Does the Church Misrepresent Past Prophets?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I repeat: The "Mormon God" is God.

Okay..  One God for all us.  It would do well that all remembered that. It is hard to explain now why my God loves me and your God makes me a sinner.

[Jeanne]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So say I.

 

Then its true.

[juliann]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Here is the sentence quoted in the manual from the original sermon, and I include what Brigham Young said immediately afterward:

Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.

I will be glad to see the end of these manuals for more than one reason. But this particular instance isn't one of them. I see this as two distinct thoughts. The first can be true without any reliance on what follows....and vice versa. It stands on its own and is replicated in other teachings. The only thing at issue here is who HF is, not what he did...which is what the first statement addresses. So the paragraph break is meaningful in that sense. You are making a special rule for this particular instance. Scholarship wouldn't exist if there was a requirement that an author can't use a source unless everything in it agrees with the author's thesis. 

[Bobbieaware]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I dislike agreeing with Consig but I really dislike the President of the Church manuals. While there are some gems there there is a lot of pablum. They are filled with ellipses and watered down teachings taken in isolation even when they are not misleading and they are too often misleading. If I was in charge each week we would tackle a full sermon or talk given by the prophet instead of the silly topical chapters in which editors have to quote mine and shoehorn everything in. I would avoid Adam God sermons and stuff about blood atonement and the like but there are plenty of good meaty talks given by prophets to sink our teeth into that would not stir up controversy and would enlighten.

Then again I believe that if we had good teachers and good students we would use the scriptures and conference talks by apostles and not need manuals or anything else.

In consideration of your claim that the manuals of the teachings of the Church Presidents are so chock full of 'pablum,' as you so respectfully call it, using the recent Ezra Taft Benson manual, it would be interesting if you could provide 3 specific instances of the pablum of which you speak.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, jwhitlock said:

And here we have the summary of your agenda, which is to find any way - no matter how tenuous - to undermine the church and "prove" that it is false.

Sounds like those of similar mind are agreeing with you on this thread.

So let's be clear. Your accusation that the church purposely, willfully, and profusely misrepresents things is false. It's easy for enemies of the church, such as yourself, to pick out things like this and draw great swelling conclusions about how Heavenly Father would never do anything like that. It's also easy for people who enjoy shallow sound bites and don't particularly want to understand things beyond their own preconceived notions to agree with you.

Honestly i know you don't like Consig...or likely me, or any critic or those who offer challenging things about the church....wasn't it you who once chided me for using the term believer and told me it did not foster civil conversation because it was a simplistic label for diverse people....yet I see you lately using the term critic the same way.  But I digress..

I am actually curious as what your thoughts are on the subject in the OP of this thread.

thank you ahead of time.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I agree for the most part.  I would say we have good enough teachers and students to go ahead without all the manuals now. 

Depends on where you live, imo.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Okay..  One God for all us.  It would do well that all remembered that. It is hard to explain now why my God loves me and your God makes me a sinner.

We are all sinners -- and all beloved of God.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Okay..  One God for all us.  It would do well that all remembered that. It is hard to explain now why my God loves me and your God makes me a sinner.

It is very easy to explain.  God is who he is, just as we are.  What we understand of God and each other is what varies.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

 

Does this constitute an instance of the LDS Church misrepresenting the teachings of past prophets?

 

Yes, the Church misrepresents the teachings of past prophets.  They also correct them.  They also disavow them.  They also honor and revere them.   They also study them.  It's a case by case.

Faith and belief are intimately personal and any official stamp of approval doesn't change truth.  I believe what I believe regardless of what is taught by the Church.  When they coincide that's great, but not necessary.

What you are really asking is "does the Church INTENTIONALLY LIE about past prophetic teachings?"  That is what you really mean.  I think they downplay anything they aren't 100% certain of the truth concerning, and on occasion that downplaying and evasiveness has come across as a lie.  That's why faith is still needed.

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

So the members of the Correlation Committee are on the same level with Jesus?

