Evolving Mormon Doctrine

[Deborah]

I don't agree with this at all.

 

Read Section 132 carefully for example. Plural marriage isn't even mentioned until way down in the chapter. Most of it is talking about sealings and how crucial they are. Note what the New and Everlasting Covenant is: "All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations...." The Law of Abraham (plural marriage) is part of the N&E Covenant but is not the covenant. That is why it is not the doctrine but is the practice which is only implemented when the Lord commands it in mortality and is allowed but only under the N&E Covenant.

[Darren10]

This is of course true, and is supported by multiple books of scripture, the temple ceremony, and multiple generations of latter-day Prophets.  Despite all of that, thanks to our modern sensibilities 84.26% agree that Mormons can believe in evolution.

 

So if Mormon doctrine can evolve enough to make room for organic evolution, why can’t it evolve in a way that makes room for same-sex families?  The change to the core doctrine to make room for evolution is by far the more drastic.

 

 

Assuming you are talking about cross species evolution, and with all due respect, nothing in the temple, scripture, nor "multiple generations of prophets", prohibit belief in evolution. Nothing in Mormon canon of doctrine has prohibited this. The topic can be elusive in details as even the First Presidency had to release at least a few clarifications on the matter until we have the current position that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is officially neutral on the subject of evolution and therefore, Latter-day Saints may believe in it or not. (And they could always believe in it or not). Just because certain LDS leaders did not believe in it and found evolution incompatible to LDS canon does not make it prohibitive to believe it is compatible. The only particular point on evolution the LDS church does officially believe is that regardless of how Adam and Eve, whether from a rapid creation of from cross species evolution, Adam was the first human male on earth and Eve the first human female on the earth. That they were created by divine power and for divine purposes: to gain eternal life or "becoming God" to use a classic Christian phrase.

[BlueDreams]

I actually don't think evolution is that far off from the common points about polygamy and the priesthood ban. As much as you're point to it having a very clear and definitive doctrinal stance in the church. It isn't and honestly never was. Here's an article on the varying stances and statements from the church about it. A line from it includes this: 

 

"As Evenson and Jeffery examined the history, it became obvious there was vast disagreement among some former church leaders about whether evolution played a role in the origin of man, Jeffery said."

 

The thing with all of these narratives there were always split discourse on the topic and within LDS doctrine and scriptures there was room for potentially the concluding policies....even when the more conservative narrative was winning out. Polygamy was a marital exception to the original order established by God (ie. monogamy as patterned by A+E) in scripture and in practice only a minority of people could/would practice it. You had the scriptures in Jacob condemning the practice most of the time. Etc. There was an established narrative to rely on to indicate that holding a differing view is acceptable (or at least feasible) in an LDS  context. Similarly, the priesthood ban from the beginning had a narrative that ran counter to the inevitable practice and the folk-doctrine that took hold. From the beginning the ideas were not 100% agreed upon. I'm reading Reeve's book on this (which has been both depressing and enlightening). During the 1852 period where the ban was most likely established Orson Pratt was quoted running directly counter to BY's views on the matter of blacks, curses, and the necessity for any form of servanthood because of it (which was the debate the the Utah Legislature were debating and that BY was in favor for...though holding a more moderate approach than what was in the South). Before this time, even BY had the opposite opinion....more in line with JS about curses, slavery, and their stance in the church presumably from these. Though much of this was forgotten as one view became predominate, the counter-narrative could still be found blatantly in both the BoM and New testament. And much of the counter narrative began to resurface in historical documents that conflicted with assumed truths (like JS never set a black man apart tot he priesthood and the ban was here from the beginnings of the restoration).

