What if it's ALL true?

[CV75]

47 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.

I think you may be conflating "official" with "binding." Two different things entirely.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

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

Like he said, they are brilliantly ambiguous. 

I think the difference is that my conclusions do not go beyond the actual words of the text, while his require interpretation and assumption of what the text means.

As I said before as well though, they definitely are ambiguous.  

[Oliver_Cowdery]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

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. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Jeanne]

Just now, Oliver_Cowdery said:

The essay have been revised slightly without any notification.  The essay carry no dates.  The only way the revisions were found is because people were archive them.

Really....why do I think there is something wrong with this picture???

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

But, if given your premise, that on that last day, the final judgment, God springs it on everyone: "Guess what? There really was a global flood." My response would be a slow drawl of, "Well, I'll be d_ _ _ _d." And fully expect to be.

Somehow I doubt a belief in the global flood is a requirement to escape damnation.  I don't think that will be an issue.

Quote

If God declares, I mean, officially declares  that he despises SSM (or did you mean homosexuality), then I'll go stand with those I know who are in that group and say, "I prefer to be here."

Leaving aside SSM/homosexuality for a second, would you really prefer to be in a group that goes against God on an issue?  Does that mean you believe that God can be wrong on an issue?  And what of the previous examples of those who have joined a grouping that disagreed with God (premortal existence for instance).  Is that an acceptable choice?

Quote

Polygamy? I went through the temple the first time in 1964. It was the Salt Lake City temple. I was married in the Bern, Switzerland temple. Nobody said anything about polygamy the whole time I was there. Nor did they say anything in the London temple, nor in the Provo temple. Maybe I just went to the wrong temples or I failed to listen carefully enough to somewhat obscure messages about polygamy.

Check the marriage covenant again.

Quote

I married one wife and swore fidelity to one person. Was all that misguided loyalties and poppycock? If God declares that he really does endorse polygamy, my answer is clear. "No thanks. Not for me," He can't force me, can he?

No, of course he can't and wouldn't.  As with any of God's laws it's not reward/punishment.  It's laws obeyed = blessings, laws refused = no blessings.  We always have our agency to reject any blessing and law.  Not quite the same as a sin (although "damning" can come from both).

Quote

You're expecting wailing and gnashing of teeth? Sorry to disappoint.

Again with the cynical response.  I expect no such thing.  Just wanted to turn the usual argument on its head for a change.
 

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

The essay have already been revised without any notification.  The essay carry no dates.  The only way the revisions were detected is because people were archive them.

I'm speaking about revisions that greatly change the content.  Some revisions make sense because its only as people begin to interact with a writing that you can tell if you've written it in a way that conveys your actual meaning.

As I said, the essays are basically just topics that could be included in any lesson manual.   

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Really....why do I think there is something wrong with this picture???

Why do you always assume the worst without even knowing what the revisions were?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour 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.

It's funny how so many tangents can be pursued around the topic of a thread.
The ambiguity of Mormon doctrine, the nature of truth, the realization of our errors in eternity.  None of these were the thread topic.
But they are all bringing out interesting derails.

 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Why do you always assume the worst without even knowing what the revisions were?

I am not assuming the worst....it is just that...as always...I didn't know...and if it is so changeable...it is not like it answers anything anymore. 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm speaking about revisions that greatly change the content.  Some revisions make sense because its only as people begin to interact with a writing that you can tell if you've written it in a way that conveys your actual meaning.

As I said, the essays are basically just topics that could be included in any lesson manual.   

 

That is true.  The gospel topics aren't anymore authoritative than a manual. Which is kind of a problem.  Until that changes we are likely to continue to see some members give racist justifications for the priesthood ban.  The the old teaching on the issue were given with more authority and officialness than the timidly given corrections.  

Edited December 20, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[stemelbow]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 10:35 PM, 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?
 

It's probably been said, but this is tough to answer.  There's been so much said, surely there's tons of contradiction in the mess of stuff that's been taught over the pulpit.  If it's all true, then whatever.  I have no doubt much carries validity.  Some of it just seems like garbage to me.  If that garbage is true, then fine.  I'll deal with it.  I'm probably about the Telestial level of a being either way, I figure. 

