Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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.

 

It is extremely unlikely the Family Proclamation does not carry the weight and authority of revelation because at the conclusion of the document the nations of the world are solemnly warned if they don't uphold the sanctity of traditional marriage, as unambiguously set forth in the Proclamation, the consequence will be that the Lord will poor out cataclysmic judgments of destruction upon those nations. This is clear and powerful evidence that the principles set forth in the Proclamation are not things that could fit under the heading of "policy du jour." The leaders would not include that sobering warning unless they were sure the principles contained  within the document represent the mind and will of the Lord.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

Good summary.

Several years ago I realized that prophets of this dispensation had taught things, as church doctrine, that were wrong and based on their own opinions rather than revelation.  Once I came to that realization, it didn't take long to connect the dots and figure out that there isn't much difference between prophets of this dispensation, and those of previous dispensations (complicated further by centuries of transcription/translation error).  While I am content to study the words of the prophets in all dispensations, I have learned to rely on the Comforter to truly teach me.

This weekend my wife and I watched "Hidden Figures" (arguably the best movie in theaters right now).  As I watched how African American people were treated at that time, it occurred to me that my grandchildren, as adults, will look at any inequality with which gay couples were treated with the same horror.  Both sad and comforting.

[mfbukowski]

On 1/15/2017 at 9:41 AM, 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.   

This article is not bad, and the series itself looks pretty good.  In this terminology, Coyne would be a "realist" and I would be an "antirealist".  Check out the rest of the series and ask questions me questions if you like

Maybe I can discuss correspondence this way- suppose everything you see and hear is a movie- perhaps you were born with virtual reality imputs instead of eyes etc.  You go through life and then someone tells you you are seeing virtual reality but that's ok because it "corresponds" to REAL REALITY.  You never had any reason to doubt that you ARE seeing real reality every moment of your life.  How do you check to see if your reality feed is "real" or "TRUE"?  How do you check to see if your feed "corresponds to reality"?

You cannot get outside of your feed to check that?  Then someone changes the feed.  The feed has told you that the sun goes around the earth but now they say that "reality" is that the earth goes around the sun?   How do you check that??   All you see is the sun rising and setting!

Coyne says that science is "true" but it is actually a set of theories which experience SHOW to be true through experiment and further observation.

They are paradigms NOT "reality as we experience it"

I SEE those as "just paradigms" like religion is also just "a paradigm".   I feel God as truly as I see the sun going around the earth- THOSE are my direct experiences.  Yet science wants me to see THEIR paradigm instead of what I actually feel.  Why should I do that?

Since I cannot get out of my "virtual reality feed" there is no sense in trying because it is impossible.   MY world does not "correspond" to anything but MY WORLD, it is impractical to think so.  YET science works, my car works even if I do not understand it.  I ACCEPT that science works because scientific paradigms work.  I do not jump off cliffs because I know I will die.  There is a real cliff in my reality feed in front of me and I cannot get outside of the feed- so it is real for me.   It is nonsense to talk about anything outside the feed, because i can only know what i know.

https://explorable.com/realism-and-antirealism

This one is more advanced, perhaps too advanced, but page down the the "correspondence" section.  Coyne is a correspondence theory promoter.  If you google "correspondence theory of truth" you will find many entries and understand that NONE are favorable to the theory any more.  Perhaps that will be enough to make you question it even if you do not fully understand the arguments. 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/#H3

http://spiritual-minds.com/easternrelgions/knowledge/Ebook_Alpha Books - Complete Idiots Guide to Philosophy.pdf

This last one is ok too as a general intro to philosophy though not much here on truth!

Edited January 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

13 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.

Have you read the Arrington bio?  Because I have no idea what you're talking about.

There were innumerous examples throughout the book of specific research and publishing projects in the 1970s that were opposed by certain Apostles (Elder Packer and Elder Benson most frequently cited).  This wasn't a case of "oh, let's not venture into the unknown archives."  It was a case of Arrington and other researches trying to publish a more frank and accurate account of Church history and being actively shut down by some in Church leadership (and supported by others).

 

For example, page 260 of the book discusses the situation around the publication of the letters of Brigham Young in a book called "Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons."  Some of the letters discussed unorthodox practices of the 19th century, and this was opposed by Elder Packer (he even "broke protocol" by complaining straight to the First Presidency and bypassing his "chain of command" in the Quorum).

