Calm Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 the link/quote from what I believe is a manual in the HPG/EQ/RS rotation of teachings of the prophetsFYI to whether or not that manual is still active or retired.... The BY manual is not in active use as a teaching manual, but like the rest of the series, it is intended to be used as reference material for personal study. If you need me to, I will try and find that information where the long term purpose of the series is explained.
JLHPROF Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 And yet, members are criticized when all they know is what has been taught in lessons on Sunday or from talks in General Conference. I know there are many members on here who are scholars or who have at least studied and read outside the lesson materials, but I believe most members (or at least many) have not. Totally agreed. And I'm not even talking about all the controversial things we discuss and debate on here. Just in depth alone there is little attention paid to any topic below the most basic surface. Some choose to study more in depth. Others don't. Certainly the vast majority of my extended family that are members have studied very little. To them Church is a social club/support system that helps them to feel good and deal with challenges. And that's a very good thing.But they don't know the gospel they follow in any depth at all and that put them at risk for being deceived. 1
CCRW Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 And yet, members are criticized when all they know is what has been taught in lessons on Sunday or from talks in General Conference. I know there are many members on here who are scholars or who have at least studied and read outside the lesson materials, but I believe most members (or at least many) have not. I think this is really close to another topic I think I'll start a new thread on (literalism). I have hope there might be respectful and non-disruptive ways to introduce some new thoughts.
CCRW Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 FYI to whether or not that manual is still active or retired.... The BY manual is not in active use as a teaching manual, but like the rest of the series, it is intended to be used as reference material for personal study. If you need me to, I will try and find that information where the long term purpose of the series is explained. Thanks calmoriah ... that's ok on the quote ... I have to remember that was the manual being used when I left just yesterday it seems (13yrs back)
JLHPROF Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 I think this is really close to another topic I think I'll start a new thread on (literalism). I have hope there might be respectful and non-disruptive ways to introduce some new thoughts. Hey, you got taken off Limited. I've never seen that happen. Now you CAN start new threads.
ERayR Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 Hey, you got taken off Limited. I've never seen that happen. Now you CAN start new threads. A good lawyer is priceless. 1
CCRW Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 John Prine and Iris Dement - "In Spite of Ourselves" comes to mind. Some might be offended by some bluntness in a couple places so I won't link it.
BCSpace Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 When you said the problems don't exist, I'm sure you understand the confusion. The problems are there and are real to many members. That some shrug them off easier than others, doesn't mean the problems aren't there. From my perspective, the problems aren't there because they are baseless. I totally understand that others have problems wih certain issues. I chalk it up to an incomplete knowledge and/or approaching from the wrong angle. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 Critics criticize, and apologists defend. Sometimes part of a general defense will be that LDS leaders are ordinary men who make mistakes. Yet when specifics are discussed, words like misunderstood or phrases like taken out of context are frequently used to paint a better picture. It's easy to admit that the leaders aren't perfect, but it seems to be more difficult to acknowledge the details of the imperfections. If critics are fallible, why is it so hard to admit specific mistakes? Is it just possible that the "specifics" in question might just be misunderstood or taken out of context by critics? Instead of assuming that the defenders are being disingenuous, why not consider the possibility that they might actually have a point? Regards, Russell 1
Russell C McGregor Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 Mormons technically admit that their leaders are fallible, but none believe they actually ever have been, are or will be.None?Did you just admit that neither you, nor anyone else here who bangs on about prophetic fallibility, is actually a Mormon?Because after all, you did say "None!"Thanks,Russell 1
Russell C McGregor Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 The discussion about the Lectures on Faith is a perfect example of why I started this topic. Instead of just admitting that there were some errors in them that needed to be corrected, alternative reasons for removing them have been created by both the Church and apologists.Oh, so you started this thread in order to relitigate the other one?I see. They weren't presented as revelations to the whole Church.Which is absolutely true. They weren't.In fact, they weren't presented as revelations at all, either to the whole Church or otherwise.Which perhaps explains why your only response to that incontrovertible fact was to abuse those who had the temerity to mention it. They were only bound for convenience. Which is an entirely plausible explanation for what happened.Regards,Russell
Senator Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 None?Did you just admit that neither you, nor anyone else here who bangs on about prophetic fallibility, is actually a Mormon?Because after all, you did say "None!"Thanks,Russell Keep reading
DBMormon Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 JS himself claims to have been wrong and made mistakes, but not about the Revelations given to him by God.Elder mcconkie and pres kimball though do acknowledge some of brigham's revelations were not of God even though Brigham thought so and many others had a testimony of it.
JLHPROF Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 Elder mcconkie and pres kimball though do acknowledge some of brigham's revelations were not of God even though Brigham thought so and many others had a testimony of it. Some still do.President Young taught one thing. President Kimball taught another. Absolutely no reason outside of testimony to pick one over another. In your precedent on the other thread of Adam-God, I choose President Young's statements over President Kimball's. Others choose President Kimball's over President Young's. Until we meet God face to face it's all assumption based on testimony and faith. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 I do think it is possible to believe the Adam God theory and be a good member of the Church. It is equally possible to not believe the Adam God theory and be a good member of the Church. What will get you a nice visit to your Bishop is to publicly teach it as Church doctrine. 2
Thinking Posted April 26, 2015 Author Posted April 26, 2015 If critics are fallible, why is it so hard to admit specific mistakes? Having never been to Israel, I let Google find Bethlehem for me, and it found the one in Galilee. I stand corrected. If this is true, then I stand corrected. I would find it difficult to believe that no discussion takes place or that suggestions are not given. I stand corrected.
Thinking Posted April 27, 2015 Author Posted April 27, 2015 Which is an entirely plausible explanation for what happened. Is it plausible that the 1835 Church believed the Lectures on Faith were the doctrine of the Church?
HappyJackWagon Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 Is it plausible that the 1835 Church believed the Lectures on Faith were the doctrine of the Church? Yes. Considering that it was included in the Doctrine and Covenants as the "doctrine" portion, it would seem very plausible.
Recommended Posts