Guidelines Responses to Common Questions- Leak

[cinepro]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

LOL -- not even close to "getting you own planet."

 

Okay, I'll bite.  If you think that statement isn't referring to exalted beings peopling planets they have formed with their own offspring, what do you think it is referring to?  What specific part of the phrase "have your own planet" doesn't apply?

Would it be...

"We will make a planet and people it, but it won't be 'our own'; God the Father will retain title and ownership of the planet."

Or...?

"We will make 'worlds', but these won't technically be 'planets'.  Most will be too small to be considered planets, so it would be more correct to say we will get our own dwarf planets."

I know you think that if you twist the phrase enough semantically, you can somehow make it into something that doesn't sound weird or silly to non-LDS.  But unfortunately, the simple phrasing contains everything that is weird or silly (and possibly megalomaniacal) to non-LDS.  It might sound a little softer and majestic to use the word "world" instead of "planet", but again, that's just semantics.

Here's the quote again so you don't have to scroll up:

Quote

[Exalted people] will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted.

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by cinepro

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Again, what if you substitute "world" or "worlds" for the word "planet"?  Can you please phrase what you think is correct when stating we can become Gods and populate worlds with our offspring and become God of that world?

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Okay, I'll bite.  If you think that statement isn't referring to exalted beings peopling planets they have formed with their own offspring, what do you think it is referring to?  What specific part of the phrase "have your own planet" doesn't apply?

Would it be...

"We will make a planet and people it, but it won't be 'our own'; God the Father will retain title and ownership of the planet."

Or...?

"We will make 'worlds', but these won't technically be 'planets'.  Most will be too small to be considered planets, so it would be more correct to say we will get our own dwarf planets."

I know you think that if you twist the phrase enough semantically, you can somehow make it into something that doesn't sound weird or silly to non-LDS.  But unfortunately, the simple phrasing contains everything that is weird or silly (and possibly megalomaniacal) to non-LDS.  It might sound a little softer and majestic to use the word "world" instead of "planet", but again, that's just semantics.

Here's the quote again so you don't have to scroll up:

 

I do have an excellent response, but for the purposes of this thread, I’m more interested in discussing the exaggerated perceptions of insincerity, avoidance, vagueness, equivocation, evasiveness, dishonesty, etc. put forth in the OP.* Exploring a doctrinal question mentioned in the leaked document might be better served by a thread of its own, and I might be inclined to participate in such a discussion. Posted 1 hour ago

* For example, why is there no answer to this question: "Where are the instructions to downplay, normalize and skirt unique Church teachings, and who have you seen following them?" Posted 1 hour ago

 

 

[Calm]

13 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's a good point but it means we don't have a very good/clear/accurate understanding of who our God is or how he operates.

What is taught as doctrine about God, eternity, exaltation etc. seems to collapse under the weight of our ignorance. No one, not even the prophets apparently, know how any of this works. Which is why, among other reasons, church policies based on the dogmatic claims of absolute truth and testimony just don't mean much.

These things are often described as "the mysteries" that we simply cannot know, but it really only takes a dive down a couple of levels into the doctrine to see that it contradicts itself.

 

If something is not official doctrine, it does not need to concern members if it contradicts official doctrine.  (Sounds dismissive, not saying it doesn't concern others or they don't have those concerns for good reason...just saying shift the lenses a little and you may be okay with it after all).  I believe past prophets taught these as teachings, even might have called them official doctrine.  On a few occasions we joked about it as teens and talked in more amused than serious tones what kind of world we would choose to create.  Perhaps I am unusual, but I always assume I would be creating everything under God's guidance and I was rather wistful I wouldn't be able to go off doing total flights of fantasy, laws of physics as well as God's other laws would have to apply .

  I think past prophets taught several things we teach with different nuances now.  I think we see the big picture with different assumptions then people in the past, so what official doctrine implies for the past is different than the now, so of course we talk about it differently.  And that makes me happier than if we didn't because at least that means there is a chance continuing revaluation was actually occurring in the Church.  No change would mean no continuing revelation and therefore a false Gospel in my view...that would be too great a contradiction.  I am looking forward to seeing more changes, more shifts in perspectives in the future while realizing I am still committed by my covenants to abide by the current level of knowledge and application of that knowledge.

Change can be very, very good.  I think our view of exaltation is closer to whatever is to come than the view that numbers/amounts of children and wives were of prime importance to the level of glory received or the attitude that sealings were in part for the purpose of ensuring men got to keep the women and children that were theirs and they couldn't be poached if they died first.

 I also think we are still quite distant from knowing what is involved.  We are talking infinite beings in infinite relationships; we are arrogant to believe we see more than a shadow.

