Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[pogi]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

Pogi

Can you give me your thoughts on the excerpt from a book I am reading called Faith vs Fact?

First, why should I accept the Oxford English Dictionary definition of truth?   

The sole reason the author selects that definition is because he believes that it “correspond roughly to most people’s vernacular use”.  First of all, can we verify that?, second of all, the nature and reality of truth is not determined by popular vote.  He doesn’t even attempt to validate these definitions.  They simply fit his personal bias.  As such, his entire logic and argument is based in weak sauce swimming in more weak sauce. 

Truth is conformity with who’s facts?  The popular facts of today, yesterday, or tomorrow?  I can hear MFB now, grinding his teeth in contempt and disdain.  Nietzsche was right on this point - There are no _____, only interpretations. 

Truth is agreement with who’s reality? My reality or your reality?  Our perspectives and perceptions form our realities.  We cannot escape our own subjective perspectives to see things as they are.  We create our own realities.  Relative truth is so powerful that whether or not it is in line with absolute truth, it will always create a real reaction.  Two people can react to the exact same stimulus in completely different ways, because we don’t perceive things as they are, rather we perceive things as we are.  As such, we don’t react to things as they are, we react to things as we perceive them to be.

Scientific conclusions can only be as absolute as their perspectives.  When the majority of scientists reach a consensus, we all cheer and call it “fact”, and accept such facts as “knowledge”.  It is kind of funny to watch!  It is like a bunch of children looking through the same telescope and reporting that they see the same things.  Then another kid shows up later and looks at the telescope, and says “this thing was not calibrated correctly, here try this!”.  They all look thru the newly calibrated telescope and marvel that things were not as they seemed before. Facts change along with knowledge.  This re-calibration goes on for some time, each new kid getting much acclaim for their new calibrations.  Then a new kid comes along with a bigger badder telescope, followed by more calibrations, followed by more oohs and aahs…and on and on they go.

Because the human senses are easily deceived, fallible, and extremely limited in their scope, the amount of information that we can gather is so negligible when you consider the vastness of the universe and beyond.  We as mortal humans can only perceive of the tiniest fraction of the likely infinite number of variables that make up eternity.
 
What we are left with is a “probable” picture and explanation of a few of the variables that we have gathered within our reach in an endless sea of variables.  It is like we are limited to 3 pieces of a puzzle with a possible infinite number of pieces, and we are not even sure if what we are holding are even real puzzle pieces because we can’t know anything for 100% certainty, but they probably, hopefully are; that’s our best guess of what they are anyway.  Does this give you the sense of the nothingness of man and his measure?  He simply cannot see the big picture.  Every time a new discovery and variable is added to the equation, it changes our perspective of every other variable.  Our "truth", "knowledge", and "realities" will continue to evolve until there are no more variables to add to the equation of eternity.  Man does not know capital-T Truth.  No, not even Mormons, which is the only point I agree with him on.  

Edited January 15, 2017 by pogi

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh gosh.

You really want to get into this? How well did you do the other time you decided to discuss my qualifications in business?

I have a bachelor's degree from UCLA in philosophy and three years of graduate study on these particular issues in philosophy with two of the major experts in this area, Robert C Solomon and John McDermott. Look them up. McDermott is an expert on William James and related teachings and Solomon is an expert in phenomenology and existentialism. Those are the philosophies I espouse. When I discovered that the philosopher Wittgenstein showed conclusively in my opinion that philosophical problems were nothing but semantic problems precisely like the nonsense we are now discussing I gave up academic philosophy and went to business because at that time I concluded that teaching philosophy would be an inauthentic life choice for me, as far as earning a living.

I left formal philosophy in 1973 and found the church in 1980. During that time I also did graduate study in art history one of my other loves.

I have never stopped studying Philosophy.  That would make it 51 years since philosophy 101.

 If that makes me not a "philosopher" then so be it. I just know a heck of a lot more about truth than Coyne does.

 

Oh gosh.  I made an assumption bases on your other post about your profession.   What you said you do would not lead me at all to conclude about your education.  I stand corrected. 

Whether you know more or less than Coyne does about "truth" I have no way of knowing.   How can you say you do?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Oh gosh.  I made an assumption bases on your other post about your profession.   What you said you do would not lead me at all to conclude about your education.  I stand corrected. 

Whether you know more or less than Coyne does about "truth" I have no way of knowing.   How can you say you do?

Of course you have no way of knowing because you refuse to learn.   It's willful ignorance.

I have read all the articles I referred you to which you have refused to read and many, many more over the last 50 years.  Coyne's position on truth is 2000 years old and goes back to Aristotle.   You don't get philosophy out of a dictionary, and he admits he is avoiding philosophy and going by what the ordinary man believes.

No wonder you believe him.  

Look out- big words ahead  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#5

Quote

 

Narrowly speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to, or with, a fact—a view that was advocated by Russell and Moore early in the 20th century. But the label is usually applied much more broadly to any view explicitly embracing the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified). This basic idea has been expressed in many ways, giving rise to an extended family of theories and, more often, theory sketches. Members of the family employ various concepts for the relevant relation (correspondence, conformity, congruence, agreement, accordance, copying, picturing, signification, representation, reference, satisfaction) and/or various concepts for the relevant portion of reality (facts, states of affairs, conditions, situations, events, objects, sequences of objects, sets, properties, tropes). The resulting multiplicity of versions and reformulations of the theory is due to a blend of substantive and terminological differences.

The correspondence theory of truth is often associated with metaphysical realism. Its traditional competitors, pragmatist, as well as coherentist, verificationist, and other epistemic theories of truth, are often associated with idealism, anti-realism, or relativism. In recent years, these traditional competitors have been virtually replaced (at least from publication-space) by deflationary theories of truth and, to a lesser extent, by the identity theory (note that these new competitors are typically not associated with anti-realism). Still more recently, two further approaches have received considerable attention. One is truthmaker theory: it is sometimes viewed as a competitor to, sometimes as a more liberal version of, the correspondence theory. The other is pluralism: it incorporates a correspondence account as one, but only one, ingredient of its overall account of truth......

Objection 2: Correspondence theories are too obvious. They are trivial, vacuous, trading in mere platitudes. Locutions from the “corresponds to the facts”-family are used regularly in everyday language as idiomatic substitutes for “true”. Such common turns of phrase should not be taken to indicate commitment to a correspondence theory in any serious sense. Definitions like (1) or (2) merely condense some trivial idioms into handy formulas; they don’t deserve the grand label “theory”: there is no theoretical weight behind them (cf. Woozley 1949, chap. 6; Davidson 1969; Blackburn 1984, chap. 7.1).

 

In other words, as Coyne admits,he does not want to discuss philosophy but simply go by what the ordinary man believes.

I have posted this before and you did not read it.

Have a good life- I really do wish you well- I am just tired of this nonsense. I want to help people - I cannot help you if you refuse to even read the posts and the references.  Repeating over and again is a waste of time.  

Edited January 15, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course you have no way of knowing because you refuse to learn.   It's willful ignorance.

I have read all the articles I referred you to which you have refused to read and many, many more over the last 50 years.  Coyne's position on truth is 2000 years old and goes back to Aristotle.   You don't get philosophy out of a dictionary, and he admits he is avoiding philosophy and going by what the ordinary man believes.

No wonder you believe him.  

Look out- big words ahead  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#5

In other words, as Coyne admits,he does not want to discuss philosophy but simply go by what the ordinary man believes.

I have posted this before and you did not read it.

Have a good life- I really do wish you well- I am just tired of this nonsense. I want to help people - I cannot help you if you refuse to even read the posts and the references.  Repeating over and again is a waste of time.  

Mark I was not rude to you but you are rude to me and others whe don't jump into line with what you say. 

I thought you were self taught on philosophy.   I appologize for my error.   I am trying to learn on both sides.   Yes Coyne is a biologist.   I have no idea what he has studied about philosophy.  Later in the chapter from which I posted the excerpt Coyne does talk about philosophy more as a way, a discipline of finding and understand truth and knowledge   If you are interested I can post that. 

I have read a few items you have shared and I read your posts.   But time is limited.  But I maybe I am just stupid and not as bright as you but the stuff you share makes my head hurt and it just does not settle in.  I read Blake Osltlers first book on the Attributes of God and again it just did not sink in.  Perhaps I am just to pragmatic in how I approach things.  

if you don't want to interact with me ok.   But you don't have to be so rude and condescending about it.   

Sorry that I offend you.  Maybe there is one of those intro books to philosophy that you can recommend to me.   You know like a Philosophy for Dummies book?