Arrington summarized Packer's objections thusly:

Quote

One, it mentioned that one of Brigham Young's sons had had a very serious illness for which the doctors had prescribed morphine and he had become addicted to it, and we acknowledged that in the book.  Secondly, Brigham Young had written a letter to one of his sons who was a missionary in England, suggesting that during the period of his mission he ought to not use tobacco.  Brigham Young did chew tobacco at one time in his life and he acknowledged that in the letter that he had, and said that he'd given it up, so he knew his son could give it up.  And the third thing was that the book acknowledged the difficulty with some of the heirs over the settlement of the Brigham Young estate.

 

These weren't theoretical "unknowns".  These were actual publications and historical issues that were being fought over for years, and ultimately not published.  They had the support of leaders such as Elder Monson, Elder Hunter and Elder McConkie, but Elder Packer, Elder Benson and Elder Petersen were far more obstinate and eventually got their way in keeping things from being published.

This is exactly what has led us here today.  The situation with great swaths of Church members being woefully unprepared for the torrent of information about Church history on the internet might not have been totally unavoidable, but it could have been much better had we had decades of honest history being shared by the Church.

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by cinepro

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

It is extremely unlikely the Family Proclamation does not carry the weight and authority of revelation because at the conclusion of the document the nations of the world are solemnly warned if they don't uphold the sanctity of traditional marriage, as unambiguously set forth in the Proclamation, the consequence will be that the Lord will poor out cataclysmic judgments of destruction upon those nations. This is clear and powerful evidence that the principles set forth in the Proclamation are not things that could fit under the heading of "policy du jour." The leaders would not include that sobering warning unless they were sure the principles contained  within the document represent the mind and will of the Lord.

I have no doubt that the Proclamation is a statement of belief of the church leaders.  They seem to be clear about that.  But I think you have absolutely no evidence that church leaders received the Proclamation by revelation.  You are making an assertment that they are unwilling to make.  And quite frankly, I don't think you are in a position to make such an assertment.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Good summary.

Several years ago I realized that prophets of this dispensation had taught things, as church doctrine, that were wrong and based on their own opinions rather than revelation.  Once I came to that realization, it didn't take long to connect the dots and figure out that there isn't much difference between prophets of this dispensation, and those of previous dispensations (complicated further by centuries of transcription/translation error).  While I am content to study the words of the prophets in all dispensations, I have learned to rely on the Comforter to truly teach me.

This weekend my wife and I watched "Hidden Figures" (arguably the best movie in theaters right now).  As I watched how African American people were treated at that time, it occurred to me that my grandchildren, as adults, will look at any inequality with which gay couples were treated with the same horror.  Both sad and comforting.

I too have come to those same conclusions.  There is just too much evidence that not everything in scripture came by revelation from God.  When dogma seems to be in conflict with the teachings of the Savior, I tend to have more faith in the teachings of Christ.  For me, that is the biggest red flag.  When organized religion double downs on such dogma, it makes me distance myself even further from their belief to KNOWING the will of God.  

 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

It is extremely unlikely the Family Proclamation does not carry the weight and authority of revelation because at the conclusion of the document the nations of the world are solemnly warned if they don't uphold the sanctity of traditional marriage, as unambiguously set forth in the Proclamation, the consequence will be that the Lord will poor out cataclysmic judgments of destruction upon those nations. 

I hate to point out that religion has been threatening cataclysmic judgements of destruction upon all nations since the beginning of the very first idea of organized religion.  Nations have risen and fallen.  Wars have been fought in the name of God believed by their followers to be holy wars.  Earthqakes and floods have been declared to be the judgement of God, yet all seem to have suffered equally in what we know is the natural state of the earth.  God seems to have little to do with any of this. Even the flood of Noah seems to have little basis in fact.  Was the blowing up of Mount Vesuvius God's doing?  Was the blowing up of Mt Saint Helen God's doing?  When Santorini blew up, the force was so strong they have found rock from that blast as far as China.  Was that God's doing?

