What if it's ALL true?

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think if the Church said, "We made a mistake," I would interpret it that way. But presiding over the same living organization by virtue of the same keys, I’m not sure how the Brethren can rightly admit in behalf of their predecessors that they made a mistake in using them. While they condemn racism, that is with regards to the theories that justified the ban, and not presiding over the ban itself.

 

That may be a fine line, but it is consistent with Elder Oak’s observations on the subject of apology (see the paragraph beginning with “Mormons have generally apologized…” http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary ) where he points out the practical difficulties in accurately identifying others’ past mistakes. I’m not sure they know enough about who did what with the keys to establish and administer the ban. Through which lens are the Brethren to gather the facts?

 

It is also consistent with his reported statement (The church doesn't "seek apologies," he said, "and we don't give them") and the quote, "I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them… We sometimes look back on issues and say, 'Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,' but we look forward and not backward." http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2108746-155/we-all-can-be-more-civil

I think if I were passing through the pearly gates, the last thing I 'd be seeking is an apology...

I am not suggesting that. The piece as written is perfectly ambiguous. It half satisfies everyone and fully satisfies no one. It is just like the newsroom statement on doctrine no one understands. The church is walking a tightrope between factions and doing it well.

[mfbukowski]

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.

[Tacenda]

I believe the statements below may contribute to members losing their faith. If they see one thing wrong in the church then it's not true to them. I'm listening to a podcast with a former stalwart member that at a point her life she saw a huge flaw in the members when their bishop broke the law and went to prison. She sees the judgement and the ostracism the family received. To her she sees untruth and because of the all or nothing mentality, she starts to disbelieve.  I think it's better that we see statements or doctrine coming from the leaders as not always from God, because it helps the members lean on God more than leaders, and only take the good from them and leave the bad. So I feel right about my doubts being okay with God, I'll be fine.

President Hinckley stated that this: 

“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that [first] vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Each of us has to face the matter — either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Well, it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that’s exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That’s our claim. That’s where we stand, and that’s where we fall, if we fall. But we don’t. We just stand secure in that faith.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 11:51 AM, JLHPROF said:

Totally willing to agree that there have been conflicting teachings among the contents I propose.  (The Paul H. Dunn situation is not exactly what I was referring to).

In addition to my original post addressing the doubting of certain teachings I also think it's important to recognize that at different periods in Church history members have been taught and accepted different doctrines.  As a result I think it's too big of an assumption that many of the things they believed were wrong but we are much less wrong.
So you bring up Adam God, and without going into doctrine on the issue
To my original point, what if the 19th century believers in that doctrine are actually correct?
Or to the counter point what if we are correct today - what did that mean for the 19th century saints when they passed on and discovered they were wrong?

I think it is impossible to assume that ALL teachings of all prophets are true. As others have stated, there is too much contradiction.

IF the 19th century believers were right regarding doctrines like Adam/God, Blood atonement, polygamy essentiality for eternal life, then I'd have to ask the question, what's the point of having modern prophets that incorrectly teach against those true doctrines? What's the point of having a prophet at all if they are that unreliable? How can we have confidence in prophets who supposedly lead us towards God teaching false doctrines?

Sadly, I think those questions lead down a road to conclusions that many have found to be more plausible than believing that God is a trickster. IOW, it's easier to believe in the fallibility of man than it is to believe in the fallibility of God.

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it is impossible to assume that ALL teachings of all prophets are true. As others have stated, there is too much contradiction.

IF the 19th century believers were right regarding doctrines like Adam/God, Blood atonement, polygamy essentiality for eternal life, then I'd have to ask the question, what's the point of having modern prophets that incorrectly teach against those true doctrines? What's the point of having a prophet at all if they are that unreliable? How can we have confidence in prophets who supposedly lead us towards God teaching false doctrines?

Sadly, I think those questions lead down a road to conclusions that many have found to be more plausible than believing that God is a trickster. IOW, it's easier to believe in the fallibility of man than it is to believe in the fallibility of God.

I have a testimony of the fallibility of man.  I know it to be true!  

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not suggesting that. The piece as written is perfectly ambiguous. It half satisfies everyone and fully satisfies no one. It is just like the newsroom statement on doctrine no one understands. The church is walking a tightrope between factions and doing it well.

