Oliver_Cowdery Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: They can go and read them, but few do. And hopefully the few who do are smart enough to understand what disavowed means. "disavowed" doesn't mean much if the disavowal comes from an anonymous source.
Teancum Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: The template for these essays seems to be "On one hand this, on the other hand, that. We unequivocally affirm always being nice to everyone." It's a perfect template. Or the perfect template to ignore culpability or teaching of false and erroneous dogma. 1
Teancum Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 4 hours ago, canard78 said: And yet MFBujowski reads the same essay and concludes the opposite. Like he said, they are brilliantly ambiguous. Yes indeed!
bluebell Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: What is their significance if they are not scripture...or even signed..? They provide information. That's really pretty much it.
Teancum Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Like it or not you can't get more official than that. Ambiguity is desirable anyway. Ahh no not really. Ambiguity is only good for those who want to defend the indefensible. The LDS church does not claim ambiguity. It claims to have God's words today. Or as President Benson used to say TNT. Today's news today. Those who run, and who have run the LDS Church claim God speaks to them. That they are Prophets who have God's word to a fallen world. More and more I see that your approach is simply BS as compared to what the LDS Church claims and what as a young missionary I used to teach..... that it means something special to have a Prophet of God like Noah, Moses, Isaiah. etc. But for you ambiguity is a wonderful thing. Why is that>
bluebell Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 46 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said: "disavowed" doesn't mean much if the disavowal comes from an anonymous source. It's no more anonymous though than the lesson manuals, the bible dictionary, and the guide to the scriptures. People don't have much trouble with those, so this shouldn't be much different. 1
CV75 Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: It's no more anonymous though than the lesson manuals, the bible dictionary, and the guide to the scriptures. People don't have much trouble with those, so this shouldn't be much different. ...and it's blatantly not anonymous, but that fact (which is evident on the official Church website*) is too convenient to ignore. * "Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties." 1
Teancum Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 On 12/18/2016 at 0:35 AM, JLHPROF said: Just for fun (not so much for deep theological debate) because of 2 or 3 threads on the board right now (eternal nature, attracting disaffected, etc) What if ALL recorded official/semi-official teachings and doctrines of Mormonism turn out to be absolutely true? We spend a lot of time on this board debated how maybe the Book of Mormon is false, or polygamy was a mistake, or doctrine X or Y or Z is false because of reasons. We break every teaching and practice of the Church down the smallest minutia. We worry about whether the gospel is "true for me" and how it makes me feel. And then we discuss what believers, doubters, questioners, former believers, etc should do/have done. But just for kicks, what if you get to the other side and find out everything taught over the pulpit by the prophets and apostles was true. What if they were absolutely right on the realities of eternity? Is truth more important than feelings? So to give the real answer to the op: It's not all true. In fact most of it is not I think you are going to be very disappointed.
CV75 Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 9 minutes ago, Teancum said: But for you ambiguity is a wonderful thing. Why is that> It is wonderful in that it leaves so much room for freedom to think and act; to exercise faith, patience and other virtues; to stretch and grow. It is wonderful in that it provides contrast to that which is most essential. And none of the essays are 100% ambiguous on 100% of the information.
bluebell Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, CV75 said: ...and it's blatantly not anonymous, but that fact (which is evident on the official Church website*) is too convenient to ignore. * "Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties." I completely agree. I think that O_C is saying that because no person has taken credit for it and we don't know who wrote it, it's anonymous. While that is true, like you said, I don't actually consider the essays to be anonymous as we usually use the term.
CV75 Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 Just now, bluebell said: I completely agree. I think that O_C is saying that because no person has taken credit for it and we don't know who wrote it, it's anonymous. While that is true, like you said, I don't actually consider the essays to be anonymous as we usually use the term. But he is anonymous, while the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are not, and they are taking credit, and more accurately and importantly, taking responsibility.