Believe it or not I don't think I have all the answers and in fact I think I don't have many.   And I am a seeker.  More so than when I believed that Mormosim was God's One True Church.   I am sure at times I come off arrogant as well.  So I will tell you what.   If you can recommend to me a good intro book on philosophy and the topic of truth, reality, etc I will buy it and read it.   Deal? 

Edited January 15, 2017 by Teancum

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Mark I was not rude to you but you are rude to me and others whe don't jump into line with what you say. 

I thought you were self taught on philosophy.   I appologize for my error.   I am trying to learn on both sides.   Yes Coyne is a biologist.   I have no idea what he has studied about philosophy.  Later in the chapter from which I posted the excerpt Coyne does talk about philosophy more as a way, a discipline of finding and understand truth and knowledge   If you are interested I can post that. 

I have read a few items you have shared and I read your posts.   But time is limited.  But I maybe I am just stupid and not as bright as you but the stuff you share makes my head hurt and it just does not settle in.  I read Blake Osltlers first book on the Attributes of God and again it just did not sink in.  Perhaps I am just to pragmatic in how I approach things.  

if you don't want to interact with me ok.   But you don't have to be so rude and condescending about it.   

Sorry that I offend you.  Maybe there is one of those intro books to philosophy that you can recommend to me.   You know like a Philosophy for Dummies book?

Believe it or not I don't think I have all the answers and in fact I think I don't have many.   And I am a seeker.  More so than when I believed that Mormosim was God's One True Church.   I am sure at times I come off arrogant as well.  So I will tell you what.   If you can recommend to me a good intro book on philosophy and the topic of truth, reality, etc I will buy it and read it.   Deal? 

I really am sorry for that post. I know I can be an arogant jerk

[Teancum]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I really am sorry for that post. I know I can be an arogant jerk

I thinking it is the nature of message boards.  We all can be.   But Mark I am serious.  Please recommend an intro book on what we have been discussing.  I will put aside Coyne's book and read whatever you can recommend.   I do take this all very seriously.   

[kllindley]

59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I thinking it is the nature of message boards.  We all can be.   But Mark I am serious.  Please recommend an intro book on what we have been discussing.  I will put aside Coyne's book and read whatever you can recommend.   I do take this all very seriously.   

As part of the nature of message boards, someone can chime into a conversation. I'm not trained nearly like Mark. And I found this article very helpful as I tried to understand the philosophy of science and postmodernism. Also quite readable. 

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1767%26context%3Dmsr&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj8hraL5sTRAhVC32MKHeDSAYUQFggaMAA&sig2=Yq1MwJEusBhZudUa_2NOBA&usg=AFQjCNGUgZqWmCk_XugvAK4JjxoQ1o3szQ

[kllindley]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

I just have issues when members claim there has been some revelation on this subject when church leaders have made no such statement.

I would like to understand you and your perspective better. I don't understand why if you don't have a dog in the fight, it would bother you.

Why is it so bothersome that some members believe the authoritative comments and publications of men we believe to be prophets, seers, and revelators actually might be the result of revelation? 

I don't want to get into a debate about the issue of SSM. I really would like to focus on what you see as the bigger issue. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

As part of the nature of message boards, someone can chime into a conversation. I'm not trained nearly like Mark. And I found this article very helpful as I tried to understand the philosophy of science and postmodernism. Also quite readable. 

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1767%26context%3Dmsr&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj8hraL5sTRAhVC32MKHeDSAYUQFggaMAA&sig2=Yq1MwJEusBhZudUa_2NOBA&usg=AFQjCNGUgZqWmCk_XugvAK4JjxoQ1o3szQ

Thanks.  I will take a look. 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

I would like to understand you and your perspective better. I don't understand why if you don't have a dog in the fight, it would bother you.

Why is it so bothersome that some members believe the authoritative comments and publications of men we believe to be prophets, seers, and revelators actually might be the result of revelation? 

I don't want to get into a debate about the issue of SSM. I really would like to focus on what you see as the bigger issue. 

I guess I grew up in the church at a time when members and church leaders seem to teach things that really were a distortion of what actually happened or was just folklore that when repeated often enough became true.  How Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon, Where the Pearl of Great Price came from and the claims around that.  Blacks are cursed with a dark skin because they sat on the fence in the war in heaven etc.  I am sure you are well aware of what I am talking about without going into much detail.  

