Kenngo1969 Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 ... So if this guy with the message against paternalism (and those who take his words as "the very words of God") were in Nauvoo, they could have taught all this stuff without being exed as long as they didn't question Joseph being the rightful head of the Church? They are right as far as that goes?Here again, with due respect, you seem to be having difficulty grasping the distinction between believing and teaching. As the multiplicity of opinions on this board with respect to any number of subjects having to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints demonstrates, there is a wide spectrum of belief even among those who are faithful members, and even on subjects about which Church teaching seems quite clear. I disagree with many such beliefs expressed here, but that hardly makes me ready to call for anyone's excommunication. Setting oneself against the doctrine and leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ, teaching things contrary to that doctrine, and attempting to develop a following, however, are other matters entirely. What actions should be taken against people who engage in these things are matters for the Lord and their Priesthood leaders to determine. That said, while doing so might make my intentions clearer, explicitly questioning President Thomas S. Monson's role as President of the Church, the only single individual with the right to receive revelation and to declare doctrine, and the only person on Earth authorized to exercise all Priesthood keys is not a sin qua non for apostasy.
smac97 Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is theChrist, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ. Seems to fit the BoM paradigm quite well.So your perspective on this is...1) The canon of the LDS Church concedes that the scriptures are not inerrant ("if there are faults they are the mistakes of men"); and2) "Faults" in scripture that are "the mistakes of men" could include false doctrine; therefore3) The scriptures may contain false doctrine, and4) The presence of false doctrine in the scriptures fits "the BoM paradigm."Is that an accurate summary?I'm skeptical that the "faults" referenced in the Title Page amount to "false doctrine." To be honest, the suggestion reminds me of these verses.Thanks,-Smac Edited May 9, 2015 by smac97 1
Kenngo1969 Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 ... I'm skeptical that the "faults" referenced in the Title Page amount to "false doctrine."Thanks,-SmacI am, too, especially in light of Joseph Smith's "most correct book" comment.
Sleeper Cell Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) Please give me some examples where God failed to grant a request. I tried Paul's asking that the thorn in his flesh be removed (three times), and being told "my grace is sufficient for you," but I was told that God wasn't paternalistically imposing His will on Paul, because: Those who enter into a covenant with God agree to do his will in all things; in return, he agrees to do to them what will make them what he is...In other words, we agreed to it by covenant. It is not imposed. That seemed to make sense to everyone else there. Going back to the time the demons were driven into the swine, I asked why Jesus denied the request of the man they were driven out of, when he wanted to accompany Jesus and His disciples on their travels. I was told that Jesus didn't deny his request, He just made a "counter request" that the man go back into town and preach the gospel to those who would listen to him (because they had asked Jesus to leave, and He had to grant that request.) And after that, the blog owner said that the words of the guy teaching this stuff are: I came here because I was starting to doubt my own mind, and I wanted to see if any of this makes sense to anyone else? Can you give me any other scriptural examples of Christ, or God, refusing to grant requests? (Particularly any that can't be "explained" by saying that the reply was merely a "counter-request," or that the petitioner was under some covenantal obligation to accept "no" as an answer?) So if this guy with the message against paternalism (and those who take his words as "the very words of God") were in Nauvoo, they could have taught all this stuff without being exed as long as they didn't question Joseph being the rightful head of the Church? They are right as far as that goes? In other words, God is only obliged to grant the requests of unbelievers, while He is free to reject the requests of believers? This is sounding more like Mark Twain “theology” all the time. Your friends want scriptural references of examples where God failed to grant a request, yet immediately rule out all requests made by believers -- who presumably made the bulk of the requests recorded in scripture. And if one cites an example of a non-believer’s request that was not granted, one can always rationalize that it conflicted with someone else’s request. Again, analogous to Mark Twain’s “theology” to the effect that for a nominal Christian, a “secret supplication of the heart” always trumps a “public prayer.