Teancum Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 1 minute ago, CV75 said: It is wonderful in that it leaves so much room for freedom to think and act; to exercise faith, patience and other virtues; to stretch and grow. It is wonderful in that it provides contrast to that which is most essential. And none of the essays are 100% ambiguous on 100% of the information. Bu this is NOT what the LDS Church claims or teaches. It is only the apologists and the semi apologists like the Givens that have taken this tactic. And why have they? Because this is the only way they can preserve some sort of truth message for an organizations that claims to be God's one an only true Church yet has so many holes in it that you can drive a semi tractor trailer through it. This is not the Church position that I grew up with nor is it really what those who run things today claim. Just read President Nelson's claim that the abomination policy on Gay Marriage and their children being revelation from God mean. 30 years from now that will be relegated to folklore. 2
CV75 Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 8 minutes ago, Teancum said: Bu this is NOT what the LDS Church claims or teaches. It is only the apologists and the semi apologists like the Givens that have taken this tactic. And why have they? Because this is the only way they can preserve some sort of truth message for an organizations that claims to be God's one an only true Church yet has so many holes in it that you can drive a semi tractor trailer through it. This is not the Church position that I grew up with nor is it really what those who run things today claim. Just read President Nelson's claim that the abomination policy on Gay Marriage and their children being revelation from God mean. 30 years from now that will be relegated to folklore. I don't know what you grew up with, but the Church teaches everything I referred to (opposition in all things, probationary state, faith and patience, etc.). Ambiguity is often found to play a role in each of those principles. “…and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect? Behold I say unto you, Nay…” "For now we see through a glass, darkly..."
Teancum Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 14 minutes ago, CV75 said: I don't know what you grew up with, but the Church teaches everything I referred to (opposition in all things, probationary state, faith and patience, etc.). Ambiguity is often found to play a role in each of those principles. “…and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect? Behold I say unto you, Nay…” "For now we see through a glass, darkly..." More back peddling.
SteveO Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 9 minutes ago, Teancum said: More back peddling. More flawed assumptions and incorrect perceptions.
Teancum Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 16 minutes ago, SteveO said: More flawed assumptions and incorrect perceptions. So the LDS let's discuss this, The LDS Church: Does or does not claim to be a restoration of God's true Church and ancient Christianity? The LDS Church does or does not claim that there was an apostasy from true Christianity and loss of priesthood power? The LDS Church does or does not claim to have said priesthood power for all ordinances that are essential for exaltation and eternal life? The LDS Church claims its prophets and apostles are prophets, seers and revelators? The LDS Church claims and teaches that their prophets and apostles receive God's will for mankind today? This is a good start. Maybe good stuff for its own thread.
SteveO Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, Teancum said: So the LDS let's discuss this, The LDS Church: Does or does not claim to be a restoration of God's true Church and ancient Christianity? The LDS Church does or does not claim that there was an apostasy from true Christianity and loss of priesthood power? The LDS Church does or does not claim to have said priesthood power for all ordinances that are essential for exaltation and eternal life? The LDS Church claims its prophets and apostles are prophets, seers and revelators? The LDS Church claims and teaches that their prophets and apostles receive God's will for mankind today? This is a good start. Maybe good stuff for its own thread. You ever read "Preach My Gospel"? I'd suggest you pick it up sometime and give it a read. In it, you'll read the following at the beginning of chapter one: Invite others to come unto Christ by helping them receive the restored gospel through faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. Now, is there anything you don't understand about that phrase? The standard works are what they are. You read the same words as I do. The Gospel of Jesus Christ hasn't changed. It's been the same process as outlined above. You want to discuss the process of the translation of the Book of Mormon? By all means, go for it. You want to argue over whether or not the scrolls of The Book of Abraham was from the Book of the Dead and not divinely inspired? Have at it. The Book of Genesis? Literal or metaphor? Dunno, come on this board and give us your opinion...I'd love to hear it. But when a missionary knocks on someones door and teaches them a lesson, they give them a copy of The Book of Mormon. The same copy you and I and everyone else has. The same words, the same Moroni's promise. You want to interpret what's in it? Go for it. You want to read someone's commentary on what's in it? There's plenty of books. You want to see what the brethren have to say on any given verse--guess what, you can get that too. You picking up the theme here? But you guys sure do insist on being led around by the nose on every single issue. At the end of the week, I go to church to partake of the sacrament which has been blessed with restored priesthood power, repent of my sins, and learn the best I know how (and the best others know how) on where to improve in my day to day life. I administer blessings with restored priesthood power and authority as needed. At General Conference, I listen to the words of the brethren and sisters and the First Presidency. And afterwards, guess what? You can interpret them and apply them as YOU SEE FIT. Read the scriptures, pray, repent continuously. Try and be like Jesus. Wash, rinse, repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat...until we become perfected in Christ. That should take you to the rest of your life and well into the next. President Monson is a Prophet. The gift of prophecy is the Testimony of Jesus Christ. You going to argue he doesn't do that every six months? The primary role of a prophet is to declare repentance. The role of Seer and Revelator are currently not utilized because we have everything we need to know at the present time. Outside of that, you can prayerfully take their understanding to the best of their ability any way you want. Need a more authoritative statement? Again: https://www.lds.org/scriptures?lang=eng read, take to the Lord in prayer, and figure it out. NOW--if you disagree with any of the above, and I'm sure you do, it doesn't change the fact that that's going to be what we are judged on in the Mormon Church. Not our position on homosexuality. Not our position on the process of translation of The Book of Mormon. Not our opinion on women and the priesthood or blacks and the priesthood. And you are free to disagree and question and hypothesize all the live long day about those topics. But the TRUTH we share with the world, and the TRUTH we preach every Sunday is as follows: Invite others to come unto Christ by helping them receive the restored gospel through faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. Outside of that, do whatever it is you need to do. You are free to do so. 2
mfbukowski Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 3 hours ago, Teancum said: Or the perfect template to ignore culpability or teaching of false and erroneous dogma. Sounds a little hard to me. And how does one distinguish "true dogma" from "erroneous dogma"? I don't believe in dogma, just opinions. All we have is language to express opinions and both opinions and language are pretty ambiguous. . It is not my fault you were taught dogma as a child- it's time to accept ambiguity. This is a complicated world. We are stuck with symbols and interpretations 1
rodheadlee Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 3 hours ago, Teancum said: So to give the real answer to the op: It's not all true. In fact most of it is not I think you are going to be very disappointed. Come on bro, that ain't a real answer. Put some effort into it. I was looking forward to your answer.
CV75 Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 11 hours ago, Teancum said: More back peddling. LOL no, just more examples of sanctioned ambiguity. It's good for you! Trust that you'll get there.
bcuzbcuz Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 16 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Check the marriage covenant again. You're saying that the temple marriage ceremony includes the mention of polygamy or wording that can be construed to meaning that my wife and I were committing our covenants to agree with polygamy? Sorry but CFR. Or do you mean that D&C 132 commands it? or obligates it? Where do you find that Mormonism says there is, through a temple marriage, an obligation to polygamy? Or didn't I read the fine print closely enough?
bcuzbcuz Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 17 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said: The essays have already been revised without any notification. The essays carry no dates. The only way the revisions were detected is because people were archive them. We keep calling them essays as if they are something special. They are just "gospel topics" to the church. The controversial stuff was originally just snuck into an existing alphabetical list of undated articles on many topics. Many "gospel topic" entries have been added and removed and forgotten over the years. Have you read Orwell's "1984" and understand the function of the 'Ministry of Truth' (MiniTrue)? Do you see any similarities?
Oliver_Cowdery Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said: Have you read Orwell's "1984" and understand the function of the 'Ministry of Truth' (MiniTrue)? Do you see any similarities? I love that book and do think that it has some relevance to a number of changes in the temple and changes in church teachings. But the MiniTrue analogy doesn't really work with the changes to the essays. So far the changes to the essays have been fairly trivial. Where the MiniTrue analogy does apply is when I hear people say that the contents of the essays are not new information for most of the membership. I grant there there have always been members who against the warnings listened to "other voices" and read "outside sources" and attended "symposiums". But that kind of thing was looked down upon in the church I grew up in. Most members I know knew nothing about the basic things like Joseph Smith seer stone before the Ensign article. Many still don't. My own mother still says that the content of the Book of Mormon translation essay is an "anti-mormon lie". My inlaws said the same thing for a time until they realized that the essay came from the church's website. What used to be anti-mormon lies is now the stuff that we always taught apparently. We've always been at war with eastasia. If you didn't know that we have always been at war with eastasia than that is your fault. Edited December 21, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery
cdowis Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: Have you read Orwell's "1984" and understand the function of the 'Ministry of Truth' (MiniTrue)? Do you see any similarities? Yes, indeed. I definitely detect paranoia in those who see things hiding in the bushes that are not there. Edited December 21, 2016 by cdowis
JLHPROF Posted December 21, 2016 Author Posted December 21, 2016 7 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: You're saying that the temple marriage ceremony includes the mention of polygamy or wording that can be construed to meaning that my wife and I were committing our covenants to agree with polygamy? Sorry but CFR. Or do you mean that D&C 132 commands it? or obligates it? Where do you find that Mormonism says there is, through a temple marriage, an obligation to polygamy? Or didn't I read the fine print closely enough? Temple covenant includes a promise before God to participate in all rites and ordinances pertaining to marriage. Do you know of any rites and ordinances pertaining to marriage that occur post-sealing? In all of Mormon history I only know of two ordinances requiring a married couple that come after we are sealed. One we don't talk about and is barely acknowledged as existing. And the other is polygamy.
Recommended Posts