Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[Pete Ahlstrom]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's not out of context. This kind of talk about achieving perfection was common. They weren't saying you could live your life without making a mistake, but they were saying you could become perfect with enough work.

That doctrine has fallen out of favor.

We all know you are correct here. There certainly has been changes about becomming like god. It's patently obvious the doctrine has fallen out of favor regardless if some won't admit it, for some emotional reason.

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

And I responded to your post by saying that there is plenty of evidence and pointed you to a couple Mormon authors who've written large books on this subject specifically.  What are you missing?  

It's really not helpful or useful to wave your had at a whole book and, in effect, say, "Look it up yourself." Maybe there's something relevant in there, maybe not.

And you didn't even specify a book title with Givens.

Your substantiation was very underwhelming and indeed seemed more like bluffing to avoid the hard work of substantiation.

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's not out of context. This kind of talk about achieving perfection was common. They weren't saying you could live your life without making a mistake, but they were saying you could become perfect with enough work.

That doctrine has fallen out of favor.

I really don't see the difference between then and now, based on what you've cited.

The counsel is the same: Do the best you can, achieve perfection where you can (regular Church attendance, for example) and let the Atonement make up for the rest.

[ALarson]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

And I responded to your post by saying that there is plenty of evidence and pointed you to a couple Mormon authors who've written large books on this subject specifically.  What are you missing?  

Many have given Scott specific examples.  At least enough to discuss and enough evidence to at least admit to the fact that some changes have taken place over the years.

Once again as others have expressed,  I don't believe that is a negative thing and I feel that it signifies there will be more changes in the future.  I see it as progress.  

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

It's not revelatory change that is the problem, per se. It's when disavowal (or sometimes ignoring) of past teachings comes into play. That doesn't make anyone comfortable. 

 

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

One would think. However, too much change opens the church up to claims that it is just following society's lead and isn't led by God at all, as in the priesthood ban and subsequent changes to it. So, I can see where Scott would resist admitting change had occurred as he did above.

The problem arose with the gross overstatements of doctrine evolving, the outlandish claim that the Church  would be "unrecognizable" today from what it was in 1917, etc., all this to shore up the misguided notion that the Church of Jesus Christ will one day abandon its adherence to traditional marriage, even though that has been repeatedly and authoritatively denied, most recently in the regions conference of which rongo has posted his notes.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The problem arose with the gross overstatements of doctrine evolving, the outlandish claim that the Church  would be "unrecognizable" today from what it was in 1917, etc., 

I thought it was originally 1870 that he stated (he may have mentioned 1917 as well...).  If so, I agree much change has occurred. 

ETA:

Here's stem's post (he does mention both years):

I'm guessing if an average Mormon from 1870 was plucked from his place and plopped down in 2017 and told "these are the Mormons."  He'd say, "hell no they aren't".  Likely the same response would come from one from 1917 as well. 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69591-regional-priesthood-leadership-conference/?do=findComment&comment=1209757221

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many have given Scott specific examples.  At least enough to discuss and enough evidence to at least admit to the fact that some changes have taken place over the years.

 

But not to the extent that was claimed, that if you took someone, say, President Joseph F. Smith, who was Church president in 1917, and brought him back to life today, that he wouldn't recognize the Church because of changes that have occurred. That is utter silliness.

The changes that have been cited are not of the drastic or sea-changing variety that was claimed here when this line of discussion was brought up.

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Pete Ahlstrom]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The problem arose with the gross overstatements of doctrine evolving, the outlandish claim that the Church  would be "unrecognizable" today from what it was in 1917, etc., all this to shore up the misguided notion that the Church of Jesus Christ will one day abandon its adherence to traditional marriage, even though that has been repeatedly and authoritatively denied, most recently in the regions conference of which rongo has posted his notes.

Church leaders said the same thing about the priesthood ban but it turns out it wasn't really ever an inspired doctrine to begin with even though some felt a revelation was needed to change it. Maybe the same thing will happen with the marriage ban? One can envision society completely accepting same sex marriage and the church being isolated like it was with the priesthood ban? When society agitates the church enough and the church is isolated, that's when polygamy and race bans cease, supposedly of course.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Church leaders said the same thing about the priesthood ban but it turns out it wasn't really ever an inspired doctrine to begin with even though some felt a revelation was needed to change it.

The church has stated that the reasons given for the ban were incorrect.  I'm not aware of any statements saying that the ban itself was or was not inspired.

