the current Church at any given moment is picking and choosing which parts of the gospel they accept, and therefore a cafeteria Mormon.  It could be about anything.

 

I think that applies to the majority of members everywhere.  Unless we've all mastered the art of groupthink.

 

Maybe he has a cafeteria definition to the term "cafeteria mormon"?

 

Seriously, though, it would be nice to have an agreed upon list of the 'core' doctrines that cannot be dismissed.

[JLHPROF]

It would be nice to have an agreed upon list of the 'core' doctrines that cannot be dismissed.

 

We had it pretty clear for a while and then started the dismissing...

[Thinking]

Does the preface deny it? If not, why can't I reasonably assume it to be the case?

 

There are a lot of things that the preface doesn't deny. Can I assume those things to be the case?

 

The preface doesn't deny that I am the best looking critic on this board. Does that mean that I can reasonably assume that I am?

[Scott Lloyd]

Complete denial.

Heh.

As the world's foremost authority on whether I do or do not accept and believe a thing, I claim superiority of my word over yours in that respect.

[Scott Lloyd]

There are a lot of things that the preface doesn't deny. Can I assume those things to be the case?

 

The preface doesn't deny that I am the best looking critic on this board. Does that mean that I can reasonably assume that I am?

Conceivably there are reasonable grounds not to accept that assumption.

What reasonable grounds are there to assume convenience was not a factor in binding the lectures with the revelations (as opposed to, say, publishing them as a separate volume or serially in one of the Church periodicals of the period)?

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I think your definition of "cafeteria Mormon" is a bit narrow.  ANYONE who has a single belief that doesn't line up with the current Church at any given moment is picking and choosing which parts of the gospel they accept, and therefore a cafeteria Mormon.  It could be about anything.

 

I think that applies to the majority of members everywhere.  Unless we've all mastered the art of groupthink.

 

OK. I think your definition is perhaps way too broad.

Your move.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

Conceivably there are reasonable grounds not to accept that assumption.

What reasonable grounds are there to assume convenience was not a factor in binding the lectures with the revelations (as opposed to, say, publishing them as a separate volume or serially in one of the Church periodicals of the period)?

 

Since convenience was not mentioned, you can't assume either way. You're the one who made the assertion. I just asked for a CFR. Apparently your CFR is an assumption.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course not.  But to firmly believe something one day and then immediately stop believing it the next (or vice versa) just because the Church makes an announcement on doctrine strikes me as very wishywashy.  I don't think God operates or approves of such flimsy testimony.

"If it was right when you prayed about it and trusted in it, it is right now" - Jeffery Holland

 

 

Just a guess, but I'm thinking Elder Holland would have reservations about your using his words as grounds for rejecting the authoritative pronouncments of the leaders of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Since convenience was not mentioned, you can't assume either way. You're the one who made the assertion. I just asked for a CFR. Apparently your CFR is an assumption.

Some assumptions are more reasonable than others. I think mine is pretty reasonable, as assumptions go.

 

As for the CFR, since when have we had to document our own opinions?

 

If that's the case, here's an answer to your CFR: I say what I have given is my reasoned opinion, and I claim supremacy as an authority on what my opinions are.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Seriously, though, it would be nice to have an agreed upon list of the 'core' doctrines that cannot be dismissed.

 

That sounds a lot like a creed. If memory serves, Joseph was quite against those.

“[They] were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein; whereas the Latter Day Saints had no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.” (Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman, p. 285)

“Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty to believe as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.

It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

(History of the Church, vol 5, pg 340) Joseph Smith Jr.

[ttribe]

Heh.

As the world's foremost authority on whether I do or do not accept and believe a thing, I claim superiority of my word over yours in that respect.

 

Pretty sure he was expressing doubt about whether any of the people in the groups you mentioned might harbor a single belief which diverges from yours and/or from the Church's official position on something.

[JLHPROF]

Just a guess, but I'm thinking Elder Holland would have reservations about your using his words as grounds for rejecting the authoritative pronouncments of the leaders of the Church.

 

Probably.  But then Elder Holland is a very smart man, so you never know.

And I wasn't speaking of rejecting authoritative pronouncements.  I was speaking of those who don't know what their testimonies are until the Church tells them what they're supposed to be.