 

Likewise evolution isn't immediately doctrinally contradictory. It is, of course, to more scientifically conservative stock such as the mckonkie's you've quoted. But it doesn't take removal or drastic change in reading the scriptures or the temple to believe so, there are enough statements to allow one to believe so without really touching the said three pillar. Since I was 14 and was first presented with the basic gist of evolution, I could see that there really didn't need to be a conflict. I could believe in evolution and creation as discussing a similar event that neither give a full picture. There are already a narrative of symbolic language and symbolic timelines surrounding the 7 days. The varying accounts also show very distinctive orders and language to address them indicating a fluidity in the creation and fall story.   In other words there was already a space/narrative to allow for beliefs in a divine creation as well as evolution because the church narrative among leaders and scriptures allow for such. Even the new temple videos give a nod to scientific explanations to the creation of the earth by showing a more organic collection of unorganized matter that references the scientific assertion as to how the moon was made and solar systems are formed. The official physical position becomes in essense we don't know the exact way creation proceeded. What we do know is God is the author(s) of said creation, we are in a fallen state, and are in absolute need of atonement. The don't know, give space for assuming some form of evolution.

 

The problem I have with SSmarriage is that there isn't any said narrative. Marriage in all it's forms is still an event between men and women. Scriptures focus on said narrative and in many places, particularly modern highlight the abject necessity of male and female union. There isn't an Orson Pratt of today indicating this message is false. There are even a few scriptures that indicate it's not ok (or at least hasn't been by covenant people in the past). I know some would indicate the faults in these passages or extrapolating them for today...and I get that. The point isn't really that, it's just that there isn't a narrative loop hole or dearth for this to exist in our theology. Not one that I've seen or that has been all that convincing. It would entail a major remake of our idea or heaven, gender essentialist narrative, etc. Honestly I see more space for female priesthood ordination, and that's saying something since I don't think that's actually the direction the varying sources actually point to. Plue to get to said conclusion takes a bit of cherry picking IMHO, including removing some context to the quotes used to bolster ordination claims.

 

And maybe I just haven't spent enough time in this arena of theory and thought. But what I have seen has been scant and hardly the opening one would need to assume an eternal place for SSmarriage within an LDS eschatology.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Darren10]

Regarding same sex marriages / families, I fail to see exaltation in the end. Therefore, anything that prevents man and woman's exaltation is an "abomination" in God's eyes. Therefore, even with the Church's support for same sex relations such as a right to housing and setting a civil standard for discourse on the topic, I do not see the LDS Church officially endorsing same sex marriage so far as placing it on par with traditional marriage.

[Analytics]

Assuming you are talking about cross species evolution, and with all due respect, nothing in the temple, scripture, nor "multiple generations of prophets", prohibit belief in evolution. Nothing in Mormon canon of doctrine has prohibited this....

 

What is your thoughts on "The Three Pillars of Eternity" as taught by Bruce R. McConkie?  True doctrine?  False doctrine?  Opinion?  Speculation? 

 

The doctrine of the Fall, as understood by Elder McConkie, is clearly incompatible with the scientific theory of Organic Evolution. 

 

If the doctrine of the Fall can be reworked to make it compatible with evolution, it would be even easier to rework the doctrine of exaltation to make it compatible with same-sex marriage.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Analytics

[Darren10]

This really is something I wonder about.  What is the Plan of Salvation to you, if you believe in both Mormonism and evolution?  Was the Fall just a metaphor?  Was Bruce R. McConkie just confused to think it was literal?  If you pull out the Fall, does the atonement lose its meaning?  It seems that you don't need a literal Atonement to be ransomed from a metaphorical Fall.

 

I'm genuinely curious here.  When I was a believer, I thought that what McConkie teaches above was absolutely central to the gospel....

 

(snip)

 

My current understanding is that the Church no longer teaches this--not in the literal, fundamental way that Elder McConkie taught it.

 

Am I correct?  Has the doctrine on this basic point changed?