"The piece as written is perfectly ambiguous."

I saw that you wrote that. I read it. Then I did a very quick double take and scrolled back to the top of the page to check if it was really you that had written that. And it was. You did say that.

I'm still blinking in disbelief. I truly do not think I have seen anything even close to such a statement from you before.

I will need some time to mull that tidbit in my mind.

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it is impossible to assume that ALL teachings of all prophets are true. As others have stated, there is too much contradiction.

IF the 19th century believers were right regarding doctrines like Adam/God, Blood atonement, polygamy essentiality for eternal life, then I'd have to ask the question, what's the point of having modern prophets that incorrectly teach against those true doctrines? What's the point of having a prophet at all if they are that unreliable? How can we have confidence in prophets who supposedly lead us towards God teaching false doctrines?

Sadly, I think those questions lead down a road to conclusions that many have found to be more plausible than believing that God is a trickster. IOW, it's easier to believe in the fallibility of man than it is to believe in the fallibility of God.

This is for you, I think you will get it, others may not.

Prophets are not true or false, sentences are true or false.

Some men are prophets.  The Bible tells us that a testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophecy- so if you have a testimony you are a prophet.   I disagree with you all the time.  

Sometimes prophets speak false sentences, usually meaning that someone disagrees with them.  In the prophet business if someone disagrees with you, they will call your statements "false".  There is no objective measure, usually, to decide if a prophet's statement is true or false.  If they say "The earth was created in 6 days", that can be seen as a an objective statement or a subjective statement.  Objectively it is false because what we MEAN by objective is "agrees with science".  If he is speaking spiritually, in that context speaking poetically, perhaps the statement is true in that context if "day" means "period of time"

Did Joshua objectively make the sun stand still?  Not possible.  Could God- or through what we call mass hallucination-  could many people have PERCEIVED the "sun stand still"?

What about the miracle of Fatima? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

So are statements about what happened true or false?

Everyone disagrees with some prophet sometime.  I can name Zorastrian prophets I disagree with.  I can name Mormon prophets I disagree with.

Doctrines are models for belief- they either work in the context or they don't.  If they work they bring people closer to belief in God.  That is their function- nothing more, nothing less.  No one can know objectively anything about God- all we have are our subjective interpretations of what "God" means- for me the Mormon paradigm is the best paradigm that has been established by mankind, and I can justify that- but it is a long story, too long for this forum.

BUT

Quote

 

IF the 19th century believers were right regarding doctrines like Adam/God, Blood atonement, polygamy essentiality for eternal life, then I'd have to ask the question, what's the point of having modern prophets that incorrectly teach against those true doctrines? What's the point of having a prophet at all if they are that unreliable? How can we have confidence in prophets who supposedly lead us towards God teaching false doctrines?

 

This presumes that "Doctrines" like those listed, have objective truth values and can be scientifically shown to have "truthful" descriptions.   They cannot.

What people needed to believe in the early 19th century to get closer to God is not what people need in the early 21st century to get closer to God.

We have an open canon because, yes, truth changes because what people need to hear to get closer to God changes with the times.

This way of seeing it has helped me get over all these squabbles over historical doctrines like priesthood prohibitions, polygamy, blood atonement, etc.  

I see Adam/God as a paradigm which can still be made to work in certain contexts- I kind of like thinking that God fathered the human race physically as well as spiritually.

But no, I do not take any of these doctrinal paradigms literally or believe they are scientifically, objectively true.

And I think that position is perfectly justifiable to the most conservative person by asking them if they think that their descriptions of the workings of God can actually capture what God is and how he works?

One way of seeing it for all is that we only have a dim perception as confirmed by the spirit of the things of God.  We know parables now, and see darkly, but then we believe and hope that we will see Him fact to face, and live for that sublime moment.   

[Physics Guy]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is the physical evidence for your "real God" as opposed for our super powered alien who is immoral?

Using Occams Razor, which is more likely- a real alien we see as God or a transcendent spirit no one can see or imagine who fills the universe but can dwell in our hearts?

How do you do an experiment to find that "real" God?  And how about defining the Trinity in physical terms?   What kind of substance is "Substance" as in "consubstantial"? 

