Mormon Future - Cultural Assimilation or Retrenchment?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Pres. Nelson, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Speaking to the worldwide Church, in his official capacity and in a Church-sponsored setting and event.

His remarks were subsequently transcribed and published on the Church's website, where they remain published to this day.

All this effort at isolating Pres. Nelson, as characterizing him as "going rogue," just doesn't work.  It's wishful thinking.  Grasping at straws.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not characterizing him as "going rogue".

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps it is a distinction without a difference.

I can only give you my personal idea, but if I had to draw a distinction, I would say it is a revelation if it breaks new doctrinal ground (such as the 1978 revelation on the priesthood). I would call it a revelatory document if it was divine revelation that brought it into being, whether or not it declares new doctrine. That is to say, I believe God instructed His servants to prepare and publish the proclamation on the family, though its content is a reaffirmation of doctrinal truths that were already had among the Latter-day Saints.

 

I thought our theological understanding of revelation is any instruction from God (whether new or not).  But I think I understand the point you are making with respect to the prophet and apostles and the distinction between "revelation" and a "revelatory document".

That said, what new doctrinal ground was broken by the 1978 revelation on the priesthood?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think this was discussed on this board at length but I will search for it if you cannot remember.

Here it is:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68037-doctrinal-mastery-changes/

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

Quote

Note that neither the November 2015 letter from the First Presidency nor Elder Christofferson's interview identified the policy additions and changes as revelation.  Only Elder Nelson made that statement.

Pres. Nelson, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Speaking to the worldwide Church, in his official capacity and in a Church-sponsored setting and event.

His remarks were subsequently transcribed and published on the Church's website, where they remain published to this day.

All this effort at isolating Pres. Nelson, as characterizing him as "going rogue," just doesn't work.  It's wishful thinking.  Grasping at straws.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not characterizing him as "going rogue".

Variations on a theme.  

"Note that neither the November 2015 letter from the First Presidency nor Elder Christofferson's interview identified the policy additions and changes as revelation.  Only Elder Nelson made that statement."

Thanks,

-Smac

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Heresy isn’t always unreliable and since we really don’t have access to open public information because so much is done behind closed doors then all we’re operating off is very scant carefully groomed public information pieced together with other details that sound plausible and align with what we know of the past.

I disagree. I think that heresy is always wrong, while hearsay is always unreliable. 

Note the distinction: "always unreliable" doesn't mean "always wrong." Just like a stopped clock is right twice a day, so hearsay getting things right is usually just a happy accident. It really isn't wise to rely upon it without independent corroboration.

One of the difficult things about establishing the reliability of hearsay is the extent to which apparently independent sources may unknowingly be depending upon each other. This was strikingly illustrated in the Mark Hofmann case, where people thought that claims about President Hinckley's involvement with Hofmann were corroborated by multiple witnesses. When the sources of those witnesses' information were traced backwards, they turned out to have all originated with Hofmann himself.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 I’m not 100% confident with this by any means but it seems the best we can do under the circumstances.

Well, there is an alternative that might be better: namely, if you really don't trust official Church sources (which is implied by your "carefully groomed" remark, above) then perhaps you should just withhold judgment altogether.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with you about the importance and the need to not be sloppy.  I just intrepid the evidence differently than you do.  

I'm glad to know of your intrepidity.

As we kin sea, yew used yore spill