 

Here I fail to see how you've pointed out any conundrum with jaberwocky. I do however see a possible source for confusion in believing. I too grew up in the LDS Church for a while under the impression that what Bruce R. McConkie said or wrote was what the Church believed. I remember feeling confused trying to figure out how to "balance" what he said with what the Church has said. Then when I came ot a realization that not everything Elder McConkie said was Church doctrine I felt very alleviated. no more need to balance anything. I more fully realized that the Church teaches me to study things out in my mind and take my issues which include doubts and lack of understanding and misunderstandings to the Lord. This helped my feel and recognize the Holy Spirit better and to place my understanding, howbeit still an imperfect understanding, of the Church. Elder McConkie's work, Mormon Doctrine, is NOT "Mormon doctrine" but rather the understanding of Bruce. R McConkie's understanding of what Mormon doctrine is and teaches.

 

Seems like you went through a similar experience of confusion. I think when we leave an incorrect roadmap to people it's harder for them to find their way.

[Darren10]

What is your thoughts on "The Three Pillars of Eternity" as taught by Bruce R. McConkie?  True doctrine?  False doctrine?  Opinion?  Speculation? 

 

The doctrine of the Fall, as understood by Elder McConkie, is clearly incompatible with the scientific theory of Organic Evolution. 

 

If the doctrine of the Fall can be reworked to make it compatible with evolution, it would be even easier to rework the doctrine of exaltation to make it compatible with same-sex marriage.

 

I absolutely agree with the 'The Three pillars of Eternity' by Bruce R. McConkie as described in this thread. I also believe it does not matter one bit whether or not Elder McConkie believed in the compatibility of evolution to those three pillars. Whether or not Adam and Eve were suddenly created by God Himself or came to be from a single celled organism, they were still respectively the first human male and first human female created by divine power and for divine purposes.

 

Personally, while I do not find evolution as incompatible to the Creation as outlined in scripture and the temple, I do not believe in it but that's because I find the lack of evidence for it telling. I've also no problem with anyone who does believe in it. believing in it does not inherently deny God or His plan of salvation.

[Darren10]

If the doctrine of the Fall can be reworked to make it compatible with evolution, it would be even easier to rework the doctrine of exaltation to make it compatible with same-sex marriage.

 

Here I quite disagree. first off, the doctrines have never been "reworked". Like all doctrines, there are various levels of understanding by various people, even among living prophets, seers, and revelators. The doctrines of Creation have never been "reworked' but personal understanding of doctrines grow and therefore change.

 

As for same sex marriage, as I stated before, I find it incompatible to exaltation. Not only does it stand contrary to what marriage has always been, between man and woman, even in polygamous marriages, but there's mountains of traditional understanding, practices, and teachings which full acceptance of it as something equal to traditional marriage would need to be overcome. this is hardly true with evolution. Evolution simply needed clarification and it is really an open topic for belief or not. the doctrines of the divine origin of man are not so far as I understand but how man came to be is for we do not know the methodology God used to create man.

[Analytics]

I absolutely agree with the 'The Three pillars of Eternity' by Bruce R. McConkie as described in this thread. I also believe it does not matter one bit whether or not Elder McConkie believed in the compatibility of evolution to those three pillars. Whether or not Adam and Eve were suddenly created by God Himself or came to be from a single celled organism, they were still respectively the first human male and first human female created by divine power and for divine purposes.

 

Personally, while I do not find evolution as incompatible to the Creation as outlined in scripture and the temple, I do not believe in it but that's because I find the lack of evidence for it telling. I've also no problem with anyone who does believe in it. believing in it does not inherently deny God or His plan of salvation.

 

If it is fair to say that "the Three Pillars" are an integral part of Mormon doctrine, then Mormon doctrine teaches this: there are two types of human bodies: perfect bodies and fallen bodies.  The fall is what caused perfect bodies to turn into fallen bodies. 