“ I believe his example was that of a coal yard owner whose SSOTH (for an unusually cold winter to increase the demand for coal, and thus the price) conflicted with his PP (let no word or deed from us add to the burdens of the poor and needy). BTW, why wouldn’t your friends’ argument:Those who enter into a covenant with God agree to do his will in all things; in return, he agrees to do to them what will make them what he is...In other words, we agreed to it by covenant. It is not imposed.apply equally to everybody born into mortality? Isn’t “agreeing to do … [God’s] will in all things, in exchange for His agreeing to make us what He is,” essentially what we all accepted in the Great Council in Heaven? In short, didn’t the “paternalism” argument -- even if it ever held any merit -- become moot before we were born? “Paternalism?” That is a theological term I have never heard before. If you have time, I would recommend reading Pascal’s “The Provincial Letters.” In the first chapters, he discusses how two rival groups of theologians got together and invented a new theological term, solely as a theological weapon to use against a third group, which they hated more than they hated each other. In his book “The World and the Prophets,“ Hugh Nibley discusses how rhetoric became a substitute for revelation. As I reread your friends’ arguments, I was reminded of his citations of some of the classic definitions of “rhetoric,” such as: “The training and skill by which one can make unimportant things seem important,“ and even the training to “make false opinion seem true by means of words.“ I can’t resist asking. Is Denver Snuffer an attorney? Edited May 9, 2015 by Sleeper Cell 2
Investigating Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) I continue to be baffled by your questions about "the evils of paternalism." That seems to be a topic entirely divorced from the OP. I also don't understand what you mean by "the evils of paternalism."I've never considered paternalism evil, and it's this teaching that led me to seek feedback on the questions in the OP. I don't see how you have improved your question. Everything after "suppose..." is problematic. You are asking us to "suppose" that canonized doctrine about parenting is "wrong." It is an absurd hypothetical. It has no application to the LDS paradigm.Read my question again. I am not "asking us to suppose that canonized doctrine about parenting is wrong." Someone else has suggested that, and I asked you to suppose the teaching is wrong, and to answer a question based on that supposition. Moreover, you are straying from the topic in this thread. You originally asked "Would Joseph have been against excommunicating anyone for believing some false doctrine?"I should have said "for openly holding or teaching heterodox views." You also suggested that "the recent excommunications of Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, and others for holding heterodox views is a departure from the restored Gospel (as it was practised during Joseph Smith's lifetime.)".I didn't suggest it was a departure from the restored Gospel (as it was practised during Joseph Smith's lifetime), I asked if it was (because I have seen that suggested.) What? What "claims ... regarding the evils of paternalism" are you talking about?One claim I've seen repeated is that if a beggar who's holding a sign that says he needs money for beer, pot, heroine, or cocaine asks me for money, and I refuse to give it to him, I'm being paternalistic, judging, breaking the golden rule, and therefore sinning. I'm told that neither I, human parents, or God Himself has the right to decide what's best for anyone else. I'm even told that this is what the war in heaven was about, and the "paternalists" were on the wrong side. Whether you believe it or not, this is being taught, and I've seen it applauded (by some, who I believe, follow Denver Snuffer.) Who is saying that paternalism is "evil?" Who has promulgated this "teaching" about "the golden rule?"As one party's already accused me of betraying him (and often complains of someone else who disagrees with him of "sticking a knife in his back"), and as I'm not trying to get anyone exed, I'd rather not name names, but the teaching is out there. we should note that "teaching some false doctrine" is a markedly different thing from what you asked about in the OP, where you incorrectly referenced excommunication "for believing some false doctrine" and that Denver Snuffer was excommunicated "for holding heterodox views."Fine. I asked the wrong question then. I should have asked whether Joseph would have approved of someone being excommunicated for merely teaching something that conflicted with what he and the twelve were teaching. What "conflicting request(s)" are you talking about?Just as an example (that I actually brought up in dialoguing with one of these people btw). assisted suicide. I was mercifully told I didn't have to worry about granting that kind of request because it would conflict with God's "request" that we not kill (and this teacher explicitly refers to "thou shalt not kill" as a request.) Why are God's commandments merely "request(s)?"I don't know. I think, because it fits in with the teaching that the only real celestial law is to "do unto others." Who is makeing "requests" that are to be impliedly granted because of "the golden rule?"According to this teaching, everyone. The teaching is that the golden rule implies "all requests should be granted" unless they conflict with a higher request (such as God's "thou shalt not kill"), or are made by someone who is "incurably incompetent." Why should we give such an absurd teaching any consideration?I've seen this taught by someone who knows LDS scripture better than I do, and I've seen his words on this subject applauded as "the very words of God," and I find that disturbing enough to come here and ask these questions. Can any of you give me some concrete evidence, from LDS scripture or history (i.e. the Kirtland era, or the Nauvoo period, during which even Snufferites would agree the Church was led by a prophet) that clearly shows this teaching is wrong? Edited May 9, 2015 by Investigating