"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The church has stated that the reasons given for the ban were incorrect.  I'm not aware of any statements saying that the ban itself was or was not inspired.

"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Looks to me that by giving the history first, and talking about how certain members weren't supposedly banned, the authors of the essay were trying to shift the blame to society at large for the institution of the ban and not god.

[ksfisher]

20 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Looks to me that by giving the history first, and talking about how certain members weren't supposedly banned, the authors of the essay were trying to shift the blame to society at large for the institution of the ban and not god.

I'm not sure I would call placing the ban within the context of 19th century culture "trying to shift the blame."   I don't see that the essay places blame on anyone person or group.  It does say that Brigham Young was responsible for the implementation, but does not state the reason for the implementation.

Edited September 21, 2017 by ksfisher

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Church leaders said the same thing about the priesthood ban but it turns out it wasn't really ever an inspired doctrine to begin with even though some felt a revelation was needed to change it. Maybe the same thing will happen with the marriage ban? One can envision society completely accepting same sex marriage and the church being isolated like it was with the priesthood ban? When society agitates the church enough and the church is isolated, that's when polygamy and race bans cease, supposedly of course.

Church leaders never said they would never receive the priesthood. They repeatedly said just the opposite, in fact.

And the ban was lifted because the Lord said it was time to do so, not because of social pressure.

Wilford Woodruff declared he would have continued to resist the government and social pressure, including the loss of the temples, had the Lord not told him to end the practice of plouralithy of wives.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I thought it was originally 1870 that he stated (he may have mentioned 1917 as well...).  If so, I agree much change has occurred. 

ETA:

Here's stem's post (he does mention both years):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69591-regional-priesthood-leadership-conference/?do=findComment&comment=1209757221

 

He gave both years as points of origin, and his point was that within any 100-year period, doctrines are apt to change to the point that the Church would be unrecognizable from one century mark to the next.

[ALarson]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But not to the extent that was claimed, that if you took someone, say, President Joseph F. Smith, who was Church president in 1917, and brought him back to life today, that he wouldn't recognize the Church because of changes that have occurred. That is utter silliness.

Maybe for you, but others have seen great changes and feel differently.   I don't know if he'd recognize it or not, but he'd for sure see changes have been made. He'd probably still recognize some things and other things would be different for him.

I've also heard the claim that Joseph Smith couldn't pass a current temple recommend interview.  Most likely that has to do with the WofW changes...

So yes, things have changed.  I don't see that as a negative but as a good thing and as progress.  Things will continue to change and evolve, IMO.

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He gave both years as points of origin, and his point was that within any 100-year period, doctrines are apt to change to the point that the Church would be unrecognizable from one century mark to the next.

I think it was hope_for_things that originated the 100 year period, but stem mentioned 1870 first.  Either way, changes have taken place.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's really not helpful or useful to wave your had at a whole book and, in effect, say, "Look it up yourself." Maybe there's something relevant in there, maybe not.

And you didn't even specify a book title with Givens.

Your substantiation was very underwhelming and indeed seemed more like bluffing to avoid the hard work of substantiation.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Wrestling-Angel-Foundations-Thought-Humanity/dp/0199794928/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506015777&sr=8-1&keywords=wrestling+the+angel+givens

https://www.amazon.com/Feeding-Flock-Foundations-Mormon-Thought/dp/0199794936/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506015794&sr=8-1&keywords=terryl+givens

Those are the two Given's books, I've only read/listened to reviews on the first one, but my understanding is that both of them address the development of LDS doctrine fairly extensively.  The evidence is not just limited to books, but essays and articles.  If you're even semi well read on Mormon studies issues, you're well aware of doctrinal development. 

You haven't substantiated any contradictory evidence against doctrinal development, and your mere contesting of something that I suspect most Mormon scholars understand as reality, shows me that you likely are in denial about doctrinal development because you believe it to be threatening to your paradigm about the church.  In that case, there would be little objective evidence I could show that would convince you. 

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Church leaders never said they would never receive the priesthood. They repeatedly said just the opposite, in fact.

It was lifted before BY stated it would be:

Quote

How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them,  and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 290-291

So, that did change.

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, it sounded just like what Elder Ballard talked about not doing when he address an audience of CES leaders recently. 

Elder Ballard wouldn't have critiqued this approach to people asking questions if there wasn't a problem with how some individuals treat the questioner by trying to bear testimony as a way of avoiding the issue. (personally I would say its more complicated than just "avoiding the issue")  I've experienced this first hand myself, and I'm sure many others have as well.  

