Wishing for answers

[salgare]

Some used to give answer.  In 1957 if you wanted to known about the controversial Adam God doctrine ... well you could look here:

http://www.amazon.com/Answers-gospel-questions-classic-collection/dp/1573454400

[rpn]

"In an “Official Statement” from the First Presidency of the LDS Church, signed by Heber J. Grant, A.W. Ivins and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., it states: “It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text is given in publications circulated apparently by or at the instance of this organization (Fundamentalists). As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the Church contain no such a revelation; the archives contain no record of any such a revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such a revelation was ever given. From the personal knowledge of some of us, from the uniform and common recollection of the presiding quorums of the Church, from the absence in the Church archives of any evidence whatsoever justifying any belief that such a revelation was given, we are justified in affirming that no such a revelation exists.”"

The physical copy of the purported revelation was written by John Taylor's son (though some claim to have seen a photograph of writing that shows similarity to President Taylor's handwriting).

__________

The tithing on surplus issue is a plain misappropriation of directions given to those who had already consecrated all their property to the Lord/church.

_________

But I suspect OP is only looking for answers from church leaders.

Edited April 8, 2016 by rpn

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Your welcome to answer them but I wish the Brethren would answer these directly.

"God’s kingdom, where questions are honored" - Elder Oaks

HERE ARE MY 21 SINCERE QUESTIONS I HOPE THE BRETHREN WOULD HONOR BY ANSWERING EACH OF THEM AS THEY ARE.

These are sincere questions I have that would go a long way to resolve my doubt and even more my frustration.  It doesn't even matter what the answers are, only that my leaders be vulnerable enough to answer them without changing the questions or avoiding them.  I realize that it may seem as though some questions are duplicated but I assure you they are different to me.  Please honor that.  Brethren, I need you to answer these, please.  Gone are the days where you can change my question or deflect it to apologists or scholars, or avoid them altogether.  Even an "I don't know" would go really far to help me.

1.) Can one pay tithing in the present on surplus income and still be a temple worthy and faithful Latter-day Saint? especially in light of the historical and theological evidence that this was the way it was intended/understood?  My question here is based on what I percieve is your discomfort in giving people this option in your public discourse while seemingly approving the 10% of Gross definition in spite that history, scripture, and revelation seem to give more validity to Surplus or something like it.  

2.) Have all 15 prophets seers and revelators at any one time been united on doctrine only to be shown to be wrong? in light of the Race and Priesthood essay. While you seem to hint at this, you seem to steer clear of ever acknowledging it publicly.  It seems you like you are willing to acknowledge this on some surface level and history bears it out but you seem determined to not say this to general membership.

3.) Do you concede church stances on issues have likely contributed to youth suicide especially the Church stances on LGBT issues?

4.) How much money do Full time Seventies get paid.... what about Apostles?

5.) Did you sign a non-disclosure form when joining the seventy... What about the 12?

6.) Was the priesthood ban an error rooted in racism? Again you seem happy to have your words be ambiguous so both sides fight over their meaning... could you just tell us what the essay is saying?

7.) Did John Taylor receive a revelation from God in 1896 that we turn a blind eye to.... Why?  you agree it seems to be Christ speaking and that polygamy will never end and that it was the new and everlasting covenant?  As a followup - You do see how our fundamentalist Brothers and Sisters in the break off groups can validate their schism from this revelation right?

8.) Is it true that Brigham young taught that he believed his Adam God ideas were revelation from God and if he did, why do we now say he was wrong?  The quotes are there, it is just important to hear you acknowledge it due to the repercussion of disavowing an idea once taught by a prophet as revelation revealed from God.

9.) Is it true that while leaders claim to be scripture, that scripture can be wrong?

10.) Is it true that no explanation for the book of Abraham is without deep problems?

11.) Is it true that the strengthen members committee keeps records on dissenting members to assist or encourage local leaders to weed them out?  Do they have a file on me? Can I see it?

12.) Is it true that while Church Public Affairs insists that all discipline matters are handles locally that certain discipline cases have been encouraged by members of the 12 and seventy with pressure to go after certain individuals?

13.) To the top 15 men, have you seen Jesus face to face individually and collectively or one or the other?  If you have not seen him collectively How can you know when you are getting revelation from him and not your own biased prejudiced views like leaders in the past

14.) Why do you continue to pose hope as less than knowing when Alma 32 seems to value both as gifts to be honored by God?

15.) Did the brethren approve/ know / authorize shock treatment to the genitals to "cure" gays at BYU?  Because we can no longer debate if this was done.  It was.  You know that right?

16.) Why do you tell us we can trust you as having attained the mind and will of God when all 15 of you are united when that has seemingly failed in the past and present leaders among you admit as much in the Race essay that approved by the 1st presidency on LDS.ORG

17) Can you help us understand how the top 15 under George Albert Smith were unitedly wrong about Doctrine that is today disavowed theories but in the next breath assure us that the current top 15 are absolutely right on the doctrine of LGBT members?

18.) Why on one hand do we declare that Joseph Smith said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations" as if that shows the revelation of today's leaders can be trusted and on the other hand we have set aside several revelations from prophets as being understood today as not true? (Adam God, John Taylor 1886 revelation, and others)

19.) Why do you insist on our not trusting the internet for answers to our questions when you either change our questions or avoid answering them altogether?  In other words why say gone are the days teachers can avoid the tough questions of students but that is exactly what you do?

20.) Why do you not speak up in General Conference and tell our gay youth not to hurt themselves?

21.) How are we to trust our experiences with the spirit when those of other faiths have the same kind of experiences giving them testimony of their beliefs which contradict ours?  Can you validate that others seem to have the exact same experiences about contradicting beliefs?  Can you validate that others outside our faith seemingly feel the holy ghost as strong as those in our faith who have "The Gift of the Holy Ghost"

22.) Was it true that Joseph's treasure digging and mystical practices go much deeper than he let on?  can you truly grasp why stuff like this disturbs peoples faith?

23.) Was there ever a revelation from Christ to cease the participation of the sisters in blessings? If so where can I find it?

 
Honestly acknowledge your questions and your concerns - Elder Holland
 
 ***

What questions do you have that you wish would be honored?

My questions have basically always dealt with understanding the scriptures. I accept that the leadership has faults, I leave it to our Savior to deal with.

1. Under the Mosaic law, tithing was on our "increase." My income each year is my increase - not my surplus. Others who choose to tithe only on their surplus will have to deal with God who knows who is robbing Him of their tithes and offerings.

Malachi 3:8 & 3 Nephi 24:8
8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
Everything I have is the Lord's which He has given me. The church was not able to live the law of consecration in the United Order, and if it is now having trouble with a simple law of tithe....
2.) I rather believe that the priesthood ban on Africans was an exercise of the president's key. And rather than trying to put all the blame on the leaders, perhaps the membership should take a closer look at why Utah adopted a law allowing slavery - I believe it is revealing of a membership which didn't want to be persecuted with the blacks anymore as they were in Missouri. If the membership wasn't ready for it, the President didn't grant it at the time.

3.) Do you want the church to spend tithe money on a study to determine whether those unwilling to follow gospel laws commit more suicide? C'mon

4.) It has been my impression that the church leadership is not on the church payroll, although their expenses get paid. While I do not have first hand knowledge, I have read reports that the church does own residential accomodations which have been used in the past which can amount to receiving an income according to the US tax code. Whether a follower should allow such to influence his testimony in the gospel is a different issue.

5.) Where does this idea arise? I have no knowledge of it.

6.) ditto 2

7.) There is no covenant of polygamy - only marriage. See D&C 132

8.) Adam I am sure is Elohim, as I believe many of us aspire to be in the house of Elohim. He is also our earthly father in the covenant in the sense that Joseph Smith is although Adam was the first to introduce the word and covenant on the behalf of men.

9.) leaders do not claim to be scripture. They claim that things said inspired by God are scripture. How this may correlate to Correlation Committees etc I believe can be a different issue. The next time I hear one say the Spirit told me to say this, my ears will perk up. However, I believe the heavens have been silent to them - it being the start of the 7th seal. 

10.) no. Emma revealed that the BoA came from a different scroll than we have or than the facsimiles came from. The BOA even refers to these facsimiles as being different or referred to by the BOA.

11.) have no idea. Probably speculative.

12.) possibly in the case of high profile suspected polygamists, etc. unknown

13.) loaded question which shows a bias

14.) not sure I even understand this question.

15.) For this to be done without the consent of the subject would violate the Dr-patient relationship and the law. Dubious. Who alleges this?

16.) restated question from 2 and 6 imho included for dramatic purposes

17) Specifically what doctrine/s under George Albert Smith?

18.) If leaders are imperfect, it doesn't make the gospel untrue.

19.) The internet is not always correct - didn't you know that?

20.) I am sure they don't want any youth to hurt themselves.

21.) How are we to trust our experiences with the spirit when those of other faiths have the same kind of experiences giving them testimony of their beliefs which contradict ours?  Can you validate that others seem to have the exact same experiences about contradicting beliefs?  

I believe the spirit does speak to other followers. D and C says His church is those who repent. Can those of other sects repent? I myself heard the Lord while I was a baptist. That doesn't make the baptist church His authorized earthly church.