In 2000, the Netherlands passed the first gay marriage bill.  The Netherlands is still around.  Since there, these countries allow gay marriage or civil unions for gay couples

Legal status of same-sex unions

[hide]Marriage Performed Argentina Belgium Brazil Canada Colombia Denmark: · Denmark proper · Greenland Finland* France Iceland Ireland Luxembourg Mexico: · CM, CH, CA, · CL, GR1, JA, · MC, MR, NA, · PU1, QE1, · QR, CDMX Netherlands: · Netherlands proper New Zealand: · New Zealand proper Norway Portugal South Africa Spain Sweden United Kingdom: · England and Wales · Scotland · AX and DX, AC, AQ · GI, GG*, IM, PN United States: · United States proper · GU, MP, PR, VI · some tribal jurisdictions Uruguay Recognized Israel2 Mexico3 Netherlands: · AW, CW, SX4 United Kingdom: · Alderney2   [hide]Civil unions and registered partnerships Andorra Australia: · ACT, NSW, QLD, · SA, TAS, VIC Austria Chile Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Ecuador Estonia Germany Greece Hungary Italy Japan: · Iga, Naha, Setagaya · Shibuya, Takarazuka Liechtenstein Malta Netherlands: · Aruba* Slovenia Switzerland Taiwan: · CG, CH, CS, HH, · KH, NT, TG, TN, · TP, TY, IL United Kingdom: · Northern Ireland · Jersey

It seems like if God is going to make such threats, He should have acted up them.  At some point, it becomes pointless. If any conclusion can be made, it would be that God seems to be unconcerned by these acts.  Yeah I know.  Some day. Some day. Some day.  It is always the out of prophecy isn't it.  

[kllindley]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

 

Thank you for clarifying.  I guess I am still confused why it matters to you whether members believe, considering the fact that you admit that it would make no difference to you if the leaders did claim an official revelation affirming the current teachings regarding marriage and chastity.  

Personally, I don't find the Proclamation all that compelling as justification for the current teachings.  Even though I do consider it as authoritative as OD 1 and OD 2.   What I find much more compelling is the claim by the President of the Quorum of the 12 that the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 petitioned the Lord for months to know his will and did receive revelation, unanimously approved, leading to the policies that became public in Nov. 2015.  Any of the other 14 could have corrected this account in the last year were it not true.  

 

5 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

Given President Nelson's testimony of revelation received regarding this issue, I think this is an inaccurate statement.  Of course many people don't believe that his account is true.  They may grant that President Nelson believes his version of events, but they remain unconvinced that any revelation occurred or that it was interpreted correctly.  This is not a matter of confusion over "culture vs revelation."  This is a simple disagreement with doctrine.  I can respect that completely.  I don't understand the need to assert that the policy (affirming the current teachings about chastity and marriage) is just the result of prejudice and that no actual revelation could have occurred.  

[Bobbieaware]

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

I hate to point out that religion has been threatening cataclysmic judgements of destruction upon all nations since the beginning of the very first idea of organized religion.  Nations have risen and fallen.  Wars have been fought in the name of God believed by their followers to be holy wars.  Earthqakes and floods have been declared to be the judgement of God, yet all seem to have suffered equally in what we know is the natural state of the earth.  God seems to have little to do with any of this. Even the flood of Noah seems to have little basis in fact.  Was the blowing up of Mount Vesuvius God's doing?  Was the blowing up of Mt Saint Helen God's doing?  When Santorini blew up, the force was so strong they have found rock from that blast as far as China.  Was that God's doing?

In 2000, the Netherlands passed the first gay marriage bill.  The Netherlands is still around.  Since there, these countries allow gay marriage or civil unions for gay couples

Legal status of same-sex unions

[hide]Marriage Performed Argentina Belgium Brazil Canada Colombia Denmark: · Denmark proper · Greenland Finland* France Iceland Ireland Luxembourg Mexico: · CM, CH, CA, · CL, GR1, JA, · MC, MR, NA, · PU1, QE1, · QR, CDMX Netherlands: · Netherlands proper New Zealand: · New Zealand proper Norway Portugal South Africa Spain Sweden United Kingdom: · England and Wales · Scotland · AX and DX, AC, AQ · GI, GG*, IM, PN United States: · United States proper · GU, MP, PR, VI · some tribal jurisdictions Uruguay Recognized Israel2 Mexico3 Netherlands: · AW, CW, SX4 United Kingdom: · Alderney2   [hide]Civil unions and registered partnerships Andorra Australia: · ACT, NSW, QLD, · SA, TAS, VIC Austria Chile Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Ecuador Estonia Germany Greece Hungary Italy Japan: · Iga, Naha, Setagaya · Shibuya, Takarazuka Liechtenstein Malta Netherlands: · Aruba* Slovenia Switzerland Taiwan: · CG, CH, CS, HH, · KH, NT, TG, TN, · TP, TY, IL United Kingdom: · Northern Ireland · Jersey

It seems like if God is going to make such threats, He should have acted up them.  At some point, it becomes pointless. If any conclusion can be made, it would be that God seems to be unconcerned by these acts.  Yeah I know.  Some day. Some day. Some day.  It is always the out of prophecy isn't it.  