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 I've never considered paternalism evil, and it's this teaching that led me to seek feedback on the questions in the OP. One claim I've seen repeated is that if a beggar who's holding a sign that says he needs money for beer, pot, heroine, or cocaine asks me for money, and I refuse to give it to him, I'm being paternalistic, judging, breaking the golden rule, and therefore sinning. I'm told that neither I, human parents, or God Himself has the right to decide what's best for anyone else. I'm even told that this is what the war in heaven was about, and the "paternalists" were on the wrong side. Whether you believe it or not, this is being taught, and I've seen it applauded (by some, who I believe, follow Denver Snuffer.) As one party's already accused me of betraying him (and often complains of someone else who disagrees with him of "sticking a knife in his back"), and as I'm not trying to get anyone exed, I'd rather not name names, but the teaching is out there. Fine. I asked the wrong question then. I should have asked whether Joseph would have approved of someone being excommunicated for merely teaching something that conflicted with what he and the twelve were teaching. Just as an example (that I actually brought up in dialoguing with one of these people btw). assisted suicide. I was mercifully told I didn't have to worry about granting that kind of request because it would conflict with God's "request" that we not kill (and this teacher explicitly refers to "thou shalt not kill" as a request.) I don't know. I think, because it fits in with the teaching that the only real celestial law is to "do unto others." According to this teaching, everyone. The teaching is that the golden rule implies "all requests should be granted" unless they conflict with a higher request (such as God's "thou shalt not kill"), or are made by someone who is "incurably incompetent." I've seen this taught by someone who knows LDS scripture better than I do, and I've seen his words on this subject applauded as "the very words of God," and I find that disturbing enough to come here and ask these questions. Can any of you give me some concrete evidence, from LDS scripture or history (i.e. the Kirtland era, or the Nauvoo period, during which even Snufferites would agree the Church was led by a prophet) that clearly shows this teaching is wrong?Unless, we can see what the brother actually said I think we are in no-position to comment. I have a hard time believing that someone is teaching that we should literally grant almost every request made to us under some faulty understanding of the "Golden Rule".
Investigating Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) Unless, we can see what the brother actually said I think we are in no-position to comment. I have a hard time believing that someone is teaching that we should literally grant almost every request made to us under some faulty understanding of the "Golden Rule". Here is some of what the brother has actually said. The Golden Rule is easy to understand - so much so that children can grasp it, even while adults shy away from it and deny it.Every last thing you want people to do to you, do those things to them - this is the law and the prophets. The Golden Rule is simply the verbal expression of the behavior of love. If you love someone, then you do to them what you would want done to you.This law has interesting implications - among them, that all requests should be granted. The logic is simple:If I want others to do something for me, then I should do it for others. (Golden Rule)If I ask others to do something for me, then I want them to do it. (That is why we ask people to do things.)Therefore if someone asks me to do something for them, then I should do it.There is no distinction between requesters according to this rule - it doesn't matter who's asking. If we love them, we will do as they ask, and charity is the pure love of Christ, and remember: all are alike unto God, and God is love (agape - charity). Those who have charity keep this law, for it is written in their hearts. This is how they behave. This is God, and those who have charity are even as God is in this world, and they will see him as he is.But what if someone asks us to abuse someone else (ie, what if we are asked to break the Golden Rule)? What if there is a conflict between requests? Then we receive our reward from them whom we obey. The commandments of God are then seen to be protections for us from having to abuse others at the request of men, or devils - after all, the commandments of God are, at the very least, standing requests by God. The Golden Rule is always in effect, being a standing request. (At least, that is one way to look at it.) You may choose whom to obey, for it is given unto you.And here's some more. The golden rule is the ideology of God. God is charity, after all (1 John 4:8, 16).3 Nephi 15:9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life.He’s asking us to