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, pogi said:

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

Now you are thinking!!   But "actually" since being wrong is an illusion.....   no, we won't go there.  

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

That is true.  The gospel topics aren't anymore authoritative than a manual. Which is kind of a problem.  Until that changes we are likely to continue to see some members give racist justifications for the priesthood ban.  The the old teaching on the issue were given with more authority and officialness than the timidly given corrections.  

That definitely could happen.  One good thing is that soon there won't be very many members alive who heard those old teachings, while the number of members who have heard that such teachings have been disavowed will continue to increase.  

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am not assuming the worst....it is just that...as always...I didn't know...and if it is so changeable...it is not like it answers anything anymore. 

You said you felt there was something wrong with revisions happening without announcement.  That seems to be a reasonable implication of assuming the worst.  But, i'm glad you've clarified that that's not the case.

But why shouldn't it be changeable?  The essays aren't scripture.  And do you know what the revisions even were?  (I don't.  Maybe O_C will share some of them).

[Oliver_Cowdery]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's funny how so many tangents can be pursued around the topic of a thread.
The ambiguity of Mormon doctrine, the nature of truth, the realization of our errors in eternity.  None of these were the thread topic.
But they are all bringing out interesting derails.

This is a difficult topic to stay on topic with.  Like others I wonder about the contradictions that have been given over the pulpit.  But staying on topic demands that I accept those contradictions.  This causes me to contemplate the Principle of Explosion.  If we accept any contradictions, then we can prove EVERY proposition and its contrary.  

There's no end to the confusion that can generate, but to stay on topic I need to get over that.  Given the nature of contradictions I am surprised the thread is as on topic as it is.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Oliver_Cowdery]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That definitely could happen.  One good thing is that soon there won't be very many members alive who heard those old teachings, while the number of members who have heard that such teachings have been disavowed will continue to increase.  

And then someone realizes that in the information age they can just go read the record of what the prophets said in the past too. And the next thing you know we are still stuck with fundamentalist. It is no longer possible to imagine that we can go back to the way the church used to operate. 

At the heart of this problem is a leadership problem. It would take some moral courage.  The leaders could correct this with a few words and a signature of a pen.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

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.

In your theistic sense, is your definition of God "First Cause"?

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's probably been said, but this is tough to answer.  There's been so much said, surely there's tons of contradiction in the mess of stuff that's been taught over the pulpit.  If it's all true, then whatever.  I have no doubt much carries validity.  Some of it just seems like garbage to me.  If that garbage is true, then fine.  I'll deal with it.  I'm probably about the Telestial level of a being either way, I figure. 

 

20 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

And then someone realizes that in the information age they can just go read the record of what the prophets said in the past too. And the next thing you know we are still stuck with fundamentalist. It is no longer possible to imagine that we can go back to the way the church used to operate. 

At the heart of this problem is a leadership problem. It would take some moral courage.  The leaders could correct this with a few words and a signature of a pen.

To paraphrase, that which is contradictory under one circumstance, may be, and often is, consonant under another…

(“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.” -- Joseph Smith)

Edited December 20, 2016 by CV75

[Oliver_Cowdery]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

To paraphrase, that which is contradictory under one circumstance, may be, and often is, consonant under another…

(“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.” -- Joseph Smith)

Point taken; right and wrong change depending on context.  What is the right context for the racist doctrine the LDS church taught? 

This is a tangent, but that Joseph Smith quote doesn't mean what so many people who have quoted it assumed.  I heard that quote so many times growing up, and then I learned the source and the context of that quote and I now see it in a completely different light.

Joseph Smith said those word to pressure Nancy Rigdon into secret polygamist marriage.

http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Van-Hale-Nancy-Rigdon-addendum-complete.pdf

Edited December 20, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

That is true.  The gospel topics aren't anymore authoritative than a manual. Which is kind of a problem.  Until that changes we are likely to continue to see some members give racist justifications for the priesthood ban.  The the old teaching on the issue were given with more authority and officialness than the timidly given corrections.  

