Warts And All

[BlueDreams]

And I believe this is where analogies go into the absurd.

 

But as to the questions about too many things on a shelf, of course you can have too much on a shelf. But my shelf can certainly handle 2-3 things that I pick up from time to time and reevaluate. At some point it may not even be on my shelf (one of them is off). Most stuff brought up, isn't even shelf-worthy to me. I think it still comes down to the level of importance we place something as. Let's take polygamy. I've heard several who struggle with this. Me? I find it interesting but I largely don't care about it. Sometimes I'll get curious and read a little here and there about it....but I largely don't care so it is like something just sitting on the ground.  MMM, BoA translation, BoM hat translations, the office of patriarch, etc goes in the same bucket for me. Others may find them "warts" or "shelf worthy"...they're not for me.

 

. It's not that these issues are more or less pertinent or that I'm flippantly pushing them aside. They just don't hold the same stature to what I do hold with faith and conviction. Reevaluating my faith would mean reorienting my spiritual priorities or cognitive concerns.

 

With luv,

BD

[volgadon]

Clever, except Elder Oaks admitted that the Church has entered into a "warts and all" phase of recording history.

Never mind, misread.

Edited November 28, 2015 by volgadon

[Robert F. Smith]

I am likewise confused about what you are asking. Are you troubled that Mormons are presented with warts in their history and are not losing faith? Do you feel it is because they aren't taking the said warts seriously enough, or are interpreting them erroneously? If that is the issue you have, might I ask where are the standards for how seriously one should take a historical wart, and what are the correct interpretations one should arrive at?

I tend to not look at Mormon history as having "warts and all". To me that seems to say that it is like a beautiful painting that upon close inspection has a few real ugly spots that must be overcome or understood so you can go on enjoying the painting as you initially did. I see Mormon history as being neither ugly nor beautiful, it just is, and you can never unsee the details once your eyes are opened to them. They become important parts of the whole.

Brilliant statement of what this thread is all about, even though some here just don't get it.

[filovirus]

There are some things that don't affect me as it does others. An example is race and the priesthood. That ban was lifted in 1978. I was a year-and-a-half years old on June 8th. To me, I feel more like the stripling warriors when it comes to the priesthood ban. It affected my parents, but not me. It is their burden to bear, not mine. Except for my very earliest year, all worthy males have always been able to hold the priesthood. However, learning from the history is always a good thing.

I am sure my generation will have others burdens. Maybe creating an overly rosy picture of church history is one of them. But again, the Doctrine of the atonement will always be what is important. History should never overshadow Christ. The church essays a definitely a good thing in my opinion.

[Rivers]

That shelf is only weak if you have things that are heavy to your soul on it.

Nothing in Church History, especially the history of God's servant Joseph Smith, is too heavy for my shelf.

Rather than a shelf, I like the analogy of a garden. You can put things there where they can grow and flourish. Maybe the things you put there could grow into something good.

[Calm]

 

 

I will rephrase the question. If you put too many things on the shelf, is there a risk that the shelf will collapse?

Depends on the person.  For some even the idea that a shelf might be needed will lead to them choosing the path of disbelief while others may have a huge amount of things they don't understand and feel uncomfortable about but because of one lifealtering confirmation that changed their heart, they maintain their path of faith and endure all things, including questions.  There there is a spread of those between these two as well as other variations (such as those who refuse to examine questions and those who question everything and not always in a productive way).

[The Nehor]

Clever, except Elder Oaks admitted that the Church has entered into a "warts and all" phase of recording history.

 

Yes, and he was using it in the correct sense of trying to include more of everything. Our critics tend to bring their microscopes in and stare at the warts and insist that their enlarged pictures be added at the expense of beauty. It is a question of emphasis.

[Thinking]

Yes, and he was using it in the correct sense of trying to include more of everything. Our critics tend to bring their microscopes in and stare at the warts and insist that their enlarged pictures be added at the expense of beauty. It is a question of emphasis.

 

Using your analogy of a picture, the critics are simply restoring the blemishes that were airbrushed out.

[ERayR]

Using your analogy of a picture, the critics are simply restoring the blemishes that were airbrushed out.