The scriptures testify the massive natural destructions and worldwide wars of devastation that will usher in the Second Coming will not begin in earnest until after the nation's have fully ripened in iniquity, which ripening will include the bullying and outright persecution of those who continue to obey the Lord and uphold his definition of marriage and family. In fact, the Book of Mormon says that day of unprecedented natural destructions and wars will not come about until all the nations of the world join forces in a unified effort to destroy the righteous. The Book of Mormon goes on to say these natural destructions and worldwide wars will come to pass in order to save the Lord's people from annihilation by their enemies. So we still have some way to go before the world enters that ripened state of iniquity. Therefore, in a manner of speaking, it appears you're counting your chicks before they hatch. So to make my point perfectly clear: the unprecedented natural destructions and worldwide wars prophesied in the scriptures will not take place until the enemies of God launch a full-on assault, with the end goal of the utter destruction of his Church.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Given President Nelson's testimony of revelation received regarding this issue, I think this is an inaccurate statement.  Of course many people don't believe that his account is true.  They may grant that President Nelson believes his version of events, but they remain unconvinced that any revelation occurred or that it was interpreted correctly.  This is not a matter of confusion over "culture vs revelation."  This is a simple disagreement with doctrine.  I can respect that completely.  I don't understand the need to assert that the policy (affirming the current teachings about chastity and marriage) is just the result of prejudice and that no actual revelation could have occurred.  

I think I fall into this group.  The lack of others making the same claim makes Elder Nelson's statement less sure and more of a personal belief.  While I don't expect the church to change the teaching on gay marriage, I actually think leaders will probably change the policy that Elder Nelson believes came as a result of revelation.  But I could be wrong.

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The scriptures testify the massive natural destructions and worldwide wars of devastation that will usher in the Second Coming will not begin in earnest until after the nation's have fully ripened in iniquity, which ripening will include the bullying and outright persecution of those who continue to obey the Lord and uphold his definition of marriage and family. In fact, the Book of Mormon says that day of unprecedented natural destructions and wars will not come about until all the nations of the world join forces in a unified effort to destroy the righteous. The Book of Mormon goes on to say these natural destructions and worldwide wars will come to pass in order to save the Lord's people from annihilation by their enemies. So we still have some way to go before the world enters that ripened state of iniquity. Therefore, in a manner of speaking, it appears you're counting your chicks before they hatch. So to make my point perfectly clear: the unprecedented natural destructions and worldwide wars prophesied in the scriptures will not take place until the enemies of God launch a full-on assault, with the end goal of the utter destruction of his Church.

Yeah well, Peter though he would be alive for the Second Coming.  I don't see any more indication in our day than in Peter's day.  The Romans were marching around the globe destroying other nations and putting their people into servitude.  Christians were persecuted by the state at the point of death for 300 years.  Call me skeptical.  Given the atrocities of the Roman Empire, somehow I think two men marrying is not going to be the tipping point you are hoping for.

Bobbie, I would be interested in what kind of depravaty you think will have to actually happen and what you think is happening in our time that makes for the possibility of such a prophecy to be fulfilled.  Do you really think we are living in wicked times?  And if so, what do you find more wicked about our time as compared to what has happened in the past.  Maybe this is a different thread, but I would be interested in what you think since you are the one bringing this utter destruction up.

 

[cacheman]

19 hours 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!

It's interesting to me that in the same post in which you describe least educated members as preferring black-and-white messages, you offer up a black-and-white contrast.  

Clearly, the lack of resources put a lot of pressure on folks that might influence their priorities, subsequently affecting their (perceived?) faithfulness.  In a religion where formal education is positively correlated with leadership callings, the less educated might sometimes feel on the periphery of the church community.  The scenario you describe appears to show a link between intellectual abilities and formal education that is much more pronounced than what I've observed throughout my life (ie. the least educated have a vague faith, unable to grasp the nuances in something as straightforward as the 1st presidency message vs. the educated being able to understand deep doctrine, be more faithful, articulate, and thoughtful).   It appears that in your congregation, formal education is the primary factor determining the level of faithfulness.   While I don't discount the effect of education on religiosity, the stark contrast in your ward seems atypical.  I'm not sure how much stock to put in to self-reporting surveys such as the one you posted by Albrecht and Heaton.  It could very well be reflecting reality.... However, one learned skill that is very important to well educated academics is the ability to report on yourself in the best light possible! 

