Some Things that are True are Not Very Useful

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I just noticed something. The entire temple ceremony, also a requirement for exaltation and Godhood, is also not mentioned in the Bible! Whatever shall we do?  

 

Well, TSS mentioned there was, I'm open to information.

 

Your'e right. It's not specifically mention in the Bible as a requirement for Godhood, but the practice of it is in there. 

[Ahab]

Good thing we have other books and magazines and other people to tell us stuff otherwise we'd be limited to the Bible for our information.

[MormonVideoGame]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you have any evidence he actually did so outside of your interpretation of this sentence?

Ezra Taft Benson wrote “There have been and continue to be attempts made to bring [a humanistic] philosophy into our own Church history. … The emphasis is to underplay revelation and God’s intervention in significant events and to inordinately humanize the prophets of God so that their human frailties become more apparent than their spiritual qualities”

I understand that Ezra Taft Benson's statement is very ambiguous, but don't apologists frequently say "He was speaking as a man" or "his human opinion"? 

FairMormons says "Despite the fact that the Church has no official position on evolution beyond those expressed by the First Presidency (above), some general authorities and lay members have considered evolution to be at variance with scriptural teaching. This view is well summarized by Elder Bruce R. McConkie's statement, "There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution." Other authors, including Joseph Fielding Smith, held similar views." 

Is FairMormon denying the revelations of the prophets of God? When prophets say,"there is no harmony between Evolution and Religion" Do you accept that as a revelation? 

MLA Bennett, Richard E., and LEONARD J. ARRINGTON. "Adventures of a Church Historian: Leonard J. Arrington." (1999): 203-206.

Edited March 2, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I just noticed something. The entire temple ceremony, also a requirement for exaltation and Godhood, is also not mentioned in the Bible! Whatever shall we do?  

 

That's a matter of opinion. 

 

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Your'e right. It's not specifically mention in the Bible as a requirement for Godhood, but the practice of it is in there. 

There are Gods, big G?

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There are Gods, big G?

For me "Gods" means anyone who has achieved godhood.
"gods" refers to pagan gods and idols.

[JAHS]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

For me "Gods" means anyone who has achieved godhood.
"gods" refers to pagan gods and idols.

There are a few places where it doesn't appear to mean idols or pagan gods:
Psalms 82:6
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

 

This is where line upon line comes in. If you know 99 true, but negative things about the church and only 1 true thing you may use your agency to decide against it, then it also restricts your agency and it definitely hasn't set you free. It's impossible for us to gather all information about just Joseph Smith, even if it were available, and still live our own lives. Then to add all the other prophets etc you would have to live multiple lives to get it all in. 

So somewhere we have to do it line upon line. As a teacher I am concerned with our end goals. With my limited time I need to share things that will help my students reach that goal. It is not limiting their agency if I don't teach something that will not help them accomplish it. 

Sometimes that means we do teach about Fanny, especially if it will be a sticking point for them in the future, but if the church is the way back to God then keeping all my time on things like Fanny will also limit their agency and will probably stop their progression. There has to be a balance. The hard part is figuring out what that balance is for each person. 

I disagree. A person may still make a wrong choice ( no system is fool proof), but additional information does not restrict agency. It could muddy the waters, or be confusing, but it doesn't restrict agency. Agency is the ability to choose, not a guarantee to make a right choice. Without information we don't even have the ability to make a choice.

I think you're arguing about the conclusion, not the ability to choose.

I agree that continual focus on the negative may color an individual's worldview, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

There are a few places where it doesn't appear to mean idols or pagan gods:
Psalms 82:6
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

See here's my issue with the whole "small g gods/ Capital G Gods" idea.
When Jesus said "Ye are Gods" how on earth does the written record know whether it's gods or Gods?  I'm guessing he didn't specify.
I've seen too many members use that argument to dismiss the idea that we will be Gods.

Edited March 2, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

See here's my issue with the whole "small g gods/ Capita G Gods" idea.
When Jesus said "Ye are Gods" how on earth does the written record know whether it's gods or Gods?  I'm guessing he didn't specify.
I've seen too many members use that argument to dismiss the idea that we will be Gods.

The same people often don't realize that God is a term that refers to the kind of being God is and that we are already that same kind of being.

Oh well. People either understand correctly or they just dont, yet.

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The same people often don't realize that God is a term that refers to the kind of being God is and that we are already that same kind of being..

This is true, but God is also a priesthood office.

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This is true, but God is also a priesthood office.

Says you. It's not listed as far as I know.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Says you. It's not listed as far as I know.

D&C 132:19-20

• 19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
  20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

And what do we call the power of God?  Priesthood.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 132:19-20

• 19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
  20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

And what do we call the power of God?  Priesthood.

Yeah I thought about that but still wouldn't say God is an office of the priesthood.  Or a calling either.  Joseph just had a peculiar way of saying things, sometimes.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yeah I thought about that but still wouldn't say God is an office of the priesthood.  Or a calling either.  Joseph just had a peculiar way of saying things, sometimes.

Funny, I thought Christ was speaking there. 

Godhead is like Bishopric or First Presidency.  Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  God the Creator, God the Redeemer and God the Witness.  Eloheim, Jehovah, and Michael.
All priesthood offices.

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Funny, I thought Christ was speaking there. 

 

Speaking through Joseph using Joseph's understanding and way of saying things. Our Lord gives us thoughts and we interpret/translate those thoughts by using our words.

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Godhead is like Bishopric or First Presidency.  Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  God the Creator, God the Redeemer and God the Witness.  Eloheim, Jehovah, and Michael.
All priesthood offices.

 

I get the idea. And I'm not particularly opposed to thinking of the term "god" as a term with multiple true meanings, just as long as it is also understood to refer to any person who is the same kind of being our Father is, which includes all people on this planet.

[pogi]

On 3/2/2017 at 8:43 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

Surprisingly I actually agree with you...I believe the church has good intentions...as President Hinckley said we want to take good men and make them better ( or something long those lines)  But if you keep that critical 2% out of reach from members and investigators, information that was true but just not useful to the agenda of the church's desire for us to conclude that it is what it claims to be, then we feel manipulated instead of being able to assess and form a conclusion based on all of the evidence.

I've had a conversation recently with a new investigator/member...who is resigning from the church a mere 2 months after her baptism. Her #1 reason is that she felt lied to, deceived and only given select information designed to manipulate her to conclude that the church was true.  She loved the people...but it was the feeling of manipulation that was her death nail.

When dating, we always put on our best face.  There are certain "unuseful" truths which could be counterproductive in courting our potential future mates.  Is it "manipulative" for women to cover facial blemishes and soften their complexion with makeup, add a little extra color in their cheeks, and accentuate their lips and eyes?  Is it manipulative for them to wear lift-up bras with much padding?  Is it manipulative for a man who never cleans his apartment to clean it meticulously every time his date comes over?  Is it manipulative to accentuate our strengths and positive attributes while leaving our blemishes unmentioned?  I don't think that "manipulation" is the right word.  We don't include all of our blemishes and weaknesses in job interviews and resumes.  Is that manipulation or is it simply us selling our best-selves?  The church is guilty of nothing more than what we all do in our individual lives in its missionary efforts.  They are selling the gospel and it would be unuseful to include ALL truth in such pursuits, just as it would be unuseful to include ALL truths about you in your resume.

Some people may feel disillusioned after marriage or hiring an employee.  That can happen when people don't date long enough or investigate thoroughly and independently.  I don't think we should judge the church for not including all of its history and blemishes in its resume.  That would be counterproductive to the truth that matters most.  If you don't believe that it would be counterproductive, try listing ALL of your truths (good and bad) in your next resume and job interview and see how that goes for you.  Even though you may be the best candidate for the position, you will likely not get hired.    

 

[JulieM]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

When dating, we always put on our best face.  There are certain "unuseful" truths which could be counterproductive in courting our potential future mates.  Is it "manipulative" for women to cover facial blemishes and soften their complexion with makeup, add a little extra color in their cheeks, and accentuate their lips and eyes?  Is it manipulative for them to wear lift-up bras with much padding?  

So, you're comparing leaving out truths such as details regarding how Joseph lived polygamy to women wearing makeup and padded bras?  Wow. 

Edited March 3, 2017 by JulieM

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So, you're comparing leaving out truths such as details regarding how Joseph lived polygamy to women wearing makeup and padded bras?  Wow. 

I think you missed the point.  I was correlating how all individuals and organizations present their best face to the world and leave out true, but unhelpful, information which may lead to doubt and be counterproductive to their specific mission.  It would be hypocritical to point your finger at the church for doing what all organizations and individuals do.   If you are trying to convince a company that you are THE best candidate for the job, is it helpful to include ALL truths about yourself?  No!  You will likely be misjudged even though you may in fact be THE best candidate. 

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So, you're comparing leaving out truths such as details regarding how Joseph lived polygamy to women wearing makeup and padded bras?  Wow. 

How Joseph lived polygamy doesn't really change anything though.
Either he was a prophet of God or a fraud.  The details don't change the end result.  And looking for evidence and proof either way seems a fruitless effort for something that can only be determined by faith.

I've never understood the desire to prove or disprove Joseph a prophet based on history.  I enjoy studying it, debating it, and understanding it.  But it makes no difference to which side of the coin I land on.  Those who are struggling with their testimonies are never going to find their answer in historical events.

Edited March 3, 2017 by JLHPROF

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

How Joseph lived polygamy doesn't really change anything though.

Sure it does for many who learn about previously unknown details for the first time.  It changes how they view him and it changes how they feel about what they've been taught (and what they haven't been taught).  

They learn about the lies and deceit that were involved.  They learn the ages and circumstances of some of the girls he married.  They learn much was done behind Emma's back.

So yes, he was either a Prophet or he wasn't.  That hasn't changed.  But for many, their beliefs regarding this is where the change takes place.

Edited March 3, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Sure it does for many who learn about previously unknown details for the first time.  It changes how they view him and it changes how they feel about what they've been taught (and what they haven't been taught).  

So yes, he was either a Prophet or he wasn't.  That hasn't changed.  But for many, their beliefs regarding this is where the change takes place.

Right.  It absolutely changes their feelings.  But the result is the same.  If Joseph was a prophet then those details don't change that.

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Right.  It absolutely changes their feelings.  But the result is the same.  

Sure, Joseph is still either a Prophet or he isn't.  But the results are not the same for many members who have believed the whitewashed (or the one minus troubling details) version of his polygamy vs. them reading the truth for the first time.

[JulieM]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you missed the point.  I was correlating how all individuals and organizations present their best face to the world and leave out true, but unhelpful, information which may lead to doubt and be counterproductive to their specific mission. 

No, I got your point.  But I don't agree with the comparison.

Details about something as important to our history as polygamy, are not "unhelpful" when one is trying to determine if it truly came from God or not.

We need honest church history taught and I feel the leaders know this now and are working to correct that.

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by JulieM