 

Biology--including evolution--teaches us that life has been going on continuously for well over 3 billion years, that all life is related in a complex, interrelated, and evolving web.  It teaches us that humans are an intrinsic part of this; we don't have alien genes, we have earthling genes and are directly related to every other living thing on the planet.  It teaches us that the "fallen" aspects of life are intrinsic parts of life that have always been here; blood, disease, bacteria, viruses, aging, and all manner of genetic variations have always existed and always will exist.

 

Granted, a Mormon biologist can believe in Mormon Doctrine on Sunday and in Science on Monday to Friday, but that doesn't mean the two views of life are compatible.  People might be willing to sweep the inconsistencies under the rug and make vague insinuations that Bruce R. McConkie believed a lot of stuff that really wasn't doctrine, but again, that doesn't mean these views are compatible.

 

If there wasn't a literal, perfect, deathless creation followed by literal fall, then what of the atonement and resurrection?  Are those metaphorical too?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

If it is fair to say that "the Three Pillars" are an integral part of Mormon doctrine, then Mormon doctrine teaches this: there are two types of human bodies: perfect bodies and fallen bodies.  The fall is what caused perfect bodies to turn into fallen bodies. 

 

Biology--including evolution--teaches us that life has been going on continuously for well over 3 billion years, that all life is related in a complex, interrelated, and evolving web.  It teaches us that humans are an intrinsic part of this; we don't have alien genes, we have earthling genes and are directly related to every other living thing on the planet.  It teaches us that the "fallen" aspects of life are intrinsic parts of life that have always been here; blood, disease, bacteria, viruses, aging, and all manner of genetic variations have always existed and always will exist.

 

Granted, a Mormon biologist can believe in Mormon Doctrine on Sunday and in Science on Monday to Friday, but that doesn't mean the two views of life are compatible.  People might be willing to sweep the inconsistencies under the rug and make vague insinuations that Bruce R. McConkie believed a lot of stuff that really wasn't doctrine, but again, that doesn't mean these views are compatible.

 

If there wasn't a literal, perfect, deathless creation followed by literal fall, then what of the atonement and resurrection?  Are those metaphorical too?

Everything is metaphorical including science because it is symbolic- made up of words.

 

Even scientific "facts" are metaphors because words are not things.  "Theories" become "facts" because the symbols don't seem to change with further observation- we still find that the symbols and words work well in spite of new data and so they are regarded as "facts"

 

So what if the problem you raise about bodies "changing" from "perfect" to "fallen" - all descriptions- have nothing to do with bodies at all, but with our observations of them?

 

Of course no one has ever seen a "perfect" body, but no one has ever seen a "fallen" body either really- all we see are bodies.

 

The difference is in the religious interpretation.  Bodies are bodies, and as far as we theorize you are right- the evidence says they have been unchanged in degree in 3 billion years.

 

Homo sapiens has also been killing homo sapiens for millions of years, but at what point did killing another homo sapiens become "murder" where killing an ape was not?

 

The physical aspect- one body causing life to cease in another body goes back to one -celled animals consuming others.

 

Clearly I think even you would say that sometime in the evolution of culture and society, clubbing another homo sapiens went from "getting something to eat" to "cannibalism" and from something no more "immoral" than grabbing some fruit off a tree to "murder".

 

That is the way I see the "Fall".  The description of perceiving a body as "evil" or "fallen" made it so, just as perceiving the origin of species to be "caused by evolution" made it so.

 

Reality does not change- our perceptions of it do.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

[Analytics]

Everything is metaphorical including science because it is symbolic- made up of words.

 

Even scientific "facts" are metaphors because words are not things.  "Theories" become "facts" because the symbols don't seem to change with further observation- we still find that the symbols and words work well in spite of new data and so they are regarded as "facts"

 

So what if the problem you raise about bodies "changing" from "perfect" to "fallen" - all descriptions- have nothing to do with bodies at all, but with our observations of them?

 

Of course no one has ever seen a "perfect" body, but no one has ever seen a "fallen" body either really- all we see are bodies.

