Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

If you want to claim that the prophet has disavowed something that was written in a church publication, it ought to be disavowed in that publication or in a manner that would have been readily accessible to the church membership.  

If you think that FairMormon is widely read by church members than you need to leave your bubble a bit more.

As for your nanny-ing of my ethical obligations, if I had been speaking of that quote in particular I would have shared the entire backstory.  But I wasn't.  I was discussing Viegas-Haws' points and the validity of them from her perspective as a member of the church.  I believe you knew and understood that but instead chose to derail the thread for several pages now.

You brought the quote up -- verbatim. And then you intentionally left out the crucial information that the president of the Church had disavowed it. You were wrong to do so. As I said, it won't kill you to admit that. 

If you didn't want to get into the matter of the Church president disavowing it, you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. 

Edited May 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

32 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

I don't mean this to derail, but this quote from the newsroom article raises a question...

Quote

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

The resurrection is stated to be the fundamental principle of our religion yet it isn't mentioned in the Articles of Faith wherein many of the "appendages" are. I've never made that connection before. Carry on.

 

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You brought the quote up -- verbatim. And then you intentionally left out the crucial information that the president of the Church had disavowed it. 

Publicly disavowed it or in the same way the original message was published?

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

Where and when was the retraction or letter ever published in "official Church sources"?  

.

As I said earlier, I'm fairly sure that ward teachers message lay buried in the distant past and forgotten by virtually every Church member until some critic or critics dredged it up generations later. I know I had never heard of it until that happened. It was then that defenders of the Church looked into the matter and brought out the fact of it having been disavowed soon after it was published. 

So if there hasn't been a retraction of it in Church sources over the years, it's probably because it very soon faded away into obscurity. 

Edited May 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You brought the quote up -- verbatim. And then you intentionally left out the crucial information that the president of the Church had disavowed it. You were wrong to do so. As I said, it won't kill you to admit that. 

I thought you wanted to move past this.  This is what I wrote:  "Let's start with her points #1 and #2.  Do you deny that church leaders have taught that the prophet can not lead us astray, that when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done and the debate is over, the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet, and that primary children sing "follow the prophet, he knows the way"?" and I stand by it.  I don't think I was wrong to state it.

So, to move forward, do you agree then (given all you've said here) with these two statements?

1. When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done because he could be wrong as many have been in the past and present time.

2. To properly develop mentally and spiritually, I must follow my own conscience whether it is in opposition to the leaders or not. (Mormons are taught from a young age to always follow the prophet no matter what.)

If not, please explain.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't mean this to derail, but this quote from the newsroom article raises a question...

The resurrection is stated to be the fundamental principle of our religion yet it isn't mentioned in the Articles of Faith wherein many of the "appendages" are. I've never made that connection before. Carry on.

 

The doctrine of the Resurrection, an essential element of the gospel of Christ, is included by implication in the Fourth Article of Faith, which outlines that gospel's first principles and ordinances. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ would have to include faith that He was the Firstfruits of the Resurrection and that mortals live again because of Him. 

The Articles of Faith were never meant to be a comprehensive credal exposition, but rather a summary list of some statements of belief written in response to an inquiry from someone at the behest of a Chicago newspaper. They assume some elementary knowledge on the part of the reader, including awareness that belief in Christ includes belief that He rose from the dead. 

Edited May 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Huh? No one disputes that the ward teachers message was published in an official source. 

My ward teachers came for dessert. 

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

1. When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done because...

2. To properly develop mentally and spiritually, I must follow my own conscience...

Let the above suffice,  why don't ya, instead of you trying to put words in other people's mouths.

You're about as bad as she is at that.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The doctrine of the Resurrection, an essential element of the gospel of Christ, is included by implication in the Fourth Article of Faith, which outlines that gospel's first principles and ordinances. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ would have to include faith that He was the Firstfruits of the Resurrection and that mortals live again because of Him. 

