How can the Church ever do enough?

[CV75]

On 3/8/2016 at 10:20 AM, Gray said:

It would be nice to have a stronger doctrinal framework that doesn't fly apart in the face of critical scholarship and anthropology. There is a lot of depth to the scriptures and I feel like we're missing most of it.

Do you mean, a stronger doctrinal framework than, “They were wrong before so they are wrong again,” and, “Some things have changed so this too will change according to my prognosis”?

The Gospel works on all levels, and everyone starts somewhere. But please offer an example of scriptural depth that we are missing.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Do you mean, a stronger doctrinal framework than, “They were wrong before so they are wrong again,” and, “Some things have changed so this too will change according to my prognosis”?

The Gospel works on all levels, and everyone starts somewhere. But please offer an example of scriptural depth that we are missing.

I mean having a stronger regard for the historical and textual context of ancient scripture, and an awareness of the limitations of scripture as a human product. 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I mean having a stronger regard for the historical and textual context of ancient scripture, and an awareness of the limitations of scripture as a human product. 

I find its limitations very limited.

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

I mean having a stronger regard for the historical and textual context of ancient scripture, and an awareness of the limitations of scripture as a human product. 

The key element of the Gospel is faith. You speak of it flying apart in the face of critical scholarship and anthropology, and of course it can. So even when we take the scriptures at their word, our conscience, thought and behavior are improved by the faith that is placed in them. Insight often follows. Faith is the only way you can use the scriptures to concern yourself with how to better treat your fellow beings. To use faith in this way, you must become as a little child and cast aside the entertainment of doubt that might arise from any contradicting critical scholarship and anthropology. Now if you are independent of the scriptures altogether, or cannot understand or have much use for them without a more literal historical and textual context, I’m not sure what depth you might be referring to when you say, "There is a lot of depth to the scriptures and I feel like we're missing most of it." Please offer an example of scriptural depth that we are missing.

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

I mean having a stronger regard for the historical and textual context of ancient scripture, and an awareness of the limitations of scripture as a human product. 

So, what  ...  teach documentary hypothesis in Sunbeams?

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So, what  ...  teach documentary hypothesis in Sunbeams?

That'd be quite a trick since virtually no LDS know what the DH is.  Bring it up to adults and they are like, "either this guy is completely nuts or he's a wolf among us.  Cast him aside, quick." 

[USU78]

Just now, stemelbow said:

That'd be quite a trick since virtually no LDS know what the DH is.  Bring it up to adults and they are like, "either this guy is completely nuts or he's a wolf among us.  Cast him aside, quick." 

Pretty much  ...  which demonstrates the ridiculousness of Gray's notion, even if we leave aside what might be the response to a Gospel Doctrine question's response that references GBH's talking about it in conference.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Pretty much  ...  which demonstrates the ridiculousness of Gray's notion, even if we leave aside what might be the response to a Gospel Doctrine question's response that references GBH's talking about it in conference.

I'm not sure what you mean.  But I think it appropriate, as Gray indicated, to allow and support actual scholarship that may help us in our quest to understand the scriptures.  As of now, it is really not allowed in a Gospel Doctrine setting, for instance, and as a result we are missing out a lot of the depth in scripture, a lot of depth in religious thought. 

We ought to be more willing and eager to find truth and then embrace it.

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what you mean.  But I think it appropriate, as Gray indicated, to allow and support actual scholarship that may help us in our quest to understand the scriptures.  As of now, it is really not allowed in a Gospel Doctrine setting, for instance, and as a result we are missing out a lot of the depth in scripture, a lot of depth in religious thought. 

We ought to be more willing and eager to find truth and then embrace it.

Sounds like a plea to actually get more, and not less, literal as a means to derive more spiritual depth, faith and spiritual application...

[consiglieri]

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 0:53 PM, Russell C McGregor said:

I know a Maori feminist socialist who thinks she knows better than the President of the Church. Will she do?

I know a Maori feminist socialist, too.

And she would be a distinct improvement as President of the Church.

[consiglieri]

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 0:53 PM, Russell C McGregor said:

Mind you, her level of self-esteem is such that she cannot consistently be called an atheist.

Glass houses . . .

[consiglieri]

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 0:32 PM, Rivers said:

We will need a half-Asian half-black gay transsexual atheist  feminist socialist to be the President of the church. That might do it.

How about anybody other than an old white guy from Utah?

That would be good for starters.

What does it say about an organization in this day and age whose poster boy among the top leadership consisting of aging white man is another aging white man--with a German accent?

[consiglieri]

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 3:02 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Let me guess: Does she have a blog?

No need to be so coy.

If we are talking about Gina Colvin, just say so.

And if we are talking about Gina Colvin, I might add that she speaks more truth in a single blog post than can be found in a year's subscription to The Ensign.

 

For example:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2015/11/something-broke-open-today/

 

[Guest]

On March 6, 2016 at 6:07 PM, consiglieri said:

Who is my neighbor?

Mr. Rogers

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

How about anybody other than an old white guy from Utah?