22.) Most of these allegations arise from the period after Joseph's brother died and the family fell on hard times and lost their farm. I too may have been tempted to believe I could find treasure too under those circumstances. I feel it was a time of trial for Joseph's faith. BTW Joseph never claimed to be perfect.

23.) Are the sisters excluded from blessings? If so, where can I find it?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:
As I read through this list of loaded / compound / vague / previously-answered / laundry-list-of-complaints-and-criticisms-dressed-up-as-"questions" / predicated-on-unproven-assumptions / unfair / inaccurate / lacking-in-good-faith-and-good-will / hostile-to-the-Church-and-agenda-driven-rather-than-truth-seeking questions, a few scriptures came to mind (more than "a few," I guess):

"And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness ... For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off ... That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought."  (Isaiah 29:18, 20-21)
***  
With respect, I do not think such elements exist in grievances-dressed-up-as-"questions" laundry lists like we see in the OP.

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you saying the president is the man reproving from the gate? I think it would be more appropriate to bold "all that watch for iniquity are cut off."  

[salgare]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

 "For instance no amount of prayer and scripture study will tell me how........"

Exactly....You have the answer right there, no amount of prayers, pleadings, meditations will be answered, I might sound a little callous but after 6 decades of life experience  & seeing nothing in return entitles me being so..... Your questions at large will not be answered, they don't have to, Church is a private institution and does not make decisions with the guidance of it's members, (they are answerable only to God).

should this not be a red flag?

[consiglieri]

I never cease to be amazed how many otherwise intelligent Mormons will defend the refusal of their leaders to be transparent in answering simple questions.

There may be innocent enough answers to these questions, but the reticence to address them suggests otherwise.

Rarely do people hide what is innocent.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Your welcome to answer them but I wish the Brethren would answer these directly.

OK.

1.) Can one pay tithing in the present on surplus income and still be a temple worthy and faithful Latter-day Saint? especially in light of the historical and theological evidence that this was the way it was intended/understood?  My question here is based on what I percieve is your discomfort in giving people this option in your public discourse while seemingly approving the 10% of Gross definition in spite that history, scripture, and revelation seem to give more validity to Surplus or something like it.

One can pay whatever one considers an honest tithe.  And then answer that they pay an honest tithe for a recommend.

2.) Have all 15 prophets seers and revelators at any one time been united on doctrine only to be shown to be wrong? in light of the Race and Priesthood essay. While you seem to hint at this, you seem to steer clear of ever acknowledging it publicly.  It seems you like you are willing to acknowledge this on some surface level and history bears it out but you seem determined to not say this to general membership.

A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.  Even a group of prophets can be wrong if not inspired.

3.) Do you concede church stances on issues have likely contributed to youth suicide especially the Church stances on LGBT issues?

Contributed is not precise.  Laying suicide at the foot of the Church is victim mentality.

4.) How much money do Full time Seventies get paid.... what about Apostles?

Who cares?  It's not our business at all.

5.) Did you sign a non-disclosure form when joining the seventy... What about the 12?

Confidentiality is a HUGE part of the gospel - just check the temple covenants.  Who cares if there is a legal form too?

6.) Was the priesthood ban an error rooted in racism? Again you seem happy to have your words be ambiguous so both sides fight over their meaning... could you just tell us what the essay is saying?

The source of the ban is unknown.  Doctrines were taught and later disavowed.

7.) Did John Taylor receive a revelation from God in 1896 that we turn a blind eye to.... Why?  you agree it seems to be Christ speaking and that polygamy will never end and that it was the new and everlasting covenant?  As a followup - You do see how our fundamentalist Brothers and Sisters in the break off groups can validate their schism from this revelation right?

Yes, there was a revelation in 1886 that was never canonized and we choose to ignore.  There was also a revelation after that that led to the writing of the manifesto.

8.) Is it true that Brigham young taught that he believed his Adam God ideas were revelation from God and if he did, why do we now say he was wrong?  The quotes are there, it is just important to hear you acknowledge it due to the repercussion of disavowing an idea once taught by a prophet as revelation revealed from God.

Yes, Brigham taught both that he received Adam-God by revelation AND that some of the principles were taught him by Joseph.
We say he was wrong either because we received new light or because it's too controversial a teaching to accept.

9.) Is it true that while leaders claim to be scripture, that scripture can be wrong?

Nothing is infallible - not scripture, not man.  Only God is infallible.  So those times that man and scripture accurately reflect God are infallible.

10.) Is it true that no explanation for the book of Abraham is without deep problems?

No.  The faith explanation has no problem.