I think there is a disconnect here. He stated he discussed the questions and testified. You aren't avoiding questions if you discuss them.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It was lifted before BY stated it would be:

So, that did change.

Good point.  What's sad is that Brigham Young said a lot of really racist things, but the church tries to ignore the Lion's share (pun intended) of what he said, and focus in on this little statement about how they will one day have all the privileges as everyone else.  

Quote

At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.

That's some serious quote mining to find one statement of Young's that is semi charitable and selectively use that in the official essay. 

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Care to give an example of what doctrine hasn't evolved in the past 100 years, just pick one, and we can discuss further the evidence.  

creation

fall

atonement

faith in Jesus christ

repentance

baptism for the remission of sins

laying on of hands

resurrection

pick one. You've been given these and others many time before. It seems a bit disingenuous to pretend you haven't.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It was lifted before BY stated it would be:

So, that did change.

But that particular statement by President Young was never taught consistently in the Church.

In fact, I think it was quite obscure. I did not become aware of it until long after the 1978 revelation, which occurred while I was in college. My understanding as an active member of the Church was that the restriction would be rescinded, though it was unknown when that would happen. My perception is that such an understanding was normative throughout the Church.

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/20/2017 at 7:09 AM, rongo said:

Note the pretty obvious inoculation of "rock in a hat." It was brought up pretty much just to bring it up. That may have been new for many there. The emphasis was on the seer stone being like a smart phone (reading words on a lit field). I'm with B.H. Roberts in believing that Joseph did not read words off the stone (David Whitmer's belief), but I appreciate the exposure of this at all. 

When the seer stone is mentioned here I always link this article published by the Temple Institute of Jerusalem. It describes how the High Priest received revelation through the urim v'tummim. It includes illustrations showing how the process may have occurred.

http://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

The reason I post this link is to show that Joseph's use of the Nephite Interpreters and the seer stone is not problematic because it is entirely consistent with the manner in which the High Priest employed the sacred stones set in the breastplate of his vestments. Joseph's use of the seer stone should not cause heartburn for those who accept this biblical method used by the Lord to communicate with His Hebrew High Priests. That he would put the stone in a hat to exclude extraneous light is not ludicrous. Instead, it would make it easier for him to see the writing. His scribes would have sufficient light to see what they were writing. It is perfectly logical.

Here is the pertinent excerpt [emphases added]. You are welcomed to draw your own conclusions. I would appreciate your comments.

Quote

The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the priest's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?"

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer.

Flavius Josephus writes (Antiquities 3:8:9) that the stones also shone brilliantly when Israel went forth into battle. This was considered as an auspicious sign for their victory.

Another midrashic passage indicates that when the tribes of Israel found favor in G-d's eyes, each respective stone shone brilliantly. But when particular members of any one tribe were involved in a transgression, that tribe's stone would appear tarnished and dimmed. The High Priest would see this phenomena and understand its cause. He would then cast lots within the rank of this tribe, until the guilty person was revealed and judged (Midrash HaGadol).

According to the commentary of the famed Rashi, these words are derived from their Hebrew roots for "lights" and "perfections," since through the urim v'tummim, the question is illuminated through the letters and its subject matter is then perfected by the High Priest. The Talmud (BT Yoma 73:B) also indicates that the message which was received was called tummim, "perfect," because it was immutable.

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

We all know you are correct here. There certainly has been changes about becomming like god. It's patently obvious the doctrine has fallen out of favor regardless if some won't admit it, for some emotional reason.

if its fallen out of favor why did we have priesthood lessons church wide on it several years ago?

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I think there is a disconnect here. He stated he discussed the questions and testified. You aren't avoiding questions if you discuss them.

I'm assuming that his "discussion" of the questions was likely not a very in depth discussion since he focused on how his daughter should put her trust in him, and since he was frustrated that her Bishop empathized with her, that is further evidence that he really didn't understand her doubts/questions or take the time to try and deal with them. 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But that particular statement by President Young was never taught consistently in the Church.

How would you know that?  Why wouldn't it be taught when that's what a Prophet had stated and taught?

I've asked my father about this (he served as a Bishop, SP, and Patriarch for years) and he said that was exactly what was commonly taught to him growing up.  Same with all of the other things that were originally taught on this topic regarding the curse, blacks not being as valiant in the pre-existence and so on....those were regularly taught.

So yes, change has occurred.

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson