There is no such thing as valid criticism of the LDS Church

[Marginal Gains]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

Building Faith is progress.

I think that depends. If one builds faith based on coercion or untruths or subterfuge, is that progress?

[SmileyMcGee]

On 9/3/2017 at 7:36 PM, Five Solas said:

On another thread an LDS poster alleged critics of the LDS Church endlessly repeat “same old claims” and disregard evidence.  He cited Jeremy Runnells as an example to demonstrate critics lack originality and any thoughtfulness.  He went on to liken critics of the LDS Church to “zombies.”

In the face of my challenge, he enjoyed significant support from fellow LDS and many likes/rep points were given.  So I thought it would be worth a poll to the broader audience here.  How do you feel about critics?  Are they like zombies and the only surefire way to neutralize them by complete physical destruction of their brains?  Or might they serve an occasional useful purpose (besides kindling)?  Have a go & don’t hold back.  We critics know how some of you feel already.

;0)

--Erik

______________________________________________

She appears composed, so she is, I suppose
Who can really tell?
She shows no emotion at all
Stares into space like a dead china doll

--Elliott Smith, "Waltz #2"

I've become quite hestitant to group people as critics or defenders. This seems like a tough task and I can't help but feel that at some level many defenders and critics are more alike than different. Both groups seem to view the other as absolutely incapable of doing or saying anything meaningful. This causes whatever disingenuous dialogue they initatied to devolve predictably into polemics (such as referring to the other party as zombies). Though in some twisted way I find it entertaining as a spectator.

I guess my answer would be that I am a temple recommend holding member who really enjoys a well thought out analysis of the church's truth claims/narrative/correlated material, regardless of the person's beliefs or ultimate conclusions about the truthfulness of said truth claims/narrative/material (life is more enjoyable when I feel like I don't have to take a side). 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

God revealed Adam is a father and God because the the nature of exaltation to be both becoming a god and having eternal progeny were important doctrines. Further we know that in Nauvoo Joseph was crowned a king and made a god in terms of higher temple ordinances. So there were important theological conceptions of ritual going on. Lastly we know Joseph had a theology regarding priesthood keys and responsibilities especially for dispensation heads that have to be given back to Adam. All of that can be established by reasonably clear texts. 

I understand Clark, but when does Brigham Young explain what you are telling me? There is no official doctrine that we are going to  become gods, we are going to become like god. Yes exaltation is important, but your claim that Adam was God and Father in a theological sense is still confusing, why would God reveal it to Young without clarification?  

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The controversial part in terms of contemporary LDS theology is the idea that Adam in the garden who was cast out was a prior resurrected being before going into the garden and that he was the physical father of Jesus Christ and our spirits. 

and the above is where your "father and god in a theological sense" theory fails.

The assumption that some parts are inspired, and others are not is speculation, it is an excuse. Remember what you told me? "Anything historical that doesn't fit his worldview is fake information planted by Satan."

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To state without evidence that a supernatural being is changing texts without people being aware of it is a HUGE assumption that requires some degree of evidence. You've not established any evidence for it. (Problems of modification of Young's sermons by his stenographer, while a definite issue, isn't the same as supernatural changing of texts) 

Didn't say Satan did it directly, he inspired men to make changes. What happened to the 116 pages? 

In the Gospel Topics the church questions the Journal of Discourses "Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine"

So I gave you two evidences, I am not just purely speculating. 

 

Edited September 7, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Danzo]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I think that depends. If one builds faith based on coercion or untruths or subterfuge, is that progress?

I think you and I might have a different understanding on what faith is.

I don't think faith can be built on coercion, untruths or subterfuge.

 

[Marginal Gains]

9 hours ago, Danzo said:

I think you and I might have a different understanding on what faith is.

I don't think faith can be built on coercion, untruths or subterfuge.

 

Faith was built on the back of talks by Paul H. Dunn, for example.

[Danzo]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Faith was built on the back of talks by Paul H. Dunn, for example.

really?

I don't think that is how faith works.

But why use Paul H Dunn as your  example, all he did was tell tall tales,  why not use Richard Lyman, George P Lee or Judas Iscariot.  They seem to have done some things that were worse.  We could probably pick any leader of the church and find bad things they have done. Looking for, and finding bad things about people is easy.  It takes very little effort.   Just for fun, to do something different for a change, try looking for the good in people, you might be surprised. 

If all you are trying to say is that imperfect people have been chosen as leaders then I don't think you understand the lord when he says in the very first section of the doctrine and covenants.

"that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh"

I really think you and I have a much different idea of what faith is.

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Faith was built on the back of talks by Paul H. Dunn, for example.

Unfortunately, such faith is short lived when the listener discovers that they have been deceived by a fake faith promoting story.  The church understood that when they pulled the plug on him.

Such stories tend to gain someone admiring fans, a rock star status so to speak.  He even gave an endorsement to a local business.

Edited September 8, 2017 by cdowis

[Five Solas]

On 9/7/2017 at 0:30 PM, SmileyMcGee said:

I've become quite hestitant to group people as critics or defenders. This seems like a tough task and I can't help but feel that at some level many defenders and critics are more alike than different. Both groups seem to view the other as absolutely incapable of doing or saying anything meaningful. This causes whatever disingenuous dialogue they initatied to devolve predictably into polemics (such as referring to the other party as zombies). Though in some twisted way I find it entertaining as a spectator.

I guess my answer would be that I am a temple recommend holding member who really enjoys a well thought out analysis of the church's truth claims/narrative/correlated material, regardless of the person's beliefs or ultimate conclusions about the truthfulness of said truth claims/narrative/material (life is more enjoyable when I feel like I don't have to take a side). 

I think it's okay to be entertained.  I find many of the discussions (including some of the ones I initiate) entertaining, although that's never my sole purpose.