11.) Is it true that the strengthen members committee keeps records on dissenting members to assist or encourage local leaders to weed them out?  Do they have a file on me? Can I see it?

Probably.  Christ knew about Judas in advance.

12.) Is it true that while Church Public Affairs insists that all discipline matters are handles locally that certain discipline cases have been encouraged by members of the 12 and seventy with pressure to go after certain individuals?

I think any judge in Israel has the right to practice the responsibilities of that calling.  That includes our leaders.

13.) To the top 15 men, have you seen Jesus face to face individually and collectively or one or the other?  If you have not seen him collectively How can you know when you are getting revelation from him and not your own biased prejudiced views like leaders in the past

If they saw Christ personally (ie Calling and Election) that is nobody's business
If they saw Christ administratively (ie direction for the Church) I am sure the instruction was executed.
Most revelations do not include an accompanying vision - even for Joseph Smith.

14.) Why do you continue to pose hope as less than knowing when Alma 32 seems to value both as gifts to be honored by God?

Sorry - you've got me on this one.  I have no idea what you are referring to.

15.) Did the brethren approve/ know / authorize shock treatment to the genitals to "cure" gays at BYU?  Because we can no longer debate if this was done.  It was.  You know that right?

If such experiments were done they would be wrong and a clear example of limited light that was later corrected.

16.) Why do you tell us we can trust you as having attained the mind and will of God when all 15 of you are united when that has seemingly failed in the past and present leaders among you admit as much in the Race essay that approved by the 1st presidency on LDS.ORG

Faith and stewardship principles.  Either you believe in the rights granted to those holding that priesthood office or you don't.  And either you recognize that there is only ONE man authorized to receive the mind and will of God or you don't.

17) Can you help us understand how the top 15 under George Albert Smith were unitedly wrong about Doctrine that is today disavowed theories but in the next breath assure us that the current top 15 are absolutely right on the doctrine of LGBT members?

You do realize you are asking the same question over and over in different forms and angles right?  The answers are still the same.
As for LGBT - not even close to the same thing as race.  The sin is in the action and the actions are made by choice.

18.) Why on one hand do we declare that Joseph Smith said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations" as if that shows the revelation of today's leaders can be trusted and on the other hand we have set aside several revelations from prophets as being understood today as not true? (Adam God, John Taylor 1886 revelation, and others)

Good question.  Perhaps all recorded revelation is true.  Which would mean a move further away from what progressives want.  I'm good with that.

19.) Why do you insist on our not trusting the internet for answers to our questions when you either change our questions or avoid answering them altogether?  In other words why say gone are the days teachers can avoid the tough questions of students but that is exactly what you do?

Because the internet is full of crap and misinterpretation.  While the "facts" may be more available they are usually surrounded with false ideas.
This board and this post prove that perfectly.

20.) Why do you not speak up in General Conference and tell our gay youth not to hurt themselves?

They shouldn't have to.  If someone is determined to hurt themselves that is outside leaders control.  The authorities are repeatedly encouraging those with weaknesses and reminding them that God loves them.

21.) How are we to trust our experiences with the spirit when those of other faiths have the same kind of experiences giving them testimony of their beliefs which contradict ours?  Can you validate that others seem to have the exact same experiences about contradicting beliefs?  Can you validate that others outside our faith seemingly feel the holy ghost as strong as those in our faith who have "The Gift of the Holy Ghost"

The Holy Ghost is a revelator.  If the revelation received and thought to be from the Holy Ghost contradicts previous revelation it is false.  Not all witnesses of the spirit actually come from the spirit, and an examination of the principles of revelation is useful in detecting the false ones from the true ones.

22.) Was it true that Joseph's treasure digging and mystical practices go much deeper than he let on?  can you truly grasp why stuff like this disturbs peoples faith?

Because people are always complaining things make them uncomfortable.  Sometimes that's the point.  So what if Joseph practiced early American folk magic.  It probably gave him a more open mind than the stuffy sectarian ministers.

23.) Was there ever a revelation from Christ to cease the participation of the sisters in blessings? If so where can I find it?

Not a canonized one, but they were never permitted to use priesthood authority.  I don't see why they still can't give blessings of faith.  Plenty of examples of them doing just that, even in modern days.

 

[salgare]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

As Kuhn observes, paradigm choice (and religion is clearly a paradigm choice) always involves deciding which paradigm is "better" which is a value-based choice, by definition, not solely based on evidence and logic, and always involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved."  And personal values always show up there as well.

So it seems to me that what is important is the perspective we use to decide "which problems are most significant to have solved?"  that is, which questions to spend our energy on. 

Nibley talked on "The Terrible Questions."