 

The difference is in the religious interpretation.  Bodies are bodies, and as far as we theorize you are right- the evidence says they have been unchanged in degree in 3 billion years.

 

Homo sapiens has also been killing homo sapiens for millions of years, but at what point did killing another homo sapiens become "murder" where killing an ape was not?

 

The physical aspect- one body causing life to cease in another body goes back to one -celled animals consuming others.

 

Clearly I think even you would say that sometime in the evolution of culture and society, clubbing another homo sapiens went from "getting something to eat" to "cannibalism" and from something no more "immoral" than grabbing some fruit off a tree to "murder".

 

That is the way I see the "Fall".  The description of perceiving a body as "evil" or "fallen" made it so, just as perceiving the origin of species to be "caused by evolution" made it so.

 

Reality does not change- our perceptions of it do.

 

That is an intriguing way of looking at things, and believe it or not isn't that different from the way I see things.  I have no doubt that the Church will make room for this type of belief, as long as you remain loyal to the hierarchy and don't make too many waves.  But if you take all of the other elements of the Plan and apply the same level of symbolic interpretation so that you get something that is consistent and makes sense, you are left with a symbolic savior dying for symbolic sins, who symbolically raised from the dead so that we may become symbolically saved.

 

It is actually a profound way of looking at things, but it does raise the question, how necessary is it to be literally subjugated to a church that is only symbolically true?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

And He saw that it was good and he defined it as good just as he "called" the darkness and the light the first "day".  And he saw that as "good", and so it was "good".

[Buckeye]

 

This is one of my faves. I first saw the clip (before seeing the movie) when some former members of my ward circulated it to an email group. These are some of the strongest members you could ever imagine. But one of their adult children had left the church (at least activity wise). The parents sent around this clip because their child had found it to be very meaningful and spark a continued hope that the gospel held some factual truth. For them it was a bridge to their child.

[Bobbieaware]

It would be interesting to see what kind of mass-resignation event would occur should the church reinstate polygamy. I'm hoping that day never comes.

According to LDS belief, it is the Lord who would reinstate plural marriage, not the Church per se.

As far as mass resignations are concerned, I believe there will be a great many more of such spectacles before the Lord returns. This is because there will be a large number of members who won"t be able to weather the coming storms of extremely negative publicity and bitter persecution. What we see happening now is only the beginning of sorrows and it will get much worse before it's over. But those who are able to keep their eyes fixed on Christ and successfully weather the coming storms will be crowned as kings and queens in the kingdom of God.

[mfbukowski]

That is an intriguing way of looking at things, and believe it or not isn't that different from the way I see things.  I have no doubt that the Church will make room for this type of belief, as long as you remain loyal to the hierarchy and don't make too many waves.  But if you take all of the other elements of the Plan and apply the same level of symbolic interpretation so that you get something that is consistent and makes sense, you are left with a symbolic savior dying for symbolic sins, who symbolically raised from the dead so that we may become symbolically saved.

 

It is actually a profound way of looking at things, but it does raise the question, how necessary is it to be literally subjugated to a church that is only symbolically true?

There is nothing BUT "symbolically true".

 

I hate to do this to you but I really do suggest you read this.  I wish I had created this view but I didn't.

 

Everyone's assignment, class  :  Compare and contrast these two views of reality- and see how LDS "symbolic reality" relates to contemporary philosophy.

Except for Jeremy, for whom it is compulsory.

 

From John Sorenson, impeccable LDS "credentials"

 

But honestly- if you really understand what he wrote there, he is endorsing very sophisticated philosophical notions like the deflationary theory of truth. I think most LDS have no clue of the implications of that.

That view is the only view that makes personal revelation as "logical" as science and is what I have been trying to get across on this board for years.

Post 4 above:

 

           I feel greatly privileged to work at understanding through those symbols by which truth is phrased among us.  This life of the mind or the spirit is blessed work; it is part of serving God with all one’s “heart, might, mind and strength,” and I commend it to all.  Simultaneously I commend charity for the views of others, even though this may require stressful discipline from us.