But there will always be some variation in how members understand and practice the teachings, no matter how authoritative – and anything official is authoritative, and the essays are stated as the product of official action – the presentation. Authority does not translate into coercion and uniformity. And there are many leadership styles, coercion being only one, and one to which the Brethren do not subscribe. “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” – Joseph Smith.

[SteveO]

I was doing scripture study today, and I was thinking back to a few pages ago where I couldn't believe a skeptic, who spent most of his life in the church, would seriously ask a question concerning whether scripture is written by man or God.  Unless someone is an investigator, how do we not already know how man's imperfections and weaknesses make their way into scripture?  

14 But behold, the Jews were a stiff necked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

Are we maybe looking "beyond the mark" with a lot of this stuff?  I'm not saying don't ask questions.  But it seems to me *some* people are skipping the basic foundation of what the church is--The Gospel of Jesus Christ--and going straight to stuff that concerns them.  And its not making people feel better.  I'm seeing angst, confusion, anger etc.  The notion that God is not the author of confusion was mentioned previously and how it applies to the statements made by the brethren.  I think God is not the author of the confusion coming about by "looking beyond the mark"--the confusion of jumping straight into the doubts and concerns and leaving no room for the light of Christ to guide the way. 

The attributes of Jesus Christ will generally solve a lot of it.  The same attributes we touch on again and again and again every Sunday in sacrament meeting, sunday school, and priesthood/relief society.  The attributes we've heard about ad nauseam before, so we surf the web on our phones until something "new" comes up.  Faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, humility, and diligence.  In a lot of these posts, you can either feel, or see where one or more of these attributes are missing.  Even people who have spent their entire lives in the church maybe need to go back and do a refresher--which would in and of itself require humility and patience.  

Maybe take a break from this board for a bit, and take this Christmas season to maybe go back to the basics--read the scriptures free from the discussion board for a bit.  Anyways, sorry for the derail, but my 2 cents.   

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

And then someone realizes that in the information age they can just go read the record of what the prophets said in the past too. And the next thing you know we are still stuck with fundamentalist. It is no longer possible to imagine that we can go back to the way the church used to operate. 

At the heart of this problem is a leadership problem. It would take some moral courage.  The leaders could correct this with a few words and a signature of a pen.

They can go and read them, but few do. And hopefully the few who do are smart enough to understand what disavowed means. 

I'm not personally ready to accuse our leaders of being moral cowards.  I don't think their lives show that they deserve the title. 

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Point taken; right and wrong change depending on context.  What is the right context for the racist doctrine the LDS church taught? 

This is a tangent, but that Joseph Smith quote doesn't mean what so many people who have quoted it assumed.  I heard that quote so many times growing up, and then I learned the source and the context of that quote and I now see it in a completely different light.

Joseph Smith said those word to pressure Nancy Rigdon into secret polygamist marriage.

http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Van-Hale-Nancy-Rigdon-addendum-complete.pdf

I'll go this far with the tangent: the context for Joseph Smith's quote doesn't make it untrue, and he used the word circumstance anyway. Circumstance is very, very different from context, so let's not go down that tangent.

By contemporary standards, early American society is now considered racist, but by the standards of the day, there was nothing amiss in making generalizations that all members of each "race" possess characteristics and abilities specific to that race (eventually Darwin expressed this view in terms of sub-species). I think a discussion of right and wrong on the assumptions about circumstances, context and doctrine on this subject requires a good deal of agreement on the definitions beforehand.

Edited December 20, 2016 by CV75

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You said you felt there was something wrong with revisions happening without announcement.  That seems to be a reasonable implication of assuming the worst.  But, i'm glad you've clarified that that's not the case.

But why shouldn't it be changeable?  The essays aren't scripture.  And do you know what the revisions even were?  (I don't.  Maybe O_C will share some of them).

What is their significance if they are not scripture...or even signed..? 

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

What is their significance if they are not scripture...or even signed..?

Official Church publication on a topic...whatever that means for their spiritual and doctrinal correctness.