What is important though is we know our and God's purpose can be one and that is to give us and our loved ones a chance to learn together what it all can be and even more of a wonder, God is willing to bring us as far ahead, as close to him as we desire. (And yes, I am arrogant enough to believe that I know this, it is just right to me like the feeling of a key sliding into a lock and the whole mechanism just shifts as if it were alive, it all works together so elegantly.)

Past prophets got it right we are not going to lose each other.  That is the important part in my view.  That they thought it implied some other stuff that turned out wrong according to current official doctrine doesn't bother me, though I realize others may be very troubled by it as it doesn't fit their world view while it fits mine perfectly.  

Edited March 24, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

If something is not official doctrine, it does not need to concern members if it contradicts official doctrine.  (Sounds dismissive, not saying it doesn't concern others or they don't have those concerns for good reason...just saying shift the lenses a little and you may be okay with it after all).  I believe past prophets taught these as teachings, even might have called them official doctrine.  On a few occasions we joked about it as teens and talked in more amused than serious tones what kind of world we would choose to create.  Perhaps I am unusual, but I always assume I would be creating everything under God's guidance and I was rather wistful I wouldn't be able to go off doing total flights of fantasy, laws of physics as well as God's other laws would have to apply .

  I think past prophets taught several things we teach with different nuances now.  I think we see the big picture with different assumptions then people in the past, so what official doctrine implies for the past is different than the now, so of course we talk about it differently.  And that makes me happier than if we didn't because at least that means there is a chance continuing revaluation was actually occurring in the Church.  No change would mean no continuing revelation and therefore a false Gospel in my view...that would be too great a contradiction.  I am looking forward to seeing more changes, more shifts in perspectives in the future while realizing I am still committed by my covenants to abide by the current level of knowledge and application of that knowledge.

Change can be very, very good.  I think our view of exaltation is closer to whatever is to come than the view that numbers/amounts of children and wives were of prime importance to the level of glory received or the attitude that sealings were in part for the purpose of ensuring men got to keep the women and children that were theirs and they couldn't be poached if they died first.

 I also think we are still quite distant from knowing what is involved.  We are talking infinite beings in infinite relationships; we are arrogant to believe we see more than a shadow.

What is important though is we know our and God's purpose can be one and that is to give us and our loved ones a chance to learn together what it all can be and even more of a wonder, God is willing to bring us as far ahead, as close to him as we desire. (And yes, I am arrogant enough to believe that I know this, it is just right to me like the feeling of a key sliding into a lock and the whole mechanism just shifts as if it were alive, it all works together so elegantly.)

Past prophets got it right we are not going to lose each other.  That is the important part in my view.  That they thought it implied some other stuff that turned out wrong according to current official doctrine doesn't bother me, though I realize others may be very troubled by it as it doesn't fit their world view while it fits mine perfectly.  

I agree with this.

What irritates me more than anything, is not that things change in the church--I expect that, it's that people act like it has always been the same. That the experience and teachings of 2017 are universal over the other 173 years of the church's existence. The implications that certain members are just crazy to think the church ever taught X because doctrines are unchanging. I view that attitude as dismissive, belittling, and unchristlike. Admittedly, I have very little patience for that kind of arrogance, especially when there is evidence that X was taught differently for many years than it is now.

I'd also point out that many of the changes that are taking place don't seem to be based on revelation, as much as on changing cultural milieu in which all church leaders exist. Leaders of today are just as ingrained and influenced by their time and culture as were leaders in the 19th century. I think there is a common assumption that changes occur because of revelation but I really don't see any evidence of that. There certainly aren't any canonized revelations in the last 30 years which leads me to believe the shifts in teaching are more of a doctrinal drift that occurs over time

[probablyHagoth7]

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

It might sound a little softer and majestic to use the word "world" instead of "planet", but again, that's just semantics.

Maybe someone is envisioning a wee planet like The Little Prince had. With a rose and a fox for friends.

 

 

[Ahab]

On 3/23/2017 at 7:19 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

That's a good point but it means we don't have a very good/clear/accurate understanding of who our God is or how he operates.

What is taught as doctrine about God, eternity, exaltation etc. seems to collapse under the weight of our ignorance. No one, not even the prophets apparently, know how any of this works. Which is why, among other reasons, church policies based on the dogmatic claims of absolute truth and testimony just don't mean much.

These things are often described as "the mysteries" that we simply cannot know, but it really only takes a dive down a couple of levels into the doctrine to see that it contradicts itself.

 

...or so some people believe.

The first lesson every member of the Church should learn is that members do not agree with each other on many if not most issues.

Some members are wrong on some issues, and some other members are right on those issues. Sometimes it's due to some misunderstanding, and sometimes it's due to simply rejecting some teaching.

It's not as if we're all at the same level of understanding, or all at the same level of intelligence. Some members can sense truth a lot easier than some other members and not all members learn at the same pace.

Just understand that when any member says anything, that is simply a reflection of his or her own understanding, and that understanding can be either right or wrong. And we're all supposed to be trying to learn from God.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

...or so some people believe.

The first lesson every member of the Church should learn is that members do not agree with each other on many if not most issues.

Some members are wrong on some issues, and some other members are right on those issues. Sometimes it's due to some misunderstanding, and sometimes it's due to simply rejecting some teaching.

It's not as if we're all at the same level of understanding, or all at the same level of intelligence. Some members can sense truth a lot easier than some other members and not all members learn at the same pace.

Just understand that when any member says anything, that is simply a reflection of his or her own understanding, and that understanding can be either right or wrong. And we're all supposed to be trying to learn from God.

I agree with this. The change in paradigm for me came in recognizing that this also applies to prophets and apostles and that they are sometimes just as wrong as the rest of us, thus making them unreliable messengers.

[JAHS]

New leak just in:
LDSLeaks Reveals First Presidency’s Toothpaste Brand of Choice, Testimonies Crumbling Worldwide

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with this. The change in paradigm for me came in recognizing that this also applies to prophets and apostles and that they are sometimes just as wrong as the rest of us, thus making them unreliable messengers.

... or so some people believe.

 

[probablyHagoth7]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with this. The change in paradigm for me came in recognizing that this also applies to prophets and apostles and that they are sometimes just as wrong as the rest of us, thus making them unreliable messengers.

Happy,

What if the ones not being reliable enough....are us?

...by not consistently pleading for the gift of discernment to chart a more reliable course through seemingly-contradictory statements.

No mortal is a perfect lens. We all refract/distort light at least to some degree. Shouldn't we grant similar latitude to those called to serve/lead? And not fall prey to Moroni's concern:

Here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

Thoughts?

Edited March 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Ahab]

Pop quiz:

What is a prophet of God?

Do prophets always speak as prophets? 

Do men who sometimes speak as prophets always speak as prophets?

When a prophet is speaking for God then who is that prophet speaking for?

You can be right, or you can be wrong 

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Happy,

What if the ones not being reliable enough....are us?

...by not consistently pleading for the gift of discernment to chart a more reliable course through seemingly-contradictory statements.

No mortal is a perfect lens. We all refract/distort light at least to some degree. Shouldn't we grant similar latitude to those called to serve/lead? And not fall prey to Moroni's concern:

Here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

Thoughts?

I have no doubt that we get it wrong from time to time which is why it's important to have a messenger who can tell us the will of God. When we discover that the prophet we rely on to tell us the word of God is also wrong, how can we trust that messenger? Why would we rely on the arm of the flesh (or the words of a fallible prophet) when their "doctrines" change. Saying it's our fault for trusting someone we're told we must trust is victim blaming unless we truly give each individual the authority and latitude to truly decide for themselves when they will and when they will not trust/believe/sustain the words of a fallible prophet(s). Many of us are claiming that authority to discern for ourselves and find that in some instances the prophet(s) are wrong. Thus we speak about our disagreement and are called heretics, apostates, etc. The kind of latitude to decide for ourselves does not currently exist in the church.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have no doubt that we get it wrong from time to time which is why it's important to have a messenger who can tell us the will of God. When we discover that the prophet we rely on to tell us the word of God is also wrong, how can we trust that messenger? Why would we rely on the arm of the flesh (or the words of a fallible prophet) when their "doctrines" change. Saying it's our fault for trusting someone we're told we must trust is victim blaming unless we truly give each individual the authority and latitude to truly decide for themselves when they will and when they will not trust/believe/sustain the words of a fallible prophet(s). Many of us are claiming that authority to discern for ourselves and find that in some instances the prophet(s) are wrong. Thus we speak about our disagreement and are called heretics, apostates, etc. The kind of latitude to decide for ourselves does not currently exist in the church.

I empathize with those who have "discovered that the prophet we rely on to tell us the world of God is also wrong." That would put me in a terrible quandary if I "discerned for myself and find that in some instances the prophets are wrong," so I really feel for those who honestly feel that way. 

Me, personally --- I have never had the rug pulled out from under me by the Brethren. I don't think that every move they do or every word they say is God's will, but I also don't think that God micro-manages the bureaucracy (heck, I don't think God wants the bloated bureaucracy that we have). But the fact that God doesn't step in an micromanage --- doesn't keep the Brethren on a ridiculously short leash --- and allows them to make some mistakes doesn't send me into a tailspin. I acknowledge that it does send others into one.

Example:

I think the world of President Hinckley, but I was disappointed in his PR parsing and obfuscation about the Snow couplet on multiple occasions in high-profile interviews. I know what I know and what I believe, and I know what I would have said (and have said in similar situations). We are in an era of hyper-careful PR (exemplified by the dispensing of doctrinal declarations by the anonymous Newsroom in order to shield the Brethren and give them future plausible deniability), and I would rather that they Brethren speak directly and not worry about those freak out about this or that from our past or from previously-established teaching. Yet, I don't freak out that God let him say things that way, or that he let's leaders be too PR and bureaucracy-influenced, because I believe that the keys are real --- even though.

To be honest, it seems to me that the vast majority of things that lead people to "discover that the prophet we rely on to tell us the world of God is also wrong" are liberal social issues that they are in stark disagreement with the Church over. This is the case with close family of mine, and appears to be the case with the posters here who are disenchanted with perceived unreliability of the prophets. Again, I feel for these people, because if I felt that way, I would probably feel the same way. It would be the same for me if, say, the Church officially condemned the priesthood ban, or said that polygamy was a big mistake and never was God's will, or that what has been taught about the eternal nature of identity and purpose was wrong all along.

The problem is that these changes would make those currently dismayed rejoice (it would be a long-awaited day for them). It's really hard to make both sides happy about prophets.  

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

To be honest, it seems to me that the vast majority of things that lead people to "discover that the prophet we rely on to tell us the world of God is also wrong" are liberal social issues that they are in stark disagreement with the Church over. This is the case with close family of mine, and appears to be the case with the posters here who are disenchanted with perceived unreliability of the prophets. Again, I feel for these people, because if I felt that way, I would probably feel the same way. It would be the same for me if, say, the Church officially condemned the priesthood ban, or said that polygamy was a big mistake and never was God's will, or that what has been taught about the eternal nature of identity and purpose was wrong all along.

The problem is that these changes would make those currently dismayed rejoice (it would be a long-awaited day for them). It's really hard to make both sides happy about prophets.  

Honestly, my view of the social issues changed after the rug was pulled out on doctrinal issues. Doctrines about becoming like God, race and the priesthood, polygamy, second annointings etc. all impacted me long before I considered that prophets might also be wrong about social issues and that the current teachings/views are just as likely to change.

At the very core of it I have lost trust that the prophets know and teach the will of God. It started with history because it made me aware of doctrinal changes. Social issues followed. Sometimes they speak and I feel inspired and feel connected with the doctrine they speak. But other times I don't. Although I'm not perfect I must be able to trust myself more than individuals I don't personally know. I have to rely on the gifts God gave me on not rely on mediators of his word which are also wrong. If I'm going to be wrong I want it to be an honest mistake after I've done my best to understand and decide, instead of blaming someone else who told me wrong and I just followed blindly. 

Prophets must earn trust just like everyone else. If their inspired words and/or behaviors contradict the inspired words of other prophets, then I am left to decide for myself which one is right, or maybe neither of them. If being a part of "one true church" was really that important I don't understand why God would choose such fallible and untrustworthy witnesses. I don't know why he would allow such variance in official doctrines. Either God chose a very inefficient plan and is inept or the "one true church--follow the prophet" mantras really don't matter all that much to him. I am left to believe the dogma really isn't important to God at all.

 

Edited March 24, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have no doubt that we get it wrong from time to time which is why it's important to have a messenger who can tell us the will of God. When we discover that the prophet we rely on to tell us the word of God is also wrong, how can we trust that messenger?

How? Any reliable [though flawed] messenger will direct us seek God. Per Isaiah, that is the seal of a true messenger.

I think we sometimes get tripped up with the means [a flawed/mortal messenger], and overlook the importance of the end/objective [to draw closer to God].

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why would we rely on the arm of the flesh (or the words of a fallible prophet) when their "doctrines" change.

Rely on the arm of flesh? We shouldn't.

But if a true messenger is pointing us with a finger of flesh towards a way to draw closer to God...isn't it prudent to listen/consider/heed/attempt? And at times, the best ways to accomplish that *will* change... [we aren't building arks at the moment]. So why not remain flexible to pivot and adapt as the Spirit leads, rather than take offense if a leader doesn't seem to merit the pedestal they likely never asked to be set upon?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

...Saying it's our fault for trusting someone we're told we must trust is victim blaming unless we truly give each individual the authority and latitude to truly decide for themselves when they will and when they will not trust/believe/sustain the words of a fallible prophet(s).