-cacheman

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I have no doubt that the Proclamation is a statement of belief of the church leaders.  They seem to be clear about that.  But I think you have absolutely no evidence that church leaders received the Proclamation by revelation.  You are making an assertment that they are unwilling to make.  And quite frankly, I don't think you are in a position to make such an assertment.

My evidence comes

 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Yeah well, Peter though he would be alive for the Second Coming.  I don't see any more indication in our day than in Peter's day.  The Romans were marching around the globe destroying other nations and putting their people into servitude.  Christians were persecuted by the state at the point of death for 300 years.  Call me skeptical.  Given the atrocities of the Roman Empire, somehow I think two men marrying is not going to be the tipping point you are hoping for.

Bobbie, I would be interested in what kind of depravaty you think will have to actually happen and what you think is happening in our time that makes for the possibility of such a prophecy to be fulfilled.  Do you really think we are living in wicked times?  And if so, what do you find more wicked about our time as compared to what has happened in the past.  Maybe this is a different thread, but I would be interested in what you think since you are the one bringing this utter destruction up.

 

Of course you don't believe what I wrote. The scriptures make it abundantly clear the scriptures can only be fully and properly understood by revelation from the God of heaven. Haven't you yet learned that it's nearly impossible for those of LDS Church who testify they have received revelation, and those who don't believe in revelation, to have any sort of truly meaningful dialogue? Isn't it obvious these two conflictimg paths to knowledge all to often end up like two equally matched rams butting heads but going nowhere?

As for what kind of depravity, at least two examples of are laid out in my post. 1) Anything not endorsed in the Family Proclamation. 2) Persecution and murder of the prophets and the saints. In fact, the Book of Revelation speaks of two prophets who will be slain in Jerusalem, an event that will kindle the Lord's wrath not long before the Christ returns.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I have no doubt that the Proclamation is a statement of belief of the church leaders.  They seem to be clear about that.  But I think you have absolutely no evidence that church leaders received the Proclamation by revelation.  You are making an assertment that they are unwilling to make.  And quite frankly, I don't think you are in a position to make such an assertment.

How ridiculous can you be?   Can you even see it?

YOU have absolutely NO evidence that it was NOT a "revelation"- a distinction I have already asked you to make and which you refused to do!

You say she is not in a position to make an assessment and yet you insist that you ARE in such a position and that she is wrong!!

And when I made the same case to you above, you admitted your mistake.   How is this different?

But perhaps you have forgotten

See below

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 1/14/2017 at 1:37 PM, mfbukowski said:

Oh goodie.

Now you get to define the epistomology of revelation, how we know what one is, and that includes personal revelation.

I have my popcorn here, Mr.Theologian, and anxiously await your reply.

 

 

On 1/14/2017 at 1:44 PM, california boy said:

I am not a theologian, so I will not reply.  Enjoy your popcorn.

 

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How ridiculous can you be?   Can you even see it?

YOU have absolutely NO evidence that it was NOT a "revelation"- a distinction I have already asked you to make and which you refused to do!

You say she is not in a position to make an assessment and yet you insist that you ARE in such a position and that she is wrong!!

And when I made the same case to you above, you admitted your mistake.   How is this different?

But perhaps you have forgotten

See below

 

yeah.  ok.  That's your story of why it is a revelation?

What I actually said is that church leaders have not declared the proclamation a revelation.  Yet members have taken it upon themselves to call it one.  Whether it is or is not a revelation is not my call either.   I would leave that up to church leaders.  I know.  How weird is that.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.

The Brethren certainly are in the enviable position of consumers who have access to professional historians and archivists nowadays, and that is a good thing.  Yet, it is also now available to all of us, much of it online.  So that one should never follow blindly, but one should understand for one's self.  This is now possible to a reasonable degree for ordinary people, although it still takes a lot of reading and study of the popular literature.  There are now plenty of mainstream encyclopedia articles on early Mormonism which provide a true sense of context for early Mormon history.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Brethren certainly are in the enviable position of consumers who have access to professional historians and archivists nowadays, and that is a good thing.  

"Nowadays"

By that do you mean the past 45 years?  Because the Brethren called a professional historian to run the church history department in April of 1972. 