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1123&index=11

FWIW

Kevin Christensen, who quite likes the answers he has to the Terrible Questions.

Canonsburg, PA

I've never followed you, nor read any of your works, so it is in ignorance that every time I see a name with the likes of Robert or you quoting Khun I'm somewhat shocked.  I was surprised that Interpreter was willing to publish Mark's review of Given's book.  My assumptions have been that FairMormon would be very conservative and orthodox, very old school knowledgeable, correlation supportive, but nuanced, not so much??????

I suppose the writing is on the wall and Mormon apologetics are willing to lead the charge.

[hope_for_things]

I love questions.  Questions are more important than answers.  The brethren can give answers to these questions, and their answers will reflect their opinions as they exist today, but not all the brethren agree or ever will.  The pure mind and will of God is entirely unknowable.  Okay, so now I’ll go through and comment on some of your questions, because this is kinda fun. 

 

 

1  Yes, you can pay tithing on whatever you want to, to whoever you want to.  Tithing is personally defined however you want to define it. 

2     Yes, Priesthood ban is one example, but there are many others.  Assume they are wrong today on the LGBT policy and a multitude of other issues as well.  Humans get things wrong, and frequently.  It would be nice if it were stated often by current leaders, but they fear this would undermine their authority. 

3     Yes, they should take responsibility for the consequences of policies like the LGBT one.  It has real negative consequences on people.

4     Financial transparency is needed, but I’m more interested in overall financial transparency organizationally, than in the $$ they give as salary to GAs.

5     Probably, this is common in corporate America, and the church is a part of it.

6     Yes, racist policy, I think the essay pretty much admits this already.

7     Taylor claimed revelation, so did Joseph and others.  What is revelation?  Was it from God?  You be the judge, how can we know what’s from God and what’s from man, and what is a mixture of the two? 

8     Yes, Brigham taught Adam God as inspired truth from God.  Current leaders disagree with prior leaders on a multitude of issues, our doctrine has changed and will continue to change as culture and understandings change.  Change is constant. 

9     Scripture is wrong and right.  It’s just a bunch of opinions written by a multitude of authors.  That we consider it sacred doesn’t mean it isn’t also erroneous. 

10   Yes, BoA is a problem, we should consider de-canonizing it. 

11  Probably they have a file on you.

12 Discipline is handled locally, but at times encouraged by the central church, it’s a combination of the two.

13.   I don’t believe any of them have seen Jesus face to face, maybe in a vision/dream like state, but that is my belief.  Everyone who has ever received “revelation” has it filtered through their own biases and judgments. 

14.   Some do, and some don’t, both are valid perspectives.

15.   Who knew, and when did they know it.  I wouldn’t be surprised if it was known and or approved by some members of the leadership.

16.   The pure mind and will of God is UNKNOWABLE!

17.   Current leaders will be wrong on many issues, as stated above.

18.   Contradictory statements is part of the human program.

19.   They are scared of the internet on one hand, but use the internet on the other, another tension.

20.   They are naïve to the real consequences of the policy.  They ignore the evidence and don’t want to think about it.

21.   There is no universally true religion that trumps all others.  Sorry….

22.   Yes, magical world view plays a big role in the foundations of this church and is confusing to the average 21^st century person.

23.   No specific revelation is claimed to my knowledge.

Edited April 8, 2016 by hope_for_things

[Duncan]

43 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

It would help me regain trust in the authorized institution of the Lord.  No whether they did it or not but whether they are ready to own the truth of said behaviors and experiences.

BYU= Church?! you're best bet would be to ask someone who was involved in the BYU Pysch dept. in the '60's or a participant but the Twelve Apostles weren't even remotely connected to anything like that. I would trust the ordinances and whether or not I was repenting. I was always taught that asking someone how much money they make is private! but maybe others are different?

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

One of my main questions right now is...

Is it possible we don't have a perfect understanding of God's mind, will, and processes? If it's possible we don't understand perfectly, why are definitive statements made that imply we know/understand things as they will be eternally?

Example- What is the role of homosexuals in God's plan of happiness? You imply that gays can't eternally procreate and therefore shouldn't marry or have families, but are eternal spirits procreated in the same way physical bodies are? If so, is there a source for a revelation? Or is it possible we don't understand God and his processes for procreating/organizing spirits from eternal intelligence? If we don't know for sure, couldn't we allow the possibility that gays have an eternal role in the plan of happiness, just as they are?

It's not possible that we have a perfect understanding of God's mind, or ever will for that matter.  Show me any evidence that anyone in history has ever had a perfect understanding of God's mind, it's not possible.  I guess this is the Deist in me coming out today.  :-)  

[Jeanne]

30 minutes ago, salgare said:

should this not be a red flag?

My questions were always answered to study and pray..so I agree..red flag?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

BYU= Church?!

Since 1939 BYU's Board of Trustees has been chaired by the President of the Church with the remainder of the board members currently as follows:

Henry B. Eyring
Dieter F. Uchtdorf
Dallin H. Oaks
Jeffrey R. Holland
Donald L. Hallstrom
Linda K. Burton
Bonnie L. Oscarson

 

[salgare]

56 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

It would help me regain trust in the authorized institution of the Lord.  No whether they did it or not but whether they are ready to own the truth of said behaviors and experiences.

Sorry Bill, The public via news interview has been informed that the Church does not seek apologies nor give them.  Oh what a tangled web we weave ... its just too tangled of a mess at this point to address it.

The Dollar Auction comes to mind. 

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mpugh/Teaching/Sci199_03/dollar_auction_1.pdf

 

[Mystery Meat]

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

you misunderstand the purpose of my questions. For instance no amount of prayer and scripture study will tell me how much income a apostle gets.  Only they can answer that.  no amount of prayer and scripture study can tell me if they as a group comprehend the paradoxes and contradictions of what they teach or of our history and if they fully validate the repercussions of where those issues lead once you acknowledge them.  If they answered these questions, the entire way general membership framed "What is the Church"  What is my testimony" and " What is a prophet and what should I expect and not expect from him and other leaders" would have to shift dramatically.

I am sorry, but no it wouldn't. It only changes if you think it does.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

Could you please show me where the Church has answered these formally?  

For a list that long? No. I didn't even read it all. I don't find laundry lists to be helpful in the least....it ensures that there will not be adequate answers, which leads me to wonder if that is the point of not taking it one by one.

The first tithing question has been answered over and over and over and over. Pay whatever the heck you want. Aside from an occasional wingnut bishop, nobody even cares. My question is why aren't answers like these adequate? Elder Oaks said it.....and it has been said quite recently that the church is going to teach the ideal, the rule. We know the current tithing rule. They aren't going to change that or give history lessons.  Oaks said that if you are an exception to that rule, work it out to your satisfaction not some leader's. That is a bad paraphrase. But that is why I just get bored with laundry lists, especially when they begin with questions like this one. 

Elder Ballard just told us in the CES address that he goes to historians when he has historical questions. Why isn't that that the answer to your historical questions? I truly don't get this. It is one thing to have questions and concerns. I have plenty, especially when it comes to women, but it would never occur to me to ask an untrained ecclesiastical leader to give me a history lesson or come to a conclusion that requires a  trained historian with access to a lot of documents?

So what would it look like if you simplified those questions, changed the tone, asked the right people, and accepted the responses even though you don't like what you hear? Isn't that the ultimate question? 

[Buckeye]

Hey DB,

I don't have time at the moment to address your questions, but you wouldn't be surprised to know that I share many of your concerns. I think you also know that answers to these questions are very unlikely to come from anyone in authority. The church, as an institution, is increasingly willing to "put all the facts out there," but I don't expect it will provide answers to the tough questions, particularly when the answers are not faith promoting. I too often wish that it were otherwise, but I'm choosing to base my relationship with the church on other (positive) issues because, frankly, there's no other way for me. 

We miss you here in O-H-I-O. I hope life is good for your family in Utah. I'm sure that you're helping many members there just as you did here. Unfortunately, I think the old maxim about marriage is going to apply to issues such as the many you raise in your OP: "you can be right or you can be happy." I hope you choose to be happy. Don't capitulate on our church errors. But don't dwell too much on them either.

[Mystery Meat]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

The brethren are not the ones you should be seeking your answers from. Church members rely way too much on the 15 to answer questions in there hearts. But when you go to God for those answers you also have to be prepared to accept that the brethren may be dead wrong as has been the case in the past. From your questions, I think you already know that. Christ promised you peace through Him, not His church. The church is temporary. He is eternal. He didn't set up His church to stand between you and God. Yet that is exactly what you allow to happen when you trust the church more than God. 

 

Do do you wast to know what issues the church has wrong?  It is easy to figure out. It is the ones that get brought up the most often on this board and the ones that have the most comments. Why?  Because the church's answers are not sitting well with the Spirit that resides in each of us. Something is troubling us. Even the defenders sense that and double down on their positions. Because what if they are wrong...

This doesn't follow. There were lots of people in Christ's time were troubled by his message. Does that mean they were right or that the Spirit was residing in them? What about the people in Moses, Samuel the Lamanite, and Mormon's times who were all troubled. Prophets are called to say troubling things. Things that are hard. That is no evidence that what they teach is false. In fact, the exact opposite. If you want to find a prophet, don't pick the guy who picks the easy things. The things that everyone is so eager to embrace because it doesn't trouble them or make them feel bad.