We're not asked to sustain their every word...when/if such a word *is* fallible. 

We're asked instead to sustain them....in their calling.

2 different things. 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Many of us are claiming that authority to discern for ourselves and find that in some instances the prophet(s) are wrong. Thus we speak about our disagreement and are called heretics, apostates, etc. The kind of latitude to decide for ourselves does not currently exist in the church.

But the latitude to discern/decide for ourself does exist. And always has. 

That said, the manner of "speaking out" is where some might rapidly be labelled a heretic or an apostate.

There are generally more appropriate channels for such feedback. I see zero reason for pointing out the flaws of leaders in a public forum or even a small meeting. Would prefer to do so, if at all, through private back channels to that leader, or to simply maintain silence.

I suspect that you're a perfectionist - an demand perfection of yourself - which, if accurate, is awesome - but we aren't all wired that exact same way. 

From Joseph, a few suggestions for seeing those called to serve us in a more compassionate/productive light (scan quickly through if you wish..might find something helpful that jumps out at you):

“Suppose that Jesus Christ and holy angels should object to us on frivolous things, what would become of us? We must be merciful to one another, and overlook small things.”

Per Willard: "so prayed Joseph—‘Father, forgive me my trespasses as I forgive those who trespass against me’, for I freely forgive all men. If we would secure and cultivate the love of others, we must love others..." 

The Prophet Joseph Smith wrote to a group of Church leaders: “Now, brethren, let me tell you, that it is my disposition to give and forgive, and to bear and to forbear, with all long-suffering and patience, with the foibles, follies, weaknesses, and wickedness of my brethren and all the world of mankind; and my confidence and love toward you is not slackened, nor weakened. And now, if you should be called upon to bear with us a little in any of our weaknesses and follies, and should, with us, receive a rebuke to yourselves, don’t be offended. … When you and I meet face to face, I anticipate, without the least doubt, that all matters between us will be fairly understood, and perfect love prevail; and the sacred covenant by which we are bound together, have the uppermost seat in our hearts.”

The Prophet Joseph Smith said the following at a meeting with his counselors in the First Presidency and the Twelve: “I have sometimes spoken too harshly from the impulse of the moment, and inasmuch as I have wounded your feelings, brethren, I ask your forgiveness, for I love you and will hold you up with all my heart in all righteousness, before the Lord, and before all men; for be assured, brethren, I am willing to stem the torrent of all opposition, in storms and in tempests, in thunders and in lightnings, by sea and by land, in the wilderness or among false brethren, or mobs, or wherever God in His providence may call us. And I am determined that neither heights nor depths, principalities nor powers, things present or things to come, or any other creature, shall separate me from you. And I will now covenant with you before God, that I will not listen to or credit any derogatory report against any of you, nor condemn you upon any testimony beneath the heavens, short of that testimony which is infallible...

“And now may God have mercy upon my father’s house; may God take away enmity from between me and thee; and may all blessings be restored, and the past be forgotten forever."

"And the spirit of confession and forgiveness was mutual among us all, and we covenanted with each other, in the sight of God, and the holy angels, and the brethren, to strive thenceforward to build each other up in righteousness in all things, and not listen to evil reports concerning each other; but, like brothers indeed, go to each other, with our grievances, in the spirit of meekness, and be reconciled, and thereby promote our happiness, and the happiness of the family, and, in short, the happiness and well-being of all. "

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-34?lang=eng

I love your heart Happy. Hang in there. Keep the faith.

Edited March 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Honestly, my view of the social issues changed after the rug was pulled out on doctrinal issues. Doctrines about becoming like God, race and the priesthood, polygamy, second annointings etc. all impacted me long before I considered that prophets might also be wrong about social issues and that the current teachings/views are just as likely to change.

At the very core of it I have lost trust that the prophets know and teach the will of God. It started with history because it made me aware of doctrinal changes. Social issues followed. Sometimes they speak and I feel inspired and feel connected with the doctrine they speak. But other times I don't. Although I'm not perfect I must be able to trust myself more than individuals I don't personally know. I have to rely on the gifts God gave me on not rely on mediators of his word which are also wrong. If I'm going to be wrong I want it to be an honest mistake after I've done my best to understand and decide, instead of blaming someone else who told me wrong and I just followed blindly. 