be principled – to obey the law, the golden rule, without respect to outcomes (i.e., without judgement – without appealing to “workability”). To take his covenant and instructions as a suicide pact, for it is.Doctrine and Covenants 98:1414 Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.This is in opposition to a philosophy we have been spoon-fed since our infancy: paternalism.PaternalismPaternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophypaternalism-cartoonPaternalism is, at its most basic essence, meddling with others out of fear of pain / discomfort / negative results. It is justified by a claim to be seeking after the welfare of the person whose choices or results are being meddled with. Paternalism is outcome-driven.Paternalism, being rooted in fear, is therefore an enemy to charity, and has natural allies in judgementalism, laziness, and cowardice.So what pains are we avoiding by preventing others from experiencing the consequence of, or by compelling or coercing, their choices, while claiming we are acting in their best interests? It ranges from as light as not wanting to be alone in one’s beliefs, to not wanting to endure the sympathetic emotional pain we might feel in seeing another suffer, or perhaps hoping to avoid that grief which comes from separation, or perhaps the pain of having our expectations or wills thwarted, and anything else in between.Maybe even we withhold our substance from another, justifying ourselves by thinking they need to hit rock bottom so they’ll get help and no longer be where they are, when our real fear is that the core doctrine of Babylon, “limited resources,” or “economic scarcity,” sometimes rendered TANSTAAFL, is true, and if we give to them then we would have to give to others and then we wouldn’t have enough for ourselves. So long, Zion.And more. Cursing, vulgarity, profanity, epithets, drug use, nudity - none of these violate the Golden Rule, for you literally do nothing to nobody by doing them. If my daughter, who loves me, says "Dad, you're such a fudging troll," then I laugh along with her, for there is no malice between us. We are of one heart and one mind.If you take offense at someone who has done you no wrong, it is because of pride and malice in your own heart.And if you say you want Zion but are yet maliciously and pridefully intolerant, taking offense, whatever will you do when you get what you say you want?And More. Whenever you have a society that has rules or laws that are unknowable, or rest in the end on the offense of the audience, there you have sufficient conditions to persecute, cast out, stone, and slay the prophets.Let us take, as an example, two rules from a private internet forum.“No profanity. No inappropriate sexual content.” “No Trolling, flaming, spamming, baiting.”These seem reasonable, don’t they? But, understand well, you cannot know beforehand whether any particular action or words or set of words will violate #1, and #2 relies, in the end, on the response of the mob.Why? Because profanity is not defined except with respect to a particular person’s own internal, whimsical line of offense – that person being the judge of the speaker. It is inherently subjective, being purely a matter of taste. So it is also with propriety. #1 therefore functionally means “thou shalt not offend thy judges.” Thus the judges’ capricious, unknowable sensibilities, and not Christ’s commandments, become the standard of right conduct within that community.And look more closely at #2. Trolling is the art of sowing discord. But most discussion only takes place because of discord, which simply means disagreement. But wait! How can anyone sow disagreement? They cannot; a person can only express something that someone else disagrees with. So, #2 ends up, in the final analysis, meaning “thou shalt not offend the mob.”But these both may be rephrased and combined into one rule: “Thou shalt not offend.”And if there are penalties for violating that rule, you have sufficient conditions for casting out, stoning, and slaying the prophets. Any call to repentance offends the guilty, and the easy way to deal with it is to persecute the one calling, as opposed to repenting; with such rules in place, one has a built-in public justification for such persecution – the Nuremberg defense – “I was just following orders / the law / the rules.”Offense is strictly in the mind and heart of the hearer. And it is because of impurity of heart and mind that we take offense. Our sense of offense is our own fault; it means we are ourselves offenders.Titus 1:1515 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.I made this point explicit and offered up my membership in another community in demonstration of it – no matter how well-meaning the administrators of such laws are, you will be cast out even if you perfectly keep the law of heaven.Romans 2:11 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.No community which has any variant of “thou shalt not offend” as a rule can become Zion. What it produces instead are fragile, passive-aggressive, guilt-ridden hypocrites whose greatest commandments, truly, are “Thou Shalt Fit In,” and “Don’t Not Fit In.” If a society is intended to participate in or become Zion, such rules must go.