 

No they are expanding them to take over the whole picture.  They are making a pimple into a huge ulcer.

[canard78]

We are in a time when if someone can't find any warts they take their crayons and make some.

For example? Can you show an example of a critic who has presented no warts and only invented ones?

Is the CES Letter (for example) full only of invented warts or is it instead a combination of some warts with other "facial features" that are also being designated as ugly in the eye of the beholder?

[canard78]

No they are expanding them to take over the whole picture. They are making a pimple into a huge ulcer.

Reminds me of a Mormonad with an ice cream sundae and a dead fly. Seems the church is happy advising their members to take the approach of rejecting the beauty of a picture is it has one single pimple. Perhaps that's why members take a similar approach to the church when they start discovering it also has its own set of problematic pimples/warts/ulcers.

This is actually all a redundant analogy. The church isn't a face. The church is claiming something far more absolute than anything in a painting. The mess around the black ban, its introduction, its perpetuation and its justification is far more than a pimple. Instead the clear absense of revelation is simple proof that the claimed prophetic model of Mormonism simply doesn't work. That's not a pimple, that's a bullet through the heart of foundational Mormon claims.

[Rivers]

Reminds me of a Mormonad with an ice cream sundae and a dead fly. Seems the church is happy advising their members to take the approach of rejecting the beauty of a picture is it has one single pimple. Perhaps that's why members take a similar approach to the church when they start discovering it also has its own set of problematic pimples/warts/ulcers.

This is actually all a redundant analogy. The church isn't a face. The church is claiming something far more absolute than anything in a painting. The mess around the black ban, its introduction, its perpetuation and its justification is far more than a pimple. Instead the clear absense of revelation is simple proof that the claimed prophetic model of Mormonism simply doesn't work. That's not a pimple, that's a bullet through the heart of foundational Mormon claims.

Lack of revelation? Why about the one we got in June of 1978?

[provoman]

If warts are discomforting things, then it would seem that much of LDS apologetics is about discomforting things. And there is nothing wrong with looking into the context of things.

[JLHPROF]

Never mind...

Edited November 29, 2015 by JLHPROF

[canard78]

Lack of revelation? Why about the one we got in June of 1978?

 

What about it?

 

Let's review the whole sorry sequence of events.

 

Brigham Young introduced the ban, with not even a claim of having received revelation to do so. His justification for the ban was in the form of multiple racist, baseless statements, again, none of which were based on even claimed revelation.

 

John Taylor perpetuated the false idea that "the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness"

Wilford Woodruff spoke in General Conference about the "mark of blackness (that)... rested on Cain (and the) millions of descendants of Cain."

 

The prophets that followed maintained the ban and continued to teach false ideas about the origin and justification for the ban. 

 

By the time a hundred years of the ban had passed, the first presidency, under the prophet, George Albert Smith, were teaching that the ban was not a policy but a "direct commandment from the Lord." The 100-year memory hole created myth upon misconception. Do you believe that "When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking" (source)? 

 

Into the 1950s and 60s and Presidents and Apostles were teaching that the ban was a consequence of pre-mortal conduct. These are all men that are sustained as prophets, seers and revelators by the membership. For 120+ years there was a litany of error and false doctrine being taught about blacks, the ban and its origin and justifaction.

 

Finally after more than a century of God apparently being happy to allow his mouthpieces to teach false doctrine, you get to the question of 1978. 15 men sat in discussion for several days, after wrestling intellectually for much longer to find a resolution. If you've read the piece by Edward Kimball it's clear that there was a very long discussion and consideration and a requirement for all of them to be in full agreement before President Kimball was willing to finally move to have them pray about it. If the model for Mormon prophetic revelation is 100+ years of personal bias followed by agreement in principle by council that is ratified in prayer, then include me in the group who are entirely underwhelmed. I consider the leaders of Mormonism to be well-intentioned, well-meaning men who are trying to give good advice to people they sincerely care about, but the race ban, from start to its overdue 1978 finish is unequivocal evidence that they are no more inspired than the pope, the dalai lama or you and I.

That's why it's more than a wart.