           But there is a lesson that I think should inform all discussions and uses of symbols.  I always had a warning for students entering my field, anthropology.  To encounter that field (or perhaps any disciplined field of study) is a liberating experience for the human mind, an opener to clarifying views, an aid to improvement in theory.  Only one must not believe that what is said in any field of secular thought or through the significations of its symbol is “TRUE”; none of it can ever be more than “true,” for it is only a human product and of a   limited purview.

 

That is a perfect statement of the "Deflationary Theory of Truth" which is incredibily difficult to explain to people not well aquainted with its basic concepts already.

 

 

 

There are many implications of a theory of this sort for philosophical debate about the nature of truth. Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Here's the good news: the homework is totally optional but compulsory for those who actually want to change their perception of these questions forever.

 

You want to know how Mormon Doctrine is evolving?

 

THIS is how it is evolving.

 

Truth is based on linguistic descriptions of our perceptions- there is nothing more.  That makes personal revelation as "true" as we individually think it is.

 

That's old stuff that goes back at least 150 years to William James and the boys, and even farther if you want to see it that way- back to the Romantics and even earlier.

 

No other theory of truth makes it possible to say "I know the church is true" and have it be a meaningful statement.

 

And nobody is "subjugated" to anything

Edited November 18, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That is an intriguing way of looking at things, and believe it or not isn't that different from the way I see things.  I have no doubt that the Church will make room for this type of belief, as long as you remain loyal to the hierarchy and don't make too many waves.  But if you take all of the other elements of the Plan and apply the same level of symbolic interpretation so that you get something that is consistent and makes sense, you are left with a symbolic savior dying for symbolic sins, who symbolically raised from the dead so that we may become symbolically saved.

 

It is actually a profound way of looking at things, but it does raise the question, how necessary is it to be literally subjugated to a church that is only symbolically true?

So were those events "historical"??

 

Sure, why not?

 

What is history if not HIS - story.  As opposed to someone else's story.

 

None of us were there.

 

And at some point "history" becomes a belief like religion- who knows what "really happened"- what the motivations and causes were?

All we have is someone's WORDS- symbolic interpretations of what they THINK "really happened".

 

I have no problem seeing the resurrection and crucifixion etc- for that matter the existence of Zarahemla- as religious interpretations of what really happened.

 

Just as good as anybody else's interpretation.- I wasn't there- were you?

 

Even if you went back in a time machine and saw the crucifixion you would see a man being crucified- the significance or lack thereof would be inside you- your interpretation of the "reality" just as evolution is an interpretation of "reality"

 

No difference.   Yes there is objective evidence for evolution but there is also objective evidence of what the BELIEF in Christianity does for people.

 

The BELIEF in evolution makes people's lives nice and neat. " No God, we have evidence that there is no God, Random chance over a zillion years produced everything"

 

There you have a nice believe pre-packaged and making the atheist's life nice and neat.  He is smarter than the dumb Christians who believe God did it all.

 

Baloney.  Both are complex explanations- symbols for "what really happened" which no one really knows. 

 

Take your pick.   My myth is some of theory A and some of theory B.  What the heck, why not?  It's as good as anything else out there. 

 

BELIEF makes the difference in your life- not "reality" because nobody knows what the heck "reality" IS!

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Hey man, I repped that post by cursor way before you. I was totally there before it was cool. 

[Deborah]

On this discussion of creation I think the temple presentation itself presents a clear picture of creation through plan and natural laws.

[mfbukowski]

Hey man, I repped that post by cursor way before you. I was totally there before it was cool. 

Harumph!!  

No seriously it took me a few days to get to it.  Amazing stuff- knocked my socks off that Sorenson would think that way!

Edited November 18, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

There is nothing BUT "symbolically true"....

 

I meant "literally true" in a symbolic sense.