The Articles of Faith were never meant to be a comprehensive credal exposition, but rather a summary list of some statements of belief written in response to an inquiry from someone at the behest of a Chicago newspaper. They assume some elementary knowledge on the part of the reader, including awareness that belief in Christ includes belief that He rose from the dead. 

Yeah, but if the resurrection is foundational, why not state it somewhere. Not every Christian believes in the literal resurrection of Christ.

There is also no mention of the resurrection in the temple recommend questions which do act as a creedal declaration of belief. There are more questions about church leadership than Christ. I just find it interesting that this most fundamental doctrine is omitted from the AoF as well as temple recommend questions. That's all.

[Bobbieaware]

A CHALLENGE TO THOSE BELIEVING LATTER-DAY SAINTS WHO THINK THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE DICTUM THAT STATES "WHEN THE PROPHET SPEAKS, THE DEBATE IS OVER:"

Is it not Mormonism 101 for active and believing members of the LDS Church to readily acknowledge that when the Lord speaks through his living prophet the time for debate is over and the time to study, ponder, pray, and receive confirmatory personal revelation that the prophet has revealed the mind and will of the Lord has begun? 

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1)

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bobbieaware said:

A CHALLENGE TO THOSE BELIEVING LATTER-DAY SAINTS WHO THINK THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE DICTUM THAT STATES "WHEN THE PROPHET SPEAKS, THE DEBATE IS OVER:"

Is it not Mormonism 101 for active and believing members of the LDS Church to readily acknowledge that when the Lord speaks through his living prophet the time for debate is over and the time to study, ponder, pray, and receive confirmatory personal revelation that the prophet has revealed the mind and will of the Lord has begun? 

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1)

What happens if you receive personal revelation that what the prophet said doesn't represent the mind and will of the Lord?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Jeanne is just pointing out that your arguments by assertion aren't cutting it, no matter how frequently you repeat them.

And as much as you would say that the FAIRMormon website somehow constitutes the Church itself widely publishing the private disavowal, I've got news for you . . .

. . . FairMormon isn't the Church.

Though sometimes it seems you think it is.

Scott just wants me to go away!

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Let the above suffice,  why don't ya, instead of you trying to put words in other people's mouths.

You're about as bad as she is at that.

Those two points were direct quotes from the article in the OP.  I wasn't putting words in anyone's mouths, I was quoting her.  I assumed that would be clear to those participating in this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Huh? No one disputes that the ward teachers message was published in an official source. 

Sorry. I misread his post. 

Most people today, I daresay, have no awareness of that ancient ward teachers message, and for those who do, the information that it was disavowed is readily available. Pretty much the only ones who care about it anymore are critics trying to discredit the Church. Those who bring it up are ethically obligated, in my view, to include the fact of it having been disavowed by the Church president. 

If I were trying to undermine your beliefs by citing an obscure printed message written over 70 years ago, and if I had knowledge that message had been authoritatively disavowed almost immediately, I would certainly mention that fact -- if indeed I chose to bring up the original message at all. 

Edited May 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

A CHALLENGE TO THOSE BELIEVING LATTER-DAY SAINTS WHO THINK THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE DICTUM THAT STATES "WHEN THE PROPHET SPEAKS, THE DEBATE IS OVER:"

Is it not Mormonism 101 for active and believing members of the LDS Church to readily acknowledge that when the Lord speaks through his living prophet the time for debate is over and the time to study, ponder, pray, and receive confirmatory personal revelation that the prophet has revealed the mind and will of the Lord has begun? 

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1)

 

Otherwise known as blind obedience.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

A CHALLENGE TO THOSE BELIEVING LATTER-DAY SAINTS WHO THINK THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE DICTUM THAT STATES "WHEN THE PROPHET SPEAKS, THE DEBATE IS OVER:"

Is it not Mormonism 101 for active and believing members of the LDS Church to readily acknowledge that when the Lord speaks through his living prophet the time for debate is over and the time to study, ponder, pray, and receive confirmatory personal revelation that the prophet has revealed the mind and will of the Lord has begun? 