I'd say the writers and editors of the Gospels are on the same level as the speakers in conference and the authors of manuals (which are vetted by a committee of apostles and seventies and then approved by the FP).  If Matthew wasn't shocked and astounded by the alterations to the Hebrew scriptures I don't see why manual preparers can't pick what is helpful and ellipse out what is not.  Now, of course, if they remove a "not" where one is indicated, I'd have a problem with that, but to leave out extended discussion of a marginally-related topic is something else.

Do you admit that the authors of the Gospels garbled the Hebrew scriptures in quoting Jesus.  (Once again, short odds that you will refuse to answer.)

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I agree for the most part.  I would say we have good enough teachers and students to go ahead without all the manuals now. 

I disagree but I think the manuals could be better.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Okay..  One God for all us.  It would do well that all remembered that. It is hard to explain now why my God loves me and your God makes me a sinner.

My God does both. My God is best.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

In consideration of your claim that the manuals of the teachings of the Church Presidents are so chock full of 'pablum,' as you so respectfully call it, using the recent Ezra Taft Benson manual, it would be interesting if you could provide 3 specific instances of the pablum of which you speak.

I could but that sounds like too much effort. Plus if I did it would lead to a meaningless tangent where we argue about whether it counts as pablum and everyone will be a lot dumber for having had the conversation. It is a sentiment I came to with some trepidation as I am usually pretty orthodox in supporting church functions, materials, and activities. It is not something that will be cured by you saying one instance of what I call pablum is actually a deep spiritual insight.

In any case the problem is going to go away soon. By my count we only Howard W. Hunter next year and President Hinckley the year after. If God takes President Monson home soon we might get one more (with the largest chapter about helping widows of course) but then we are out of prophets.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I could but that sounds like too much effort. Plus if I did it would lead to a meaningless tangent where we argue about whether it counts as pablum and everyone will be a lot dumber for having had the conversation. It is a sentiment I came to with some trepidation as I am usually pretty orthodox in supporting church functions, materials, and activities. It is not something that will be cured by you saying one instance of what I call pablum is actually a deep spiritual insight.

The lessons in the manuals are so primary they could be used to teach primary.  Any deep insights or extra information are completely dependent on the teachers of the classes and the extracurricular studies of the student.

 

 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is not self-evident that the quote in the manual is out of context, your matter-of-fact tone notwithstanding.

And the quotes with "references to polygamy" (reflecting conditions and circumstances at the time the statements were made) apply just as well to monogamous marriages in the 21st century as they did to marriages in the 19th century, even where plurality of wives was practiced.

I agree with you about the marriage quotes applying either way.   But then why purge the plural wives references?  Why not just leave them in?

[Jeanne]

52 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

My God does both. My God is best.

Uh.,Uh.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The lessons in the manuals are so primary they could be used to teach primary.  Any deep insights or extra information are completely dependent on the teachers of the classes and the extracurricular studies of the student.

I am a believer that the words of the prophets are best understood as part of the whole of what they are saying. Yes, putting a talk on plural marriage or blood atonement or whatever in would be needlessly controversial in a church class but most of the sermons of the prophets were not about those topics and taking a talk given by President Hunter and having a lesson around that would be much more fun and interesting then a bunch of mined quotes found via search engine to be fit into the topic of the week.

I say this having taught these lessons many times. It is hard to have a good discussion when you have two sentences and then move on to another two sentences that are largely unconnected. Don't even get me started on the "Suggestions for Study and Teaching".....(shudders)

[JLHPROF]

Just now, The Nehor said:

I am a believer that the words of the prophets are best understood as part of the whole of what they are saying. Yes, putting a talk on plural marriage or blood atonement or whatever in would be needlessly controversial in a church class but most of the sermons of the prophets were not about those topics and taking a talk given by President Hunter and having a lesson around that would be much more fun and interesting then a bunch of mined quotes found via search engine to be fit into the topic of the week.

I say this having taught these lessons many times. It is hard to have a good discussion when you have two sentences and then move on to another two sentences that are largely unconnected. Don't even get me started on the "Suggestions for Study and Teaching".....(shudders)

It's hard to have a good discussion at all in 45 mins, especially if you never deviate from the manual.  We have much better doctrinal discussions on the board.  (And I'm not talking about plural marriage or blood atonement either).