I am intrigued by your statement "life is more enjoyable when I feel like I don't have to take a side."  Most people familiar with Mormonism would assume you've already taken a side on the basis of your disclosure of being a temple recommend holder.  You've explicitly affirmed to your stake president your lack of agreement (if not outright opposition) with individuals/groups whose teachings are contrary to the teachings espoused by the LDS Church.  It's not like you get to play the Switzerland card & claim neutrality (between Allies and Axis). 

Perhaps that particular question (which I paraphrased) is ambiguous in your mind and affords wiggle-room to make the statement you did.  But I doubt most would see it that way. 

I'd be interested in hearing you unpack it further, should you wish to do so.

--Erik

_____________________________________________________

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose

--Janis Joplin, "Me and Bobby McGee"

[SmileyMcGee]

On 9/8/2017 at 10:19 PM, Five Solas said:

I think it's okay to be entertained.  I find many of the discussions (including some of the ones I initiate) entertaining, although that's never my sole purpose.

I am intrigued by your statement "life is more enjoyable when I feel like I don't have to take a side."  Most people familiar with Mormonism would assume you've already taken a side on the basis of your disclosure of being a temple recommend holder.  You've explicitly affirmed to your stake president your lack of agreement (if not outright opposition) with individuals/groups whose teachings are contrary to the teachings espoused by the LDS Church.  It's not like you get to play the Switzerland card & claim neutrality (between Allies and Axis). 

Perhaps that particular question (which I paraphrased) is ambiguous in your mind and affords wiggle-room to make the statement you did.  But I doubt most would see it that way. 

I'd be interested in hearing you unpack it further, should you wish to do so.

--Erik

_____________________________________________________

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose

--Janis Joplin, "Me and Bobby McGee"

very interesting. I'd be interested to  hear what constitutes violation of whatever principle taught in that question. does a member have to agree with every correlated teaching? Can they be agnostic about fundamental doctrines? Is it the thinking that is the violation or is it the expression that is the violation? 

Let me give you an example: I don't mind the idea of civil, same-sex marriages. In fact, politically, i am more comfortable with their performance than the idea of making efforts to constitutionally ban them. if asked, I'd freely give my opinion about it. I've actually been told in a temple recommend interview that I can have whatever views and vote however I want regarding the issue, just don't go around overtly attacking the Church and its stance. Is my stake president wrong in saying that? 

Edited September 10, 2017 by SmileyMcGee

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Let me give you an example: I don't mind the idea of civil, same-sex marriages. In fact, politically, i am more comfortable with their performance than the idea of making efforts to constitutionally ban them. if asked, I'd freely give my opinion about it. I've actually been told in a temple recommend interview that I can have whatever views and vote however I want regarding the issue, just don't go around overtly attacking the Church and its stance. Is my stake president wrong in saying that? 

No:

Quote

 

"Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media, LDS apostle reiterates"

He was asked about Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges? Can they do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2301174&itype=CMSID

 

 

[Vance]

The word "occasionally" in the OP is being used deceptively because it has no real value.

 

"Occasionally" can mean anything from once in a hundred years to once in a few minutes.

 

If there was only one valid criticism of the church in its entire history does that require me to check the "occasionally" box, since the "I do not believe there has ever been a valid criticism" is not available?

 

Then, could my checking of the "occasionally" box be misrepresented to imply that there are far more "valid" criticism of the church than there really are?

 

Solas, I am not going to play this game with you.

 

[Jeanne]

On 9/8/2017 at 9:34 AM, Danzo said:

really?

I don't think that is how faith works.

But why use Paul H Dunn as your  example, all he did was tell tall tales,  why not use Richard Lyman, George P Lee or Judas Iscariot.  They seem to have done some things that were worse.  We could probably pick any leader of the church and find bad things they have done. Looking for, and finding bad things about people is easy.  It takes very little effort.   Just for fun, to do something different for a change, try looking for the good in people, you might be surprised. 

If all you are trying to say is that imperfect people have been chosen as leaders then I don't think you understand the lord when he says in the very first section of the doctrine and covenants.

"that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh"

I really think you and I have a much different idea of what faith is.

Danzo, I really do understand you pov here...but one question.  In my teens, I was a very devout young LDS girl who was engaged to be married in the Temple at age 17.  Our youth firesides consisted of tapes of Paul H. Dunn's many stories and experiences..they affected and enfluenced me deeply.  Finding out  that there were untruths to his stories shook my testimony for awhile...and I was very saddened..my faith took a beating so to speak..and yet I remained a faithful member for many years after that.  I just wanted to mention that mistakes and/or imperfections or not,  Apostles have an obligation to speak with truth..it does affect faith.  It was a tiny beginning to all my questions that came later.

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Danzo, I really do understand you pov here...but one question.  In my teens, I was a very devout young LDS girl who was engaged to be married in the Temple at age 17.  Our youth firesides consisted of tapes of Paul H. Dunn's many stories and experiences..they affected and enfluenced me deeply.  Finding out  that there were untruths to his stories shook my testimony for awhile...and I was very saddened..my faith took a beating so to speak..and yet I remained a faithful member for many years after that.  I just wanted to mention that mistakes and/or imperfections or not,  Apostles have an obligation to speak with truth..it does affect faith.  It was a tiny beginning to all my questions that came later.

You are right, apostles and general authorities (Paul Dunn wasn't an apostle)  and all church leaders and members do have an obligation to speak with truth. They have an obligation to be an example in righteous living. They will be held accountable for when they fail. They can, and I hope they do repent when they fall short.  Sin hurts people sometimes a lot.  

We all have to learn to place our trust and faith in Jesus Christ, and not in man, no matter how eloquent they might be. True faith is always anchored in Christ.