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1)

 

It shouldn't be.  The whole point of study, ponder, pray, and receive a confirmatory personal revelation is to see if what the prophet says is from God.  If the person learns for hisself that it ain't from God, then the debate might just be beginning. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Otherwise known as blind obedience.

Bobbie seems to be leaving open two possibilities:

1. You pray and get confirmation of the spirit, and therefore, the prophet is right.

2. You pray and don't get confirmation of the spirit, and therefore, the prophet is right.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sorry. I misread his post. 

Most people today, I daresay, have no awareness of that ancient ward teachers message, and for those who do, the information that it was disavowed is readily available. Pretty much the only ones who care about it anymore are critics trying to discredit the Church. Those who bring it up are ethically obligated, in my view, to include the fact of it having been disavowed by the Church president. 

So it is correct to say that when the prophet has spoken, the thinking has NOT been done?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, but if the resurrection is foundational, why not state it somewhere. Not every Christian believes in the literal resurrection of Christ.

There is also no mention of the resurrection in the temple recommend questions which do act as a creedal declaration of belief. There are more questions about church leadership than Christ. I just find it interesting that this most fundamental doctrine is omitted from the AoF as well as temple recommend questions. That's all.

As I said, the Articles of Faith don't purport to be comprehensive. 

I've already said why I think the Fourth Article includes the Resurrection by implication. If not every Christian today believes in Christ's resurrection, I'm thinking that virtually all did back when the articles were written. 

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I said, the Articles of Faith don't purport to be comprehensive. 

I've already said why I think the Fourth Article includes the Resurrection by implication. If not every Christian today believes in Christ's resurrection, I'm thinking that virtually all did back when the articles were written. 

Because Christianity has a history of all denominations being in agreement on doctrinal issues?

I agree that the AoF don't purport to be comprehensive. I never said they did, nor did I say they should be. But not mentioning the resurrection as THE fundamental principle of the gospel is curious. It seems that the point of publishing the AoF through the newspaper was to clearly state fundamental tenets of Mormon belief so nonMormons wouldn't assume false notions of Mormon belief.

The AoF don't need to be comprehensive to mention The most important tenet of faith when instead a large paragraph could be written about the literal gathering of Israel and the New Jerusalem on the American continent. Somehow the resurrection didn't make the cut. Come on, admit it. That's a little strange.

Edited May 5, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Scott just wants me to go away!

 

No, I just want you to argue rationally -- if you are going to argue at all. 

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Those two points were direct quotes from the article in the OP.  I wasn't putting words in anyone's mouths, I was quoting her.  I assumed that would be clear to those participating in this thread.

We've already established that she didn't pay very much attention to what we Mormons really believe when she was one of us.

So instead of just repeating what she said or making false claims of your own why don't you just ask us to tell you what we really believe.

Throwing red herrings all over the place doesn't do anybody any good.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

We've already established that she didn't pay very much attention to what we Mormons really believe when she was one of us.

So instead of just repeating what she said or making false claims of your own why don't you just ask us to tell you what we really believe.

Throwing red herrings all over the place doesn't do anybody any good.

Dang, Ahab. You really haven't been paying attention to this thread, have you? Because you are totally misrepresenting what Rockpond has said and backed up with multiple references. It's okay not to be aware but don't act like you are.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

We've already established that she didn't pay very much attention to what we Mormons really believe when she was one of us.

So instead of just repeating what she said or making false claims of your own why don't you just ask us to tell you what we really believe.

Throwing red herrings all over the place doesn't do anybody any good.

You haven't established that.  And everyone's unwillingness to directly address her first two points is telling.  

Quoting the article from the OP and asking to discuss it is hardly a red herring.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Dang, Ahab. You really haven't been paying attention to this thread, have you? Because you are totally misrepresenting what Rockpond has said and backed up with multiple references. It's okay not to be aware but don't act like you are.

Each time I bring up the article from the OP and ask questions, I'm dismissed or ignored.  There seems to be a some fear here of addressing her op-ed.

Edited May 5, 2016 by rockpond