 

My point is that when somebody says, "the Church is true", that can mean various things.  There are some ways that the Church could be "true" that make it vitally important to join and obey, and others ways of it being "true" that mean joining it and following it is totally optional.  Not all truths are compatible with each other.

 

If you doubt that, the next time you go to tithing settlement, show your bishop a copy of your tax return, and tell him, "But, the tax return is just symbolic.  The concept of increase and money is all symbolic.  Here is a pile of Monopoly money, which is also symbolic.  This Monopoly money symbolically meets my symbolic obligation to pay you 10% of my income.  So symbolically, I'm a full tithe payer, but since everything is symbolic anyway, suffice it to say I am a full tithe payer."

 

Go ahead and do that, and let me know if he gives you a temple recommend. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

On this discussion of creation I think the temple presentation itself presents a clear picture of creation through plan and natural laws.

i know, i was comparing that movie to the temple movie.  no comparison.

(no caps because I am whispering)    don't tell anyone.

[mfbukowski]

I meant "literally true" in a symbolic sense.

 

My point is that when somebody says, "the Church is true", that can mean various things.  There are some ways that the Church could be "true" that make it vitally important to join and obey, and others ways of it being "true" that mean joining it and following it is totally optional.  Not all truths are compatible with each other.

 

If you doubt that, the next time you go to tithing settlement, show your bishop a copy of your tax return, and tell him, "But, the tax return is just symbolic.  The concept of increase and money is all symbolic.  Here is a pile of Monopoly money, which is also symbolic.  This Monopoly money symbolically means my symbolic obligation to pay you 10% of my income.  So symbolically, I'm a full tithe payer, but since everything is symbolic anyway, suffice it to say I am a full tithe payer."

 

Go ahead and do that, and let me know if he gives you a temple recommend. 

What's that got to do with anything?

My tithing has nothing to do with the bishop- it is between God and me.

 

The bishop asks if I have paid a full tithe and I tell the truth.  God will judge me not the bishop.  I would not want to be in the position of lying to God.

 

Honestly I don't know where you get all this authoritarian stuff about the church.   You must have been raised in Utah.    You believe what you want to believe, tell the truth and if they want to kick you out that is their definitions vs yours.

 

I would be much more worried about not following my conscience and answering to God for that than some bishop.  Heck I used to be one myself.  Nobody asks for tax returns- it is a yes or a no, with you as the judge.  Ten percent of your "increase" between you and God.

 

My business is variable in income and expenses- and I don't know what my "increase" is until I run the books at the end of my tax year.  Then I make a check for ten percent of my increase.  If they don't like that, it's not God's church and the bishop is not God's representative.  I honestly would vote with my feet.

 

You define that and answer to God- nobody else.  Stand up and do what is right- don't worry about people- worry about what is right between you and God!!

 

And besides I am much more afraid of the IRS than I am the bishop!  If he wants a tax return I have no problem with that- he would probably give me a tithing refund!

Edited November 18, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I meant "literally true" in a symbolic sense.

Nobody seems to get this is for real.

 

"Literally true" is never literally true.  It can't be.  THAT is what no one gets.

 

Reality IS "virtual reality".  Some day that will be totally obvious to everyone.  You are the camera man/ animator and you are writing the script but it is all a VR game.

 

That's why VR is so popular and addictive.  For all practical purposes your brain thinks it IS "real" because to your brain it is!   And what else do you have?

 

And this is godhood- organizing your own world from matter unorganized.  We all do it but the Boss does it better. 

 

Think about it.  That is the only way one can logically see Joseph's vision as "real", but it was as real as anything because reality is what we make of it.

 

That is essentially why intellectually I am LDS

Edited November 18, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

!

Nobody seems to get this is for real.

 

"Literally true" is never literally true.  It can't be.  THAT is what no one gets.

 

It's for real all right, but only symbolically.  It's not for real in a literal sense.  It can't be.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Analytics