[The Nehor]

Using your analogy of a picture, the critics are simply restoring the blemishes that were airbrushed out.

No, they restore the blemishes and blur away everything else so the blemishes are the only features left.

[The Nehor]

Reminds me of a Mormonad with an ice cream sundae and a dead fly. Seems the church is happy advising their members to take the approach of rejecting the beauty of a picture is it has one single pimple. Perhaps that's why members take a similar approach to the church when they start discovering it also has its own set of problematic pimples/warts/ulcers.

This is actually all a redundant analogy. The church isn't a face. The church is claiming something far more absolute than anything in a painting. The mess around the black ban, its introduction, its perpetuation and its justification is far more than a pimple. Instead the clear absense of revelation is simple proof that the claimed prophetic model of Mormonism simply doesn't work. That's not a pimple, that's a bullet through the heart of foundational Mormon claims.

The mormonad is about the obscene. That comparison is a very tortured one.

[canard78]

The mormonad is about the obscene. That comparison is a very tortured one.

Obscene, adjective, "offending against moral principles; repugnant."

It just so happens that "repugnant" is exactly how the first presidency described mixed race marriage in 1947, so the mormanad analogy seems even more appropriate in light of your comment.

[The Nehor]

Obscene, adjective, "offending against moral principles; repugnant."

It just so happens that "repugnant" is exactly how the first presidency described mixed race marriage in 1947, so the mormanad analogy seems even more appropriate in light of your comment.

So you are trying to tie together a light-hearted ad in a magazine for teenagers intended to be about media consumption to mixed race marriage to church history. I think this chain of reasoning is more warts then anything else.

[Kenngo1969]

Perhaps something I said a long time ago still applies.  Those who demand that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be more forthcoming about its history, doctrines, practices, and so forth won't be content to see the Church apply Clearasil to the zits.  They want it to set its face on fire.

[Robert F. Smith]

Reminds me of a Mormonad with an ice cream sundae and a dead fly. Seems the church is happy advising their members to take the approach of rejecting the beauty of a picture is it has one single pimple. Perhaps that's why members take a similar approach to the church when they start discovering it also has its own set of problematic pimples/warts/ulcers.

This is actually all a redundant analogy. The church isn't a face. The church is claiming something far more absolute than anything in a painting. The mess around the black ban, its introduction, its perpetuation and its justification is far more than a pimple. Instead the clear absense of revelation is simple proof that the claimed prophetic model of Mormonism simply doesn't work. That's not a pimple, that's a bullet through the heart of foundational Mormon claims.

A lot of hate and invective to support your straw man.  You ought to concentrate on dispassionate, factual analysis and allow the chips to fall where they may.  That might have some lasting meaning, and even gain you some respect, canard.

[Thinking]

Perhaps something I said a long time ago still applies.  Those who demand that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be more forthcoming about its history, doctrines, practices, and so forth won't be content to see the Church apply Clearasil to the zits.  They want it to set its face on fire.

 

Clearing up the zits is analogous to updating policy/doctrine. This doesn't mean that the claim can be made that the zits were never there.

[Russell C McGregor]

Clearing up the zits is analogous to updating policy/doctrine. This doesn't mean that the claim can be made that the zits were never there.

 

Interesting analogy.

 

Under that model, the anti-Mormon approach looks a lot like this:

 

"You are so blind and brainwashed as to think your wife is beautiful, but I've got a copy of her junior high yearbook, and she has zits!! Here are some full-colour, 8x10 blow-ups of them, just to prove it! You'll never look at her the same way again!!!"

[Thinking]

Interesting analogy.

 

Under that model, the anti-Mormon approach looks a lot like this:

 

"You are so blind and brainwashed as to think your wife is beautiful, but I've got a copy of her junior high yearbook, and she has zits!! Here are some full-colour, 8x10 blow-ups of them, just to prove it! You'll never look at her the same way again!!!"

 

Your example would be appropriate if my wife claimed to never have had zits.

[ERayR]

Your example would be appropriate if my wife claimed to never have had zits.

 

No it is very appropriate as she doesn't take out a full page ad to tell everybody she did.