So now the church seems to be making an effort to be more forthright and careful about what the claims are and what is folklore.  When members start to claim that the Proclamation on the Family is revelation without ANY support or claim by any of the church leaders, it is once again introducing folklore into what is true and what is not true.  I guess I have a problem when members try to head down that road again.  Given that the church leaders have been very careful to not label the Proclamation on the Family as a revelation, I feel the members should respect that and not claim it is something that it is not.  

Edited January 16, 2017 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Thanks.  I will take a look. 

This is not an easy article, by no means introductory.

I am writing a post on it- but the software will not save long posts- not sure if it is the time or the length of the post.  Fortunately this time I saved the post before it disappeared.  I will post it soon.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, kllindley said:

As part of the nature of message boards, someone can chime into a conversation. I'm not trained nearly like Mark. And I found this article very helpful as I tried to understand the philosophy of science and postmodernism. Also quite readable. 

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1767%26context%3Dmsr&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj8hraL5sTRAhVC32MKHeDSAYUQFggaMAA&sig2=Yq1MwJEusBhZudUa_2NOBA&usg=AFQjCNGUgZqWmCk_XugvAK4JjxoQ1o3szQ

Great article thanks!

Contradicting the above post, I am going to take some time to think about this- there might be an error here.  Thought a quick post would be good enough- not the case

I am not sure any philosopher holds that "meaning is subjective".   I will have to review that better and see exactly how Faulconer is using that phrase and how it affects his argument

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 1/9/2017 at 1:52 PM, cacheman said:

If you don't mind sharing, I'm curious as to why you find it very difficult to work with the least educated members of your ward.  

-cacheman

I think it's a whole constellation of issues, many of which I don't even understand.

Some of them would be structural. Many of these members' lives are chaotic: shift work; irregular employment; regular family break-downs and conflicts; disruptions caused by frequent trips to courts, schools, government offices and hospitals; etc. A number of our least educated member families seem to careen from one crisis to the next to the next -- much of which could have been avoided by following very basic gospel principles.

But they don't see it that way because, overwhelmingly, they don't grasp basic gospel principles. They have a vague faith in God, ask other people to pray for them and their families, and often loudly and proudly self-identify as Latter-day Saints to any and all. They don't, however, read their scriptures. I don't know all the reasons why, but in many cases it's because they read poorly or just don't like to read. Because they're inactive, they obviously don't hear sermons or lessons, and when I visit them in their homes, they often have trouble grasping the real heart of something as straightforward as the First Presidency message. They prefer black-and-white messages over anything with nuance. Like the typical parish priest in 14th-century Europe, their understanding is almost fully dependent on what someone has told them. And if one highly regarded figure once told them something wrong or iffy, good luck convincing them of that. They struggle with personal prayer and revelation. They don't teach their children much of anything outside of 'Mormonism'  as a cultural or borderline ethnic identity.

I contrast this with a non-member friend whom I took the missionaries to visit last night. This man has a postgraduate degree and currently works for the United Nations. He's thoughtful and articulate. He understands deep questions and provides thoughtful responses. He reads the Bible regularly and has become a frequent reader of the Book of Mormon. He understands what he reads. He doesn't entirely believe yet what we've been sharing with him, but he's able to interact with it, and he's going to make a fantastic member someday!

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think it's a whole constellation of issues, many of which I don't even understand.

Some of them would be structural. Many of these members' lives are chaotic: shift work; irregular employment; regular family break-downs and conflicts; disruptions caused by frequent trips to courts, schools, government offices and hospitals; etc. A number of our least educated member families seem to careen from one crisis to the next to the next -- much of which could have been avoided by following very basic gospel principles.

But they don't see it that way because, overwhelmingly, they don't grasp basic gospel principles. They have a vague faith in God, ask other people to pray for them and their families, and often loudly and proudly self-identify as Latter-day Saints to any and all. They don't, however, read their scriptures. I don't know all the reasons why, but in many cases it's because they read poorly or just don't like to read. Because they're inactive, they obviously don't hear sermons or lessons, and when I visit them in their homes, they often have trouble grasping the real heart of something as straightforward as the First Presidency message. They prefer black-and-white messages over anything with nuance. Like the typical parish priest in 14th-century Europe, their understanding is almost fully dependent on what someone has told them. And if one highly regarded figure once told them something wrong or iffy, good luck convincing them of that. They struggle with personal prayer and revelation. They don't teach their children much of anything outside of 'Mormonism'  as a cultural or borderline ethnic identity.