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Since 1939 BYU's Board of Trustees has been chaired by the President of the Church with the remainder of the board members currently as follows:

Henry B. Eyring
Dieter F. Uchtdorf
Dallin H. Oaks
Jeffrey R. Holland
Donald L. Hallstrom
Linda K. Burton
Bonnie L. Oscarson

 

that's fair but I highly doubt they are involved in psych experiments, i'd be surprised that they could even name a pysch prof. that teaches today let alone from 40 years ago. The Church isn't a research lab

[juliann]

24 minutes ago, salgare said:

I've never followed you, nor read any of your works, so it is in ignorance that every time I see a name with the likes of Robert or you quoting Khun I'm somewhat shocked.  I was surprised that Interpreter was willing to publish Mark's review of Given's book.  My assumptions have been that FairMormon would be very conservative and orthodox, very old school knowledgeable, correlation supportive, but nuanced, not so much??????

I suppose the writing is on the wall and Mormon apologetics are willing to lead the charge.

Why don't you just ask if you want to know about FairMormon? You continue to make strange comments about us. I was there at the very beginning so I'm a pretty good source for that sort of thing.  As I explain over and over, FM has everybody from socialists to Tea Party types on board. You don't have to be a conservative orthodox member to want the church to succeed.

[strappinglad]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I love questions.  Questions are more important than answers.  The brethren can give answers to these questions, and their answers will reflect their opinions as they exist today, but not all the brethren agree or ever will.  The pure mind and will of God is entirely unknowable.  Okay, so now I’ll go through and comment on some of your questions, because this is kinda fun. 

 

 

11  Yes, you can pay tithing on whatever you want to, to whoever you want to.  Tithing is personally defined however you want to define it. 

22     Yes, Priesthood ban is one example, but there are many others.  Assume they are wrong today on the LGBT policy and a multitude of other issues as well.  Humans get things wrong, and frequently.  It would be nice if it were stated often by current leaders, but they fear this would undermine their authority. 

33     Yes, they should take responsibility for the consequences of policies like the LGBT one.  It has real negative consequences on people.

44     Financial transparency is needed, but I’m more interested in overall financial transparency organizationally, than in the $$ they give as salary to GAs.

55     Probably, this is common in corporate America, and the church is a part of it.

66     Yes, racist policy, I think the essay pretty much admits this already.

77     Taylor claimed revelation, so did Joseph and others.  What is revelation?  Was it from God?  You be the judge, how can we know what’s from God and what’s from man, and what is a mixture of the two? 

88     Yes, Brigham taught Adam God as inspired truth from God.  Current leaders disagree with prior leaders on a multitude of issues, our doctrine has changed and will continue to change as culture and understandings change.  Change is constant. 

99     Scripture is wrong and right.  It’s just a bunch of opinions written by a multitude of authors.  That we consider it sacred doesn’t mean it isn’t also erroneous. 

110   Yes, BoA is a problem, we should consider de-canonizing it. 

111  Probably they have a file on you.

112 Discipline is handled locally, but at times encouraged by the central church, it’s a combination of the two.

113.   I don’t believe any of them have seen Jesus face to face, maybe in a vision/dream like state, but that is my belief.  Everyone who has ever received “revelation” has it filtered through their own biases and judgments.  

114.   Some do, and some don’t, both are valid perspectives.

115.   Who knew, and when did they know it.  I wouldn’t be surprised if it was known and or approved by some members of the leadership.

116.   The pure mind and will of God is UNKNOWABLE!

117.   Current leaders will be wrong on many issues, as stated above.

118.   Contradictory statements is part of the human program.

119.   They are scared of the internet on one hand, but use the internet on the other, another tension.

220.   They are naïve to the real consequences of the policy.  They ignore the evidence and don’t want to think about it.

221.   There is no universally true religion that trumps all others.  Sorry….

222.   Yes, magical world view plays a big role in the foundations of this church and is confusing to the average 21^st century person.

223.   No specific revelation is claimed to my knowledge.

But we sure give the Brethren what-for when they dare give absolutish statements like those above. " My opinion is actually the truth , so there !!! " .

[Kevin Christensen]

22 minutes ago, salgare said:

I've never followed you, nor read any of your works, so it is in ignorance that every time I see a name with the likes of Robert or you quoting Khun I'm somewhat shocked.  I was surprised that Interpreter was willing to publish Mark's review of Given's book.  My assumptions have been that FairMormon would be very conservative and orthodox, very old school knowledgeable, correlation supportive, but nuanced, not so much??????