Prophets must earn trust just like everyone else. If their inspired words and/or behaviors contradict the inspired words of other prophets, then I am left to decide for myself which one is right, or maybe neither of them. If being a part of "one true church" was really that important I don't understand why God would choose such fallible and untrustworthy witnesses. I don't know why he would allow such variance in official doctrines. Either God chose a very inefficient plan or he is inept. I choose to believe the dogma really isn't important to God at all.

Ultimately, we each are the arbiter of truth and revelation for ourselves. I think this is actually the great strength of the Church, and why prophets can't lead the Church astray. As I wrote and quoted here (beginning after footnote 28), prophets are physically capable of leading the restored Church astray, but won't able to because of our check, as a collective body of individuals, with the ability and duty to receive confirming revelation.

http://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/well-nigh-as-dangerous#enloc28

With that, we can learn through the Spirit that leaders are wrong about something, without going into tailspin. We just know for ourselves in that instance with that item that we are right and they are wrong. Here's an example from Wilford Woodruff (admittedly, not as weighty as many items that people wrestle with, but the same principle applies, I think:

http://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/well-nigh-as-dangerous#enloc54

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Although I'm not perfect I must be able to trust myself more than individuals I don't personally know. I have to rely on the gifts God gave me on not rely on mediators of his word which are also wrong. If I'm going to be wrong I want it to be an honest mistake after I've done my best to understand and decide, instead of blaming someone else who told me wrong and I just followed blindly.

Thumbs up.

In line with what Brigham warned the saints about.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Prophets must earn trust just like everyone else. If their inspired words and/or behaviors contradict the inspired words of other prophets, then I am left to decide for myself which one is right, or maybe neither of them. If being a part of "one true church" was really that important I don't understand why God would choose such fallible and untrustworthy witnesses.

Impetus for the Sacred Grove / James 1:5 all over again.

Again, imperfections in leadership are among the many things from leadership that lead/draw us to seek God.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know why he would allow such variance in official doctrines. Either God chose a very inefficient plan and is inept or the "one true church--follow the prophet" mantras really don't matter all that much to him. I am left to believe the dogma really isn't important to God at all.

Jewish teachings shifted and shimmied and matured over the centuries.

Christian ones have mutated/matured too.

Don't see why the premise of an ongoing restoration should cast disfavor upon maturing teachings. And even where a mortal occasionally teaches something that perhaps ain't so.

Again, I'm guessing you have a perfectionist bend. If so, I can understand why granting others, especially people in responsibility, occasional latitude might be an ongoing challenge.

Edited March 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[VideoGameJunkie]

People on this thread bring up that in the eternities we will be joint heirs with Christ and SHARE. Does the fact that we'll be sharing mean a sign that polygamy will be apart of the eternities because the way to avoid jealousy and for plural marriage to work is if we are all joint heirs with Christ and don't have anything anyone else has and will be sharing throughout eternity. I understand that worlds is different than sharing a spouse, but when I hear it brought up about joint heirs and sharing it makes me think maybe that's the only way that polygamy can work in the eternities. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 4:06 PM, probablyHagoth7 said:

 That said, the manner of "speaking out" is where some might rapidly be labelled a heretic or an apostate.

1- There are generally more appropriate channels for such feedback. I see zero reason for pointing out the flaws of leaders in a public forum or even a small meeting. Would prefer to do so, if at all, through private back channels to that leader, or to simply maintain silence.

I suspect that you're a 2- perfectionist - an demand perfection of yourself - which, if accurate, is awesome - but we aren't all wired that exact same way. 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-34?lang=eng

3- I love your heart Happy. Hang in there. Keep the faith.

1- I'm curious what those appropriate channels look like. While I agree that addressing things personally with a leader, that is often not a possibility which leads a person to make more public comments. When it comes to high church leadership (70's - Q15) then there is really no mechanism in place for an average member to reach out and share concerns. In fact members are specifically counseled not to call or write top leaders. So how do we share feedback? Through the Bishop? He has no more access than I do. Through the SP? He has a little more access ( and definitely more to area authorities) to top leadership but that is unlikely to get any real feedback through and there is no mechanism in place to know if/when/how feedback is received. Through the Area authority? Maybe that might work except I don't have access to the Area Authority.

How does maintaining silence provide feedback?  

2- I disagree that being a perfectionist is "Awesome" or even desirable. I think it sets false standards that God doesn't expect of us.

3- Thank you for the kind words.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 5:09 PM, probablyHagoth7 said:

Thumbs up.

In line with what Brigham warned the saints about.

Impetus for the Sacred Grove / James 1:5 all over again.

Again, imperfections in leadership are among the many things from leadership that lead/draw us to seek God.

Jewish teachings shifted and shimmied and matured over the centuries.

Christian ones have mutated/matured too.