I don't necessarily try to turn everything into physics, any more than a basketball player goes through life bouncing everything. As it happens, though, I have thought a bit about these particular questions.

I consider the evidence for Big Bang cosmology to be evidence for creation of space and time ex nihilo by a transcendent God. The evidence is not conclusive, but I count it as a hit. I know of no evidence for material superbeings meddling in Earth's history.

Ockham's original precept concerned postulated "entities", but that seems arbitrary to me; my interpretation of the Razor is to prefer fewer axioms to many. To me the Razor is neutral about a creator, because I am only interested in theories that allow me to ask why the laws of nature, and the initial conditions of the universe, are as they are. I can accept "just because" or "I don't know" as well-formed answers, just as much as "because God"; but stipulating "I don't know" as a well-formed answer counts to me as an axiom.

I am already committed to belief in invisible things that fill the universe. For example, the electromagnetic field. As a quantum field, it is impossible to imagine it accurately, but it really does seem to be there. I'm not sure that it dwells in my heart, but it does something in my eyes. In fact I don't believe that God is omnipresent in the way that the EM field is omnipresent, however. God is everywhere in something more like the way that the narrator is everywhere in a story, or perhaps in the way that the program is everywhere in a simulation.

Since I see nothing which would be explained by a material superbeing, I feel that Occam's Razor tells against the Mormon God. Occam's Razor is unreliable, though, and in fact I find it perfectly plausible that there are material beings in the universe with abilities far beyond the human range. If they do exist, they still are not God in my theistic sense.

I don't know how to do scientific experiments to find the real God. Scientific experiments require strong control. I think one can perform more heuristic experiments, by trying to pray and then seeing whether anything happens that makes sense as a response. This protocol is obviously prone to false positives, but it's the only game in town.

I think the distinction between the Persons of the Trinity is the distinction between context, pattern, and detail. All three are always present in reality; the distinction is real and recognizable, but relative. One can zoom in and out, and the divisions shift.

I don't think that the traditional terms of Trinitarian theology really have precise meanings, however. I don't know exactly what "substance" or "person" are supposed to mean in this context—and I'm not sure anyone else really does, either. I think that at least the Second Person of the Trinity is a person in something like the way we ourselves are, because we are patterns that emerge from biological details within the larger context of the material world. We are not one with the world, or with our own biochemistry, in the way that the Word of God is with God and is God. But the Word could in principle become human. It would mean porting that ultimate pattern, in some appropriately stripped-down version, to a particular platform.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not suggesting that. The piece as written is perfectly ambiguous. It half satisfies everyone and fully satisfies no one. It is just like the newsroom statement on doctrine no one understands. The church is walking a tightrope between factions and doing it well.

I know you weren't suggesting the Church issue apology; I was applying Elder Oaks' comments on apology to admission. I think the Lord still provides tightrope solutions all the time, as He did in the New Testament (Mark 11;28-33; 12:14-17). In doing that, it is interesting to me the things the Brethren say that are explicit. Those are the things that I think matter, or upon which decisions will be made, in the afterlife (not whether someone else was right or wrong at any given point in time).

EDIT: I just read your next post: "What people needed to believe in the early 19th century to get closer to God is not what people need in the early 21st century to get closer to God." This is one of the reasons i think current prophet's do not / cannot make an admission of mistakes in behalf of past prophets.

Edited December 20, 2016 by CV75

[Oliver_Cowdery]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

See above.  Their previous position was racist.  Now they unequivocally condemn past racism.

If that is NOT an admission of a mistake, then I don't know what to call it.

Can we really say that is the position of the church? 

Even if we interpret the essay to mean that the church views the priesthood ban as a mistake there is still another issue that gets glossed over.  The essay itself is not really binding on the church in any meaningful way.

We've all seen countless arm chair apologists disregard this statement here or that statement as not being official.  The essay has no name attached to it.  It has no signatures.  And it has no date.  And it was released though a channel that hasn't been used before to establish the church's position.  

In 2013 if the church really wanted to get its position on banning blacks from the priesthood and from entering the temple on the record, it had a much better way of doing it than an anonymous essay.  As it stands arm chair apologists will be easily be able to disregard the essays in the future as being unofficial and nonbinding. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Can we really say that is the position of "the church"? 

Even if we interpret the essay to mean that the church views the priesthood ban as a mistake there is still another issue that gets glossed over.  The essay itself is not really binding on the church in any meaningful way.

We've all seen countless arm chair apologists disregard this statement here or that statement as not being official.  The essay has no name attached to it.  It has no signatures.  And it has no date.  Its was released though a channel that hasn't been used before to establish the church's position.  

If the church really wanted to get its position on the record, it had a much better way of doing that in a more official capacity.  As it stands arm chair apologists will be easily able to disregard the essays in the future as being unofficial and nonbinding.

I think people are bound to have different takes on the essay, just as they do the canon. I also think there are some things most people can agree on, and these I think, would tend to be the most important.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

It all depends how parsimonious we get about it being "all" true.  When the Book of Mormon says that every hair will be restored to it's proper place in order in the resurrection does that mean we will all be uni-brow sporting hairy beasts in the resurrection?

Edited December 20, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Can we really say that is the position of the church? 

Even if we interpret the essay to mean that the church views the priesthood ban as a mistake there is still another issue that gets glossed over.  The essay itself is not really binding on the church in any meaningful way.

We've all seen countless arm chair apologists disregard this statement here or that statement as not being official.  The essay has no name attached to it.  It has no signatures.  And it has no date.  And it was released though a channel that hasn't been used before to establish the church's position.  

In 2013 if the church really wanted to get its position on banning blacks from the priesthood and from entering the temple on the record, it had a much better way of doing it than an anonymous essay.  As it stands arm chair apologists will be easily be able to disregard the essays in the future as being unofficial and nonbinding. 

I don't believe that the essays mean that the church admits the priesthood ban was a mistake.  I think the wording is ambiguous enough that all we can say for sure is that the church admits that the reasons given for the ban were a mistake and nothing beyond that.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think people are bound to have different takes on the essay, just as they do the canon. I also think there are some things most people can agree on, and these I think, would tend to be the most important.

Absolutely, but in the bigger picture of the Mormonism officialness scale, the essay don't even compare to the scriptures, a general conference address or even an article in the friend.

The essay is just a loose lawyerly worded piece of anonymous text that is tied to nothing in terms of authority.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Oliver_Cowdery]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe that the essays mean that the church admits the priesthood ban was a mistake.  I think the wording is ambiguous enough that all we can say for sure is that the church admits that the reasons given for the ban were a mistake and nothing beyond that.

But that's the thing.  It doesn't matter what the essay says.  Even if the essay said that the ban was a mistake it wouldn't mean a thing because the essay has no authority behind it.  The essay can be abandoned with no consequence if it becomes a liability.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[canard78]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe that the essays mean that the church admits the priesthood ban was a mistake.  I think the wording is ambiguous enough that all we can say for sure is that the church admits that the reasons given for the ban were a mistake and nothing beyond that.

And yet MFBujowski reads the same essay and concludes the opposite. 

Like he said, they are brilliantly ambiguous. 

[canard78]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not suggesting that. The piece as written is perfectly ambiguous. It half satisfies everyone and fully satisfies no one. It is just like the newsroom statement on doctrine no one understands. The church is walking a tightrope between factions and doing it well.

This is, essentially, a perfect description of most of Mormon doctrine: "perfectly ambiguous."

"What if it's all true" JLPROF asks...

"What's true?" we might ask

"The version of ambiguity I have decided to believe" he might reply. 

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Can we really say that is the position of the church? 

Even if we interpret the essay to mean that the church views the priesthood ban as a mistake there is still another issue that gets glossed over.  The essay itself is not really binding on the church in any meaningful way.

We've all seen countless arm chair apologists disregard this statement here or that statement as not being official.  The essay has no name attached to it.  It has no signatures.  And it has no date.  And it was released though a channel that hasn't been used before to establish the church's position.  

In 2013 if the church really wanted to get its position on banning blacks from the priesthood and from entering the temple on the record, it had a much better way of doing it than an anonymous essay.  As it stands arm chair apologists will be easily be able to disregard the essays in the future as being unofficial and nonbinding. 

Like it or not you can't get more official than that. Ambiguity is desirable anyway.

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, canard78 said:

This is, essentially, a perfect description of most of Mormon doctrine: "perfectly ambiguous."

"What if it's all true" JLPROF asks...

"What's true?" we might ask

"The version of ambiguity I have decided to believe" he might reply. 

Quite true. Ain't it grand?

Pass an interview and you're in. Just like Joseph wanted it. Open canon, orthopraxis, a thing of beauty.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Like it or not you can't get more official than that. Ambiguity is desirable anyway.

There are many ways to make the essay more official than it current is. Putting the actual authors' names at the top would be a start.  A simple signature by someone in the 15 would make it more official than it is now. Or it could be an entire chapter for a correlated manual. Or one of the 15 could give the essay as a conference talk.  Or the 15 could all sign it could sign it and it could be a proclamation that Mormons could frame and hang on their walls. Or it could be a new declaration that would be put at the back of the D&C.  Or Oaks could see the value of an apology even though he feels that the lack of the word "apology" in the scriptures has some bearing.  Leading by example would do so much good.  Or the 15 could actually publish the God speaking in the first person text of the revelation from God that they got in 1978, if such a thing actually existed.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[pogi]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I have a testimony of the fallibility of man.  I know it to be true!  

Which means that you may be wrong about being fallible... 

Edited December 20, 2016 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Absolutely, but in the bigger picture of the Mormonism officialness scale, the essay don't even compare to the scriptures, a general conference address or even an article in the friend.

The essay is just a loose lawyerly worded piece of anonymous text that is tied to nothing in terms of authority.

The only things that are binding in the Church are the covenants. Get caught breaking them enough and you’re out!

On the other hand, “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.” https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng

Except for being receptive to the workings of the Holy Ghost, we make no covenant to access and study accurate information, and in that regard scripture, general conference talks and magazine articles are no more binding than the essays. We are bound by covenant to uphold them only according to our understanding of them, as reflected in how we keep the covenants enough to stay in the Church. Some will take them to be ambiguous in meeting whatever purpose they might expect of them, and some not, but if they expect them to be binding in and of themselves, they are way off base!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

And yet MFBujowski reads the same essay and concludes the opposite. 

Like he said, they are brilliantly ambiguous. 

Considering the stated purpose of the essays, the information is accurate is accessible for people to study and draw conclusions (“I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” – Joseph Smith). The perception of ambiguity seems to be arising from unwarranted expectations.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

But that's the thing.  It doesn't matter what the essay says.  Even if the essay said that the ban was a mistake it wouldn't mean a thing because the essay has no authority behind it.  The essay can be abandoned with no consequence if it becomes a liability.

I somewhat agree.

The essays are basically like lessons in a church manual.  They are both authoritative and not at the same time (authoritative because we have already been told that they were green lighted by the Apostles but not because they carry no signatures) and they don't seem to be meant to teach anything new, but just to present information in a more precise way while including some basic tenets mixed in.

But, I don't think that means that they can be abandoned with no consequences.  A GA once edited his own GC talk and then tried to abandon the old one without acknowledging it and decades later people are still bringing it up trying to prove it means something nefarious-and this with a talk that wasn't at all excitable in either the edited or unedited form.

I'm sure the church understands that, having put these essays out, they cannot just be abandoned and that even revision of the essays is sure to lead to  negative consequences and liability.

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

There are many ways to make the essay more official than it current is. Putting the actual authors' names at the top would be a start.  A simple signature by someone in the 15 would make it more official than it is now. Or it could be an entire chapter for a correlated manual. Or one of the 15 could give the essay as a conference talk.  Or the 15 could all sign it could sign it and it could be a proclamation that Mormons could frame and hang on their walls. Or it could be a new declaration that would be put at the back of the D&C.  Or Oaks could see the value of an apology even though he feels that the lack of the word "apology" in the scriptures has some bearing.  Leading by example would do so much good.  Or the 15 could actually publish the God speaking in the first person text of the revelation from God that they got in 1978, if such a thing actually existed.

"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." https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng

On Google and Wikipedia, lds.org is listed as the "Official website..."