That would be good for starters.

What does it say about an organization in this day and age whose poster boy among the top leadership consisting of aging white man is another aging white man--with a German accent?

we are trying to heal the rift over World War 2. We will get to the rest later.

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

No need to be so coy.

If we are talking about Gina Colvin, just say so.

And if we are talking about Gina Colvin, I might add that she speaks more truth in a single blog post than can be found in a year's subscription to The Ensign.

 

For example:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2015/11/something-broke-open-today/

 

This is an excellent blog post.  Thank you for providing the link.  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

No need to be so coy.

If we are talking about Gina Colvin, just say so.

And if we are talking about Gina Colvin, I might add that she speaks more truth in a single blog post than can be found in a year's subscription to The Ensign.

 

For example:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2015/11/something-broke-open-today/

 

Few professing Mormons on the Internet (who don't hide under screen names) are more exasperating -- unless it's Jana Riess or Joanna Brooks.

Edited to add:

Or Runnells.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

After having read the contents of this thread, I come back to your opening post and provide a simple method to employ so as to readily obtain the answers to your question: All one needs to do is use the scriptures to inform the mind as to the kinds of changes the devil himself would like to see in the Church, in order to make it his own, and then you will find your answers. For example, as the polar opposite of God, a major goal of the devil must be the establishment of a regime of total sexual immorality. So as the adversary carefully leads the Church down to hell, one can logically anticipate the steps he will take on his sexual immorality agenda by determining where the Church is now and where he ultimately wants it to go. Therefore, one can logically conclude that after he has succeeded in making gay marriage a "sacrament" of the Church, the next step will likely be to sanctify polygamous gay marriages and polygamous bisexual marriages. And from there the process of sexual degeneracy will continue regressively downward until the Church arrives at a state of total sexual anarchy and chaos, a comdition where sexual morality will have been totally redefined. The devil isn't a half-measures kind of guy, but he will tolerate half-measures as a means to blind and deceive the people on the way to their total destruction.

In all things pertaining to Church and kingdom of God, the devil's endgame is the overthrow of all righteousness and the complete enslavement of the people. Therefore, his prime strategy is to create an illusion of freedom and liberation as he persuades the members to indulge in sin, even calling it righteousness, until the unwary have been grasped by the merciless shackles and chains of TOTAL enslavement to sin. This is the same method the devil employed to lure the Nephites into sin and degradation until they had fully ripened in iniquity; and as a consequence of their folly God utterly destroyed them from off the face of the earth, as the devil and his angels stood by laughing. Leaving the devil out of discussions, such as this one, is unwise.

Best post on the thread so far.

Quote

Leaving the devil out of discussions, such as this one, is unwise.

In fact, that's the very thing he will try to get people to do. "I am no devil, for this is none."

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

No need to be so coy.

If we are talking about Gina Colvin, just say so.

And if we are talking about Gina Colvin, I might add that she speaks more truth in a single blog post than can be found in a year's subscription to The Ensign.

 

For example:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2015/11/something-broke-open-today/

 

What a bunch of melodramatic drivel.

Edit: I do like that the first comment on the article is a call to conversion to Judaism.

Edited March 16, 2016 by The Nehor

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Sounds like a plea to actually get more, and not less, literal as a means to derive more spiritual depth, faith and spiritual application...

That'd be true if there were cogent arguments in favor of getting more literal, but there aren't.  More literal only works if there is reason to read it literal.  All too often it is more reasonable to read it as non-literal. 

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

What a bunch of melodramatic drivel.

Edit: I do like that the first comment on the article is a call to conversion to Judaism.

I was close to giving you a rep point in agreement then I realized you hadn't quoted Bobbieaware's post at all.  That was Scott, just above your's.

The all is well and we're better than everyone else blanket must be shed, I think, helping us to a place closer to what Gina describes. 

[stemelbow]

 

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Few professing Mormons on the Internet (who don't hide under screen names) are more exasperating -- unless it's Jana Riess or Joanna Brooks.

Edited to add:

Or Runnells.

I should have realized some of the most exasperating are the most exasperated.  I didn't think it that way, Scott.  Thanks for the heads up. 

[Gray]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I find its limitations very limited.

I'm not limited by that.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That'd be quite a trick since virtually no LDS know what the DH is.  Bring it up to adults and they are like, "either this guy is completely nuts or he's a wolf among us.  Cast him aside, quick." 

This is a great example. The documentary hypothesis should be integrated into the curriculum. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That'd be true if there were cogent arguments in favor of getting more literal, but there aren't.  More literal only works if there is reason to read it literal.  All too often it is more reasonable to read it as non-literal. 

Well, since scholarship (such as anthropological and other physical evidence of the historicity of scriptural events, persons and locales, etc. or a more accurate interpretation of the original meaning of the text) is by design a literal approach, to “allow and support actual scholarship” would be an injection of just that—more literalness, just of another kind. The translation by the believer into understanding and action is what counts.

Edited March 16, 2016 by CV75