And I imagine they had professional historians on the paid staff before that but the head of the department was a general authority.  

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

yeah.  ok.  That's your story of why it is a revelation?

What I actually said is that church leaders have not declared the proclamation a revelation.  Yet members have taken it upon themselves to call it one.  Whether it is or is not a revelation is not my call either.   I would leave that up to church leaders.  I know.  How weird is that.

Also, the document itself does not identify as revelation.  It starts with "WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim...".  And then those same men signed the bottom  

If it was revelation from the Lord than they probably shouldn't have taken credit for it. 

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

yeah.  ok.  That's your story of why it is a revelation?

What I actually said is that church leaders have not declared the proclamation a revelation.  Yet members have taken it upon themselves to call it one.  Whether it is or is not a revelation is not my call either.   I would leave that up to church leaders.  I know.  How weird is that.

I don't care about what constitutes "revelation" when there is no reason to make a distinction, which makes no difference.

I have a testimony that the proclamation comes from God.  That is all that matters.  I have my OWN revelation- I don't need anyone else's.  Frankly I do not care what church leaders say unless I have a testimony of it.  I read their advice and make my own decisions after prayer, otherwise that would be blind obedience

I do not believe in blind obedience and no one else should either.

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Also, the document itself does not identify as revelation.  It starts with "WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim...".  And then those same men signed the bottom  

If it was revelation from the Lord than they probably shouldn't have taken credit for it. 

What is the difference and how do YOU define it?

We don't even know what constitutes "doctrine" and now we are worrying about if it is "revelation"?

 

[mfbukowski]

Ambiguity in language 

"Today thousands assembled for the thirty second annual Martin Luther King parade........"

How could they do the whole parade in 30 seconds?

I am sure there were many small business people there as well.   Of course someone had to pick them up so they could see...

But then again time flies while you are having fun, but those pesky flies are not that much fun to time.

Edited January 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

"Nowadays"

By that do you mean the past 45 years?  Because the Brethren called a professional historian to run the church history department in April of 1972. 

And I imagine they had professional historians on the paid staff before that but the head of the department was a general authority.  

Actually, they did not have professional historians around (back when Joseph Fielding Smith was the Church Historian), and (as I explained in detail earlier for you) it took a full decade for Arrington and his young staff to get a handle on just what was available in the LDS archives, to catalogue it, and to begin publishing it with commentary (context).  Only very recently has all that been systematically digested and much of it placed on the internet.  The Brethren showed great faith and wisdom in taking the more professional route.  That has meant the long process of discussion and peer review among both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars as they worked through the material, and we are all the better for it.

There is no such thing as instant knowledge, unless we get it from Cliff Notes or XXX for Dummies, where it is generally very deficient.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I too have come to those same conclusions.  There is just too much evidence that not everything in scripture came by revelation from God.  When dogma seems to be in conflict with the teachings of the Savior, I tend to have more faith in the teachings of Christ.  For me, that is the biggest red flag.  When organized religion double downs on such dogma, it makes me distance myself even further from their belief to KNOWING the will of God.  

 

Circular

You only know about the savior from scriptures.

You can only know the savior IS the savior by "knowing the will of God"

Dude.  You need some critical thinking classes if you are going to continue saying stuff like this.  It does not help your credibility at all.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, cacheman said:

It's interesting to me that in the same post in which you describe least educated members as preferring black-and-white messages, you offer up a black-and-white contrast. 

I think you may have overlooked all my attempts to highlight the tentativeness of my subjective assessment: 'many of which I don't even understand', 'some', 'many', 'a number', 'seem', 'I don't know all the reasons why', 'in many cases', 'almost', etc.

Quote

Clearly, the lack of resources put a lot of pressure on folks that might influence their priorities, subsequently affecting their (perceived?) faithfulness.

I thought we were talking about activity. I don't necessarily equate being inactive with being unfaithful. Do you?

Quote

In a religion where formal education is positively correlated with leadership callings, the less educated might sometimes feel on the periphery of the church community.

If they do so in our ward, that's a choice. We are happy when people can and will serve regardless of background. Our current bishop is a senior manager in a national government department, and his second counsellor is a police officer, but the first counsellor dropped out of school when he found himself a teen father and has worked as a labourer ever since.

Quote

It appears that in your congregation, formal education is the primary factor determining the level of faithfulness.

I can't be certain of causality, but it is certainly positively correlated. We have exceptions as well. One of our active apostates is working on a PhD (and has been so for several decades).