[sethpayne]

Sincere answer: If it's something that has been taught here and there in the past but has either been disavowed by the Church or has simply fallen by the wayside, as a lot of doctrinal chaff has done over the years, then it's not something that is binding on me as a believer, is it?

 

In my view, no.  It is not binding on you as a believer.  However, I would argue that it is only non-binding because today's doctrines are settled and well-established.  If you were living during Brigham Young's days, would belief in Adam-God have been binding?  Some members seemed to think so the way they wrote about it.  

 

So in one sense I would say that Elder Benson's statement that the living prophet trumps anything in the past is a form of "cafeteria-lite" because when you choose to follow current teachings and counsel, you do not accept (reject is too strong a word, I think) *some* policies/teachings from past leaders.  

 

But that's just semantics. 

 

This notion of "everybody's a cafeteria Mormon" too easily gives refuge to one trying to rationalize his own murmuring or his own rejection of settled doctrinal principles, such as the sanctity of marriage and the family.

 

 

I completely agree.  I don't take issue with people accepting SSM or rejecting past polygamy etc...  But I do have a problem when people begin advocating these things as if they were, or should be, Church doctrine.  I strongly believe that Church leaders are the ones called to direct the Church as they see fit.  If I happen to disagree with this or that, then OK.  But I certainly don't think my personal views/interpretations should motivate me to try and make them fit Church doctrine/practice.  Not to mention advocate for such changes.  As I say, President Monson, the FP,  and the Quorum of the Twelve lead the Church.  It's not my place to tell them how to do it or to tell them that the inspiration they receive is incorrect in those cases where I may see things differently.

 

 

And for the record, to the extent I know well the people in my high priests group, or the attendees in my gospel doctrine class, or the leadership in my ward and stake, or the singers in the ward choir that I direct, none are cafeteria Mormons. Neither are my colleagues on the staff of the Church News or the leaders of the Church with whom I associate from time to time or the professionals who work under their direction, or the academic scholars in Church history and doctrine with whom I'm acquainted.

 

 

Given your comments above, this doesn't surprise me.  I would say the same thing about most members of my ward/quorum.

 

In fact, I only typically interact with cafeteria Mormons here on this board. And even here, there are a good many of the regulars whom I would not thus peg.

 

 

Me too, actually.  Well, this board and FB.  In day-to-day life the focus is on serving in whatever capacity we are needed and I don't see any real benefit to discussing these things outside contexts where the explicit purpose is to have discussion of controversial or hotly-debated topics.

 

Appreciate your answer, Scott.

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................................

 

Now I don't think that means the prophet gets to contradict scripture, and I don't think that's what Brigham meant either.

But we have to understand that scripture are recorded sermons/letters/revelations of prophets and apostles.  That's all they are.  There is no reason why the sermons/letters/revelations of the Apostle Paul should carry one iota more importance than the sermons/letters/revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, or any other Prophet.  They are all apostles and prophets equally (and should be in harmony).

Does this mean that we are likely to have harmony of doctrine among all the prophets, throughout all time?  Or will there be doctrinal conflicts?

 

For example, among biblical scholars it is now well established that there are a variety of biblical theologies.  Scholars of the Book of Mormon often reach the same conclusion.  Are such views justified?

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................................

 

This notion of "everybody's a cafeteria Mormon" too easily gives refuge to one trying to rationalize his own murmuring or his own rejection of settled doctrinal principles, such as the sanctity of marriage and the family.

................................................

What happens though, Scott, when we juxtapose the settled doctrines of plural marriage versus monogamous marriage?  Or the settled doctrine of the nuclear family versus the extended family?

[JLHPROF]

Does this mean that we are likely to have harmony of doctrine among all the prophets, throughout all time?  Or will there be doctrinal conflicts?

 

For example, among biblical scholars it is now well established that there are a variety of biblical theologies.  Scholars of the Book of Mormon often reach the same conclusion.  Are such views justified?

 

I believe what Joseph said - that any angel/revelation that contradicts a prior revelation should be ignored.  Given this there should be harmony in doctrine where revealed truth is concerned.  Further light and knowledge should not contradict previous light and knowledge.  (Opinion and speculation are a whole different ballgame).

 

Will we ever reach a point where doctrine is harmonized before Christ returns?  Doubtful.  But we should.