Don't see why the premise of an ongoing restoration should cast disfavor upon maturing teachings. And even where a mortal occasionally teaches something that perhaps ain't so.

Again, I'm guessing you have a perfectionist bend. If so, I can understand why granting others, especially people in responsibility, occasional latitude might be an ongoing challenge.

I'm really not a perfectionist though in the past I definitely had a very judgmental streak that I'm trying to overcome. I often made the mistake of thinking if I could do something, then anyone can ... and should.

I understand very well that doctrines change, often within the context of time and culture. I don't have a problem with that. My problem is with claims of absolute truth as if doctrines don't change and therefore we must accept current teachings as truth. There are Mormon creeds that are imposed based on some of these doctrines (think temple recommends) and they are often defended and sometimes even used as a weapon against those who don't believe exactly the same way. I'd love for the church to get away from that mentality.

Joseph Smith spoke about how erring in doctrine is no reason to think a man bad. He liked the freedom of believing and exploring possibilities of faith, doctrine and practice. But now the creeds are wielded in church most Sundays where if a person speaks outside of the orthodoxy, they are pitied or even called an apostate.

I don't have a problem with prophets making mistakes and changing doctrines as long as we are truly permitted, without discipline, to accept or reject teachings as we see fit. That is not the case now.

[probablyHagoth7]

51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- I'm curious what those appropriate channels look like....How does maintaining silence provide feedback?  

It doesn't. :0) But there are times when I have prayerfully decided not to offer feedback, and have been at peace with that decision. Which is a valuable option that at least merits consideration.

For a feedback loop to local leaders, that path doesn't need clarification. Which is what I meant by "generally", since that is where people more often have concerns/frictions that might need simple airing/resolution (rather than silently nurturing a grudge). For leaders further up the hierarchy, there can be back channels (friends or family or associates) or a more direct query (no longer advised, even though I had cause to breach that counsel once), or the simple option of notifying a local leader of such a concern and simply letting that local leader determine whether to run such a thing further up the flagpole. (I've done all of the above.)

51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- I disagree that being a perfectionist is "Awesome" or even desirable. I think it sets false standards that God doesn't expect of us.

 

 

While I understand your meaning, we're all wired differently. Those with the perfectionist streak serve an important role in society. Such a temperament is not my personal cup of [herbal] tea, but I at least acknowledge/respect the order/structure that such people bring to the world, while politely rejecting the tendency among some such who insist that I or others need to mirror their mindset.

When it comes to perfection, I personally prefer the idea of having perfect intent. And I fret less about perfect/ideal execution, hoping instead that people will be charitable with my mortal/imperfect outcomes, just as I attempt to be charitable with their occasionally-flawed efforts. I believe that is a key facet to what is meant by being pure in heart (having pure/genuine/perfect intent). Fair 'nuf?

51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

3- Thank you for the kind words.

 

 

You're quite welcome. I value your input/association/engagement here.

Edited March 27, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[cinepro]

On 3/22/2017 at 7:11 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

In a recent leak, a 2012 document was released that is part of the church's packet to incoming GA' to help them know how to answer certain common questions.

Some of the answers to these common questions seem a bit...lets say... insincere, dance around the question, or don't provide a clear answer at all.  For example...

While we may not like the way the question is phrased, isn't the answer Yes. Not only, yes, we will have our own planet but we will have our own universe and likely many planets. Why hide from this unique but aspirational purpose for God's children?

 

Again, we may not like the question but a simple "yes" would do and then some additional context could be provided. But this seems to dance around the question without actually answering.

This answer seems downright dishonest. Can someone help me understand why church leaders, General Authorities, would claim not to know where the Garden of Eden was when it is stated in scripture?

There is much more to this document but I find it strange and disheartening that there is a purposeful effort to teach GA's to provide unclear, or insincere answer to standard questions. Why not just own the unique doctrines? The church seems to be hiding from it.

 

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/5/55/Guideline_Responses_to_Common_Questions.pdf

 

 

 

Not to belabor the point, but when reading up on Apostle John Widtsoe's writings about Noah's flood, I also found this being taught in his popular book "Evidences and Reconciliations" (published in 1943):

 

Quote

That the Prophet actually taught that the Garden of Eden was in or near
Independence, Missouri, is amply testified to by many who knew and heard him.
Heber C. Kimball, close associate and friend of the Prophet, said on one
occasion:

          	The spot chosen for the Garden of Eden was Jackson Country, in
          the state of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was
          occupied in the morn of creation by Adam and his associates, who
          came with him for the express purpose of peopling this earth.
          (Journal of Discourses, 10:235)