I contrast this with a non-member friend whom I took the missionaries to visit last night. This man has a postgraduate degree and currently works for the United Nations. He's thoughtful and articulate. He understands deep questions and provides thoughtful responses. He reads the Bible regularly and has become a frequent reader of the Book of Mormon. He understands what he reads. He doesn't entirely believe yet what we've been sharing with him, but he's able to interact with it, and he's going to make a fantastic member someday!

http://people.bethel.edu/~kisrob/hon301k/sessions03/9-22-03/Perry.html

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html#perrynet

Edited January 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

http://people.bethel.edu/~kisrob/hon301k/sessions03/9-22-03/Perry.html

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html#perrynet

One of the best (though most challenging) experiences I had as an undergrad was studying Shakespearean tragedy with an instructor who required us to fit characters into Perry's scheme (always justifying our choices) and then analyse the development of the play in light of that understanding. It's also an interesting exercise to do with scriptural narratives ... and quite possibly with this board ...

[kllindley]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I guess I grew up in the church at a time when members and church leaders seem to teach things that really were a distortion of what actually happened or was just folklore that when repeated often enough became true.  How Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon, Where the Pearl of Great Price came from and the claims around that.  Blacks are cursed with a dark skin because they sat on the fence in the war in heaven etc.  I am sure you are well aware of what I am talking about without going into much detail.  

So now the church seems to be making an effort to be more forthright and careful about what the claims are and what is folklore.  When members start to claim that the Proclamation on the Family is revelation without ANY support or claim by any of the church leaders, it is once again introducing folklore into what is true and what is not true.  I guess I have a problem when members try to head down that road again.  Given that the church leaders have been very careful to not label the Proclamation on the Family as a revelation, I feel the members should respect that and not claim it is something that it is not.  

If I understand right, you have a problem with the LDS culture of conflating doctrine and folklore. And you see the claim that the Proclamation on the Family is revelation to be falling into that trap. Is that correct? 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/14/2017 at 5:10 PM, rockpond said:

So your position is that even the Brethren did not have an accuarate understanding of the Church narrative?  And information on the narrative of the church wasn't available to the average member?  Just trying to understand your statements  

Like most Mormons, the Brethren have a basic understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which it is their job to promulgate worldwide, and they rely heavily on the power of the Holy Spirit in doing so.  When they need plumbing or electrical work in the Church Office Bldg, they hire experts to take care of it.  Same as any other professional or vocational specialty -- history, information technology, accounting, security, and the like.

Because they are full-time clerics with a large professional staff, they do have a better than average grasp of that Gospel and of Church administration.  That is to  be expected.  And occasionally they may see the need for greater clarity of expression on controversial matters, and may formulate essays or policies addressing the same.  They are quite fallible in doing so, and can be expected to make errors, just as their predecessors have done going back thousands of years.  On balance, however, with notable exceptions, they have done a creditable job.

On 1/14/2017 at 5:10 PM, rockpond said:

You misunderstand me:  I've had no problem understanding the narrative of the church and putting it in proper context.  But I had to get there without help from the Church. 

You probably do understand the basic outlines of LDS history, although I don't detect a proper appreciation by you of the nuances and complexities of real history or theology. History is not facts, but the interpretation of facts.  The LDS theological view is that, without the Holy Spirit one is unlikely to get that interpretation right.  The secular academic view is that one must approach interpretation with the proper amount of professional preparation.  Trying to finesse it without either of these two prerequisites leaves little else than guesswork or rumormongering -- the rocks and shoals upon which the Tanners and their friends have foundered, despite their herculean efforts.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/14/2017 at 5:42 PM, cinepro said:

Sorry, but the recent Arrington bio makes it very clear that as far back in the 1970s there were historians in the History Department who knew that the Church's version of the "narrative" had huge gaps, and the Apostles and First Presidency at the time were very aware of what was being published and what wasn't, and several held very strong opinions on what should or shouldn't be made available. 

Those who favored a "narrative" that was primarily faith-promoting, with faith-unpromoting stories and information deliberately excised, won the day, giving us several more decades until the internet came along and forced the issue.