I suppose the writing is on the wall and Mormon apologetics are willing to lead the charge.

I've been quoting Kuhn for decades, from my first publication in Dialogue, several times and at great length in the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon.  Indeed, Paradigms Crossed in 7/2, (1995) which I linked, makes a detailed case that Alma 32 and Kuhn express the same epistemology.  And I've quoted him in Sunstone, in the Interpreter, in my Occasional Paper on Margaret Barker, in my FAIRMormon essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets... my use of Kuhn is a bit of a cliche, if not a joke to some people.  What shocked me was that two successive editors at Sunstone admitted to me that they hadn't read Kuhn, which was particularly galling when one published an essay criticizing my use of Kuhn. (Shouldn't you know what you are talking about?)   And there is a particularly lame essay on the web purporting to shoot down my use, which, I replied to when it was first published by posting a one word assessment, "Sheesh..."  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most influential books of the 20th century.  I find the book wonderful and endlessly relevant.  My copy is very worn, marked, and dog-eared.

Margaret Barker refers to him here, in the context of Biblical scholarship.

http://christpantokrator.blogspot.com/2012/11/by-margaret-barker-what-do-i-say.html

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

1 hour ago, smac97 said:
As I read through this list of loaded / compound / vague / previously-answered / laundry-list-of-complaints-and-criticisms-dressed-up-as-"questions" / predicated-on-unproven-assumptions / unfair / inaccurate / lacking-in-good-faith-and-good-will / hostile-to-the-Church-and-agenda-driven-rather-than-truth-seeking questions, a few scriptures came to mind (more than "a few," I guess):

"And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness ... For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off ... That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought."  (Isaiah 29:18, 20-21)
***  
With respect, I do not think such elements exist in grievances-dressed-up-as-"questions" laundry lists like we see in the OP.

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you saying the president is the man reproving from the gate? I think it would be more appropriate to bold "all that watch for iniquity are cut off."  

It is my understanding that the Church teaches that the man "that reproveth in the gate" is a reference to religious leaders.  See, e.g., this article by Elder Oaks (emphasis added):

Quote

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

There is nothing new about this counsel. Even though King Saul sought to kill him, David would not allow his companion to strike the king, saying, “for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?” (1 Sam. 26:9.) The prophet Isaiah denounced those who “make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate” (Isa. 29:21; see also 2 Ne. 27:32.) (Those who reproved in the gate in Isaiah’s time were the religious leaders.) This modern revelation from the Doctrine and Covenants is to the same effect:

“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.” (D&C 121:16.)

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

12 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Because we can no longer debate if this was done.  

 

Sure we can:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Aversion_therapy_performed_at_BYU

"Disclosure. McBride describes the procedures used to ensure full disclosure of what the subjects were to expect. We quote from his dissertation:

It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

Nature of the study. The techniques used by McBride followed the standard aversion therapy procedures of the time. The volunteers were subjected to electric shocks applied to their upper arms while being shown both clothed and nude pictures of men. They were able to choose to end the shocks by switching to nude and clothed pictures of women.

Materials. The materials used in the study consisted of nude pictures of men and women and pictures of clothed men and women taken from current fashion magazines. None of the pictures displayed or even implied sexual acts. In fact, the thing being investigated in McBride’s study was not the effectiveness of aversion therapy, but the relative value of clothed versus nude pictures in this type of therapeutic procedure."

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There is no good faith in these inquiries.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

I agree.  That real authentic answers or admission or even  "I don't know"'s would likely not be faith promoting for many.  That said they are my sincere questions and would be faith promoting for me.

I think you misunderstand him.

I think (I could be wrong) that he means the questions are not being asked in good faith. The definition of good faith is "honesty or sincerity of intention."

smac97 can clarify as he sees fit.

[salgare]

30 minutes ago, juliann said:

Why don't you just ask if you want to know about FairMormon? You continue to make strange comments about us. I was there at the very beginning so I'm a pretty good source for that sort of thing.  As I explain over and over, FM has everybody from socialists to Tea Party types on board. You don't have to be a conservative orthodox member to want the church to succeed.

I'm not trying to be nasty here, I really do want to understand the correct evolution and be able to discuss this evolution with a better vocabulary that is not so offensive.  I did ask in the other thread if someone would explain what I assume is a fairly recent change, at least in name from FAIR to FairMormon?  Is my view of FairMormon just stuck in the past?  Would my statements of conservative orthodoxy have been true five years ago, 10, or have I simply always been wrong in this view?  For example, when did FAIR/FairMormon switch over from a critics view as a defense against a simple two way split (the old Chapel Mormon, Internet Mormon) to now supporting a wide spectrum of belief?