“By proving contraries,” Joseph said, “truth is made manifest.” But if you dwell behind the walls and gates of “Thou Shalt Fit In,” and “Don’t Not Fit In,” you will be damned, for no contraries will be permitted to be proved; they don’t fit in. You will either never hear the truth, or you will yourself persecute, cast out, stone, and slay them you are sent.Matthew 23:3434 ¶Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city.The commandments of God are not for us to enforce on one another, nor to build a hedge around to prevent any from transgressing them, but for us to discipline ourselves therewith.I would like to know if this understanding of the Golden Rule can be shown to be faulty (from scripture, or the words and actions of JS when he was president of the Church.) And even if you don't believe this brother actually exists, or is actually saying these things, we should still be able to discuss the teaching. Suppose someone is saying that keeping the Golden Rule means giving your last dollar to a heroine addict who explicitly asks you for drug money? That even if it was your son, it would be wrong for you to say "no," and to decide what was best for him. And that the Church has no authority to discipline anyone for merely teaching some false doctrine (as long as they're not trying to set up some other Church, or take Thomas Monson's place.) Would that teaching be true or false? I haven't read Denver Snuffer's books btw, and don't really know much about him, but I do know how most of these people feel about his excommunication. They feel it was illegal because (at least up until he was excommunicated) he wasn't trying to set up another church, or challenge Pres. Monson's position as president. He was (according to them) only sharing his beliefs, and his own spiritual experiences. To them, telling him to stop was unlawful (and paternalistic, and contrary to the Golden Rule.) That is why I've asked whether Joseph would have approved of disciplining someone for merely teaching false doctrine, and the consensus here seems to be that he wouldn't have. So maybe I'm all wrong about this? Maybe there's nothing wrong with this teaching? Edited May 9, 2015 by Investigating
rpn Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 You mean, other than the fact the "do unto others..." does not appear anywhere in the scriptures?
Investigating Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 You mean, other than the fact the "do unto others..." does not appear anywhere in the scriptures?I thought the idea of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you was in the sermon on the mount, the sermon on the plain, and 3rd Nephi (but I never thought it meant what I've seen some people say it means.) What are you saying?
Investigating Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 Moreover, you are straying from the topic in this thread. You originally asked "Would Joseph have been against excommunicating anyone for believing some false doctrine?"I should have said "for openly holding or teaching heterodox views." You also suggested that "the recent excommunications of Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, and others for holding heterodox views is a departure from the restored Gospel (as it was practised during Joseph Smith's lifetime.)".I didn't suggest it was a departure from the restored Gospel (as it was practised during Joseph Smith's lifetime), I asked if it was (because I have seen that suggested.)
smac97 Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) I should have said "for openly holding or teaching heterodox views." Okay. Here are my thoughts on that: First, I think there is a fairly significant difference between "holding" and "teaching" a belief about a point of doctrine. Second, not all heterodox viewpoints are created equal. Some points of doctrine are open to some fairly broad interpretation. Latter-day Saints hold all sorts of viewpoints about things like the scope of Noah's flood, evolution, and so on. I think about such things it's hard to claim there are orthodox/heterodox positions, largely because we presently lack sufficient light and knowledge to be able to definitively state the scope of the flood, or the role (or lack thereof) of evolution in the creative process and/or the development of man, and so on. Third, notwithstanding point no. 2 above, there are some beliefs, as publicly taught to others, that are susceptible to testability and being found incompatible with maintaining good standing in the Church. The Restored Gospel allows us a fair amount of flexibility of belief and conduct, but that flexibility is not unlimited. For example, Amasa Lyman, a prominent early leader of the Church, was excommunicated for repeatedly giving sermons "which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ" and for his association with apostates (Godbeites). So to your question about whether a person can be excommunicated for, as you put it, "openly holding or teaching heterodox views," the answer in Amasa Lyman's case was clearly "yes." I suppose we can now say the same about Denver Snuffer and John Dehlin. Fourth, we are repeatedly commanded to not preach or accept false doctrine:Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you: Deut. 4:2 . ( Deut. 12:32 ; Prov. 30:6 ; Rev. 22:18–19 . )How then comfort ye me in vain, seeing in your answers there remaineth falsehood? Job 21:34.Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad. Ezek. 13:22.If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Gal. 1:9.But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Pet. 2:1.Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark. 2 Nephi 28:9.Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up. 2 Nephi 28:12.And it came to pass that he began to preach among the people, and to declare unto them that there should be no Christ. And he preached many things which were flattering unto the people; and this he did that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ. Jac. 7:2.Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor. Alma 1:16.That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. Eph. 4:14.Fifth, preaching of false doctrine is not a whoopsy daisy. If continued in defiance of priesthood counsel, it amounts to apostasy. Sixth, to the extent "holding or teaching heterodox views" = preaching of false doctrine in continued defiance of priesthood counsel, that amounts to apostasy and requires disciplinary action. I didn't suggest it was a departure from the restored Gospel (as it was practised during Joseph Smith's lifetime), I asked if it was (because I have seen that suggested.) Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification. -Smac Edited May 10, 2015 by smac97 2
Investigating Posted May 10, 2015 Author Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) The Restored Gospel allows us a fair amount of flexibility of belief and conduct, but that flexibility is not unlimited. For example, Amasa Lyman, a prominent early leader of the Church, was excommunicated for repeatedly giving sermons "which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ" and for his association with apostates (Godbeites). So to your question about whether a person can be excommunicated for, as you put it, "openly holding or teaching heterodox views," the answer in Amasa Lyman's case was clearly "yes."Thank you. I followed the link, and read about Amasa Lyman. But that example would be more helpful if he had been exed in Kirtland or Nauvoo, instead of under Brigham Young. I get the impression some of these Snuffer people don't really believe Brigham was a prophet. Edited May 10, 2015 by Investigating
rodheadlee Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 I get the impression some of these Snuffer people don't really believe Brigham was a prophet.Why are you even debating them? Perhaps you should read Helaman 13? 24 Yea, wo unto this people, because of this time which has arrived, that ye do acast out the prophets, and do mock them, and cast stones at them, and do slay them, and do all manner of iniquity unto them, even as they did of old time. 25 And now when ye talk, ye say: If our days had been in the days of our afathers of old, we would not have bslain the prophets; we would not have stoned them, and cast them out. 2
Sleeper Cell Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 One claim I've seen repeated is that if a beggar who's holding a sign that says he needs money for beer, pot, heroine, or cocaine asks me for money, and I refuse to give it to him, I'm being paternalistic, judging, breaking the golden rule, and therefore sinning. I'm told that neither I, human parents, or God Himself has the right to decide what's best for anyone else. I thought the Golden rule was “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Not “do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” Wouldn’t the proper application of the Golden Rule in your example be: “I do not want anybody to give me money for heroin. Therefore I will not give anyone else money for heroin?” 2
Investigating Posted May 10, 2015 Author Posted May 10, 2015 I thought the Golden rule was “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Not “do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” Wouldn’t the proper application of the Golden Rule in your example be: “I do not want anybody to give me money for heroin. Therefore I will not give anyone else money for heroin?” I tried making that very point more than once, but the guy teaching this stuff insisted he never said the golden rule meant doing unto others"as they would have you do unto them," and charged me with "lying against him" every time I implied that he did. He also kept quoting a passage in Luke 6, where Jesus did say "give unto every man that asketh of thee." And he kept trying to make the point that if I were a heroine addict, I would want someone to give me money for heroine (and therefore, doing unto the addict as I would have him do unto me if our positions were truly reversed would involve giving him his heroine money.) That made no sense to me at first, but now I'm very confused.
Popular Post Calm Posted May 10, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 10, 2015 Sometimes something is confusing because it is nonsense no matter how much the person claims otherwise.You may be confused simply because what he is teaching makes no sense. 5
rodheadlee Posted May 10, 2015 Posted May 10, 2015 Sometimes something is confusing because it is nonsense no matter how much the person claims otherwise.You may be confused simply because what he is teaching makes no sense.I thought it was just me. I went to the website and just couldn't get what the hay they were trying to say.
sethpayne Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 I'm skeptical that the "faults" referenced in the Title Page amount to "false doctrine." To be honest, the suggestion reminds me of these verses. Nothing in the text seems to exclude false doctrine. Unless you believe that being sinful literally turns one's skin black is true doctrine.
Recommended Posts