But the Brethren very well knew what they didn't know, and made the choice for the Church and themselves to not know it.

On the contrary, cinepro.  The Brethren most certainly did not know what they did not know.  Yes, there were among them guys who thought that not allowing access to the unknown was a good bet, but they were completely wrong (a strong indicator that they did not in fact understand the extent and nature of the documents).  Some may have been fearful of what they did not understand.  After all, no real assessment by professionals had yet been made -- meaning that it could not be placed in proper context.  Pres McKay's effort to discover how the anti-Black priesthood policy came into being is a prime example of the lack of knowledge and information at the highest levels.  He found that it was not backed by doctrine or revelation, but the ingrained policy was based only on rumor and innuendo (some of which we still occasionally hear), which ignored the actual practice of Joseph Smith and the early Brethren.  It is absurd to suggest that the Brethren actually understood this.  That took a lot of solid research and publication, which was of great value to the Brethren -- who did not even know what was in their archives.  The process of understanding all that was painful to the Brethren and to LDS Church members at large, but a necessary, cathartic pain.

It is so easy to forget that the LDS Church is a human institution, and that these flaws are quite normal and to be expected -- part of the learning process we are all here to undergo.  Complaining is easy, while coming to terms with reality is difficult.  For everyone.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the contrary, cinepro.  The Brethren most certainly did not know what they did not know.  Yes, there were among them guys who thought that not allowing access to the unknown was a good bet, but they were completely wrong (a strong indicator that they did not in fact understand the extent and nature of the documents).  Some may have been fearful of what they did not understand.  After all, no real assessment by professionals had yet been made -- meaning that it could not be placed in proper context.  Pres McKay's effort to discover how the anti-Black priesthood policy came into being is a prime example of the lack of knowledge and information at the highest levels.  He found that it was not backed by doctrine or revelation, but the ingrained policy was based only on rumor and innuendo (some of which we still occasionally hear), which ignored the actual practice of Joseph Smith and the early Brethren.  It is absurd to suggest that the Brethren actually understood this.  That took a lot of solid research and publication, which was of great value to the Brethren -- who did not even know what was in their archives.  The process of understanding all that was painful to the Brethren and to LDS Church members at large, but a necessary, cathartic pain.

It is so easy to forget that the LDS Church is a human institution, and that these flaws are quite normal and to be expected -- part of the learning process we are all here to undergo.  Complaining is easy, while coming to terms with reality is difficult.  For everyone.

Don't tell me they can get better answers or that I'm to follow blindly or do what they say even if they get it wrong then. I'm not speaking to you directly, btw.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

History is not facts, but the interpretation of facts.

An essential point that I always drilled into my first-year undergraduate history students.

[Stargazer]

On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 8:48 PM, california boy said:

I actually doubt it would make much difference to most that are gay.  I think that most people think the church will not be changing their current position with a revelation or without one  any time soon.  What I seem to care more about is "claims" of revelation when none exist.  It is not about the dogma.  It about keeping things honest.

 I personally would not care one way or the other.   If the church shocked everyone and said that all worthy members can now be married in the temple, I doubt that I would come back into the church.  For one thing, my boyfriend would never join the church, and I wouldn't leave him over this issue. 

What do you think would happen if the church did receive a revelation allowing all worthy members to marry in the temple?

I think you're right that it wouldn't make much difference to most who are gay.  I'm one of those who doesn't think the church will be changing its position anytime soon -- or rather, that it will ever change. 

It happens to be the case that I believe in the church's claim with regard to being ruled by the Lord through revelation.  I also happen to believe that the Lord doesn't repeat Himself unnecessarily, and that His prior revelations on the subject of homosexuality are His final word on the matter.  In the case of misunderstanding, which is what happened in respect of, say, baptism for the dead, He re-instituted it since it wasn't a doctrine that survived the Apostasy, even if there was ample evidence in the Bible.

As to what would happen if the Lord commanded same sex sealing in the temple, I suspect there would be a number of members, probably large, who would reject it.  There might be large-scale defections.  As for me, if it did happen, I would take the matter to the Lord to confirm whether it was His will.  And then act accordingly.  But I'd give the odds of this happening at about a million to one.  Or possibly infinity to one.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Like most Mormons, the Brethren have a basic understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which it is their job to promulgate worldwide, and they rely heavily on the power of the Holy Spirit in doing so.  When they need plumbing or electrical work in the Church Office Bldg, they hire experts to take care of it.  Same as any other professional or vocational specialty -- history, information technology, accounting, security, and the like.