	Brigham Young, also a close associate of the Prophet, testified
similarly:

          	In the beginning, after this earth was prepared for man, the
          Lord commenced his work upon what is now called the American
          continent, where the Garden of Eden was made. In the days of Noah,
          in the days of the Boating of the ark, he took the people to another
          part of the earth. (Discourses, p. 102)

	In conversation with Orson Hyde, on March 15, 1857, President Young said:

          	You have been both to Jerusalem and Zion, and seen both. I have
          not seen either, for I have never been in Jackson County. Now it is
          a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden
          was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in
          Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and
          I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a
          prophet of God. (Journal History, March 15, 1857)

	That is the position of the Latter-day Saints today, with respect to the
much-discussed location of the Garden of Eden.

	Adam, after his expulsion from the Garden of Eden, lived in the vicinity
of the great Missouri and Mississippi rivers. As his descendants multiplied,
they would naturally settle along the fertile and climatically acceptable
river valleys. When the flood came in the days of Noah, the Mississippi
drainage must have increased to a tremendous volume, quite in harmony with the
Biblical account. Noah's ark would be floated on the mighty, rushing waters,
towards the Gulf of Mexico. With favorable winds, it would cross the Atlantic
to the Eastern continents. There the human race, in its second start on earth,
began to multiply and fill the earth.

	The location of the Garden of Eden in America, and at Independence,
Missouri, clears up many a problem which the Bible account of Eden and its
garden has left in the minds of students.

http://www.cumorah.com/etexts/evidencesreconciliations.txt

Emphasis added

 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

Not to belabor the point, but when reading up on Apostle John Widtsoe's writings about Noah's flood, I also found this being taught in his popular book "Evidences and Reconciliations" (published in 1943):

 

 

Thanks for sharing. When people claim the teaching about the Garden being in Jackson County either A- wasn't taught at all or B- was taught as personal opinion by periphery figures that didn't speak for the church makes me believe that 1- They are unaware or 2- They are purposely downplaying the teaching because they find it embarrassing.

So the church, claiming they don't know where the garden was is either unaware, purposely downplaying, OR 3- know the teaching but purposely reject the teachings of past prophets without providing an alternative narrative.

So I'm not sure, from an apologetic standpoint, which is better...

1- not knowing what was taught

2- Downplaying out of embarrassment

3- Outright rejecting past teachings they know were taught

[CV75]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

Not to belabor the point, but when reading up on Apostle John Widtsoe's writings about Noah's flood, I also found this being taught in his popular book "Evidences and Reconciliations" (published in 1943):

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for sharing. When people claim the teaching about the Garden being in Jackson County either A- wasn't taught at all or B- was taught as personal opinion by periphery figures that didn't speak for the church makes me believe that 1- They are unaware or 2- They are purposely downplaying the teaching because they find it embarrassing.

You keep overplaying earlier prophets’ accounts of what they heard or understood Joseph to say, but the most reliable of what he said by revelation is recorded in the D&C, and these verses say nothing of the sort. In the year 2017, when we are asked the question, we have lots of quotes from lots of past leaders to try to tie back to these revelations, but the tie-in simply doesn’t exist so they aren't very reliable, and the response needs to be reliable by today's standards. They haven't been reliable for some time, because this teaching isn't in the lesson materials. There were even qualifiers to reports of this teaching as long ago as 1992 (see links below).

“Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.”

“Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters? Therefore, come up hither unto the land of my people, even Zion. [Missouri]”

Now is the next step to overplay earlier prophets’ fallibility, or to deprecate modern prophets’ scholarship? That gets old, too!

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Garden_of_Eden

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You keep overplaying earlier prophets’ accounts of what they heard or understood Joseph to say,

What do you mean "you"?  You're pretending like this is something random that I cooked up, or HappyJackWagon is "overplaying."

What you're actually saying is:

"[Apostle John A. Widtsoe] and [Brigham Young] and [Joseph Fielding Smith, early Church members in Missouri, and BYU Professors of Church History as published in official Church Publications] and [Apostle Alvin R. Dyer in General Conference] were all "overplaying" earlier prophets' accounts of what they heard or understood Joseph to say, but I know better."

 

This isn't a study in how LDS members "overplay" certain teachings.  It's a study in how the Church and certain members deal with embarrassing teachings from the past that were widely (but not frequently) taught by Apostles in books, Church publications and General Conference.  If your best strategy to deal with these teachings is to try and blame the members whose only mistake was to believe what they were being taught by the men they considered Prophets, Seers and Revelators, then it only shows the sad state of modern LDS apologetics and public relations.

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by cinepro