If I have to sit through one more lesson on "the gifts of the spirit" where the extent of the lesson is listing them off on the board and stating that everyone gets a gift, I may just become a foyer dweller.

There is SO much depth that could be discussed, even without resorting to social, political, or controversial topics.  But we stick to nothing but first principles approaches.

[Bobbieaware]

59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I could but that sounds like too much effort. Plus if I did it would lead to a meaningless tangent where we argue about whether it counts as pablum and everyone will be a lot dumber for having had the conversation. It is a sentiment I came to with some trepidation as I am usually pretty orthodox in supporting church functions, materials, and activities. It is not something that will be cured by you saying one instance of what I call pablum is actually a deep spiritual insight.

In any case the problem is going to go away soon. By my count we only Howard W. Hunter next year and President Hinckley the year after. If God takes President Monson home soon we might get one more (with the largest chapter about helping widows of course) but then we are out of prophets.

If you had fallen into my trap and responded, I was going to say the only time a Gospel principle moves into the pablum catagory, for any given individual, is when he or she perfectly lives that principle, which almost never happens.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

It's hard to have a good discussion at all in 45 mins, especially if you never deviate from the manual.  We have much better doctrinal discussions on the board.  (And I'm not talking about plural marriage or blood atonement either).

If I have to sit through one more lesson on "the gifts of the spirit" where the extent of the lesson is listing them off on the board and stating that everyone gets a gift, I may just become a foyer dweller.

There is SO much depth that could be discussed, even without resorting to social, political, or controversial topics.  But we stick to nothing but first principles approaches.

I remember I taught a lesson on Gifts of the Spirit in a YSA ward. We did list all the ones in scripture on the board and then examined each one in as much depth as we could. There are a lot. We got halfway through before I had to end the class due to time. We finished the next week.

[jwhitlock]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

It isn't about grinding axes.

It is about being able to look at the evidence dispassionately.

Not seen much evidence that you're dispassionate at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[jwhitlock]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Honestly i know you don't like Consig...or likely me, or any critic or those who offer challenging things about the church....wasn't it you who once chided me for using the term believer and told me it did not foster civil conversation because it was a simplistic label for diverse people....yet I see you lately using the term critic the same way.  But I digress..

I am actually curious as what your thoughts are on the subject in the OP of this thread.

thank you ahead of time.

 

I don't think that the OP was created in order to understand or to discuss. Offering challenging things about the church in order to understand is one thing, but that is not what consiglieri is doing here.

To him, it's just a stage for doing what I described.

[Teancum]

17 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

Not seen much evidence that you're dispassionate at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Isn't what you are doing really here and in your other post in this thread  an ad hominem attack on Consig?  You may call me biased but I find his posts relatively calm, reasonable and well thought out and I don't agree with all he posts.  

[jwhitlock]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Isn't what you are doing really here and in your other post in this thread  an ad hominem attack on Consig?  You may call me biased but I find his posts relatively calm, reasonable and well thought out and I don't agree with all he posts.  

I don't pretend to be dispassionate. Anyone who attacks or defends the church and claims they're being "dispassionate" is not telling the truth.

Otherwise "reasonable and well thought out" is in the eyes of the beholder - in this case, one who agrees with the anti-Mormon sentiments being posted.

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

I don't pretend to be dispassionate. Anyone who attacks or defends the church and claims they're being "dispassionate" is not telling the truth.

Otherwise "reasonable and well thought out" is in the eyes of the beholder - in this case, one who agrees with the anti-Mormon sentiments being posted.

You have yet to demonstrate what is anti Mormon about the OP and simply are offering ad hominems and trying to poison the well be calling Consig an anti Mormon.

Also I am happy you admit to not being dispassionate as to your posting style.   Personally I believe a good discussion requires to temper the passion.  I know when I don't that is when I post things I later wish I had not.  

Edited December 31, 2015 by Teancum