Because they are full-time clerics with a large professional staff, they do have a better than average grasp of that Gospel and of Church administration.  That is to  be expected.  And occasionally they may see the need for greater clarity of expression on controversial matters, and may formulate essays or policies addressing the same.  They are quite fallible in doing so, and can be expected to make errors, just as their predecessors have done going back thousands of years.  On balance, however, with notable exceptions, they have done a creditable job.

You probably do understand the basic outlines of LDS history, although I don't detect a proper appreciation by you of the nuances and complexities of real history or theology. History is not facts, but the interpretation of facts.  The LDS theological view is that, without the Holy Spirit one is unlikely to get that interpretation right.  The secular academic view is that one must approach interpretation with the proper amount of professional preparation.  Trying to finesse it without either of these two prerequisites leaves little else than guesswork or rumormongering -- the rocks and shoals upon which the Tanners and their friends have foundered, despite their herculean efforts.

So you aren't going to actually dialogue and answer questions?  And you're just going to continue to make incorrect assumptions about me and others?

I guess we're done.  Have a good day. 

[california boy]

11 hours ago, kllindley said:

If I understand right, you have a problem with the LDS culture of conflating doctrine and folklore. And you see the claim that the Proclamation on the Family is revelation to be falling into that trap. Is that correct? 

You are correct. The church is a house of order. It is not the duty of members to declare something is a revelation for the church.  It is the responsibility and calling of the prophet to tell members of the church when God has spoken to him.  So far, the prophet nor any other leader of the church has declared the Proclamation on the Family to have come through revelation.  When members start to take on that responsibility, then chaos enters into the church.  We have seen that happen before.  

The Proclamation on the Family may very well be a belief that the Mormon church has, but it is  not a belief that came through revelation from God according to church leaders.

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by california boy

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the contrary, cinepro.  The Brethren most certainly did not know what they did not know.  

Glad we cleared that up!

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think you're right that it wouldn't make much difference to most who are gay.  I'm one of those who doesn't think the church will be changing its position anytime soon -- or rather, that it will ever change. 

It happens to be the case that I believe in the church's claim with regard to being ruled by the Lord through revelation.  I also happen to believe that the Lord doesn't repeat Himself unnecessarily, and that His prior revelations on the subject of homosexuality are His final word on the matter.  In the case of misunderstanding, which is what happened in respect of, say, baptism for the dead, He re-instituted it since it wasn't a doctrine that survived the Apostasy, even if there was ample evidence in the Bible.

As to what would happen if the Lord commanded same sex sealing in the temple, I suspect there would be a number of members, probably large, who would reject it.  There might be large-scale defections.  As for me, if it did happen, I would take the matter to the Lord to confirm whether it was His will.  And then act accordingly.  But I'd give the odds of this happening at about a million to one.  Or possibly infinity to one.

In general, I am in complete agreement with you.  The one area that I don't share your confidence in is that everything in the Bible came directly from God.  For example, we believe that Paul wrote many things in his letters to various churches that we just his opinion. Some churches have embraced those ideas as the word of God.  The Mormon church over time has slowly rejected some of those opinions,  There are numerous things written in the Old Testament that we don't believe came from God, but rather from the man who wrote them.  

The church is guessing that the handful of scriptures on homosexuality were revelations from God.  The church is also guessing that the Law of Chastity refers to sex outside of marriage, except for gay couples, then it refers to any sex both within the bounds of marriage and without.  With a lack of revelation on this issue, it is just that, a guess as to what is meant or even where that doctrine came from in the Bible.  

You are comfortable without any confirmation on this subject, as is most members of the church.  Like you, I doubt that will change.  And if such a revelation changed that belief, I also believe that many members would have a difficult time dealing with such a revelation, at least at this time.  But I also see that how the church treats gay couples has a negative effect on quite a few members.  It is one of those touch points that is not easy for the church to deal with.  Just look at how many faithful members on this board have issues with how the church treats gay couples.  It is not like this is a non issue for some.  If it is the will of God to not allow gay couples the blessings of the temple, it seems to me it would be a great help to many in the church struggling with this issue to know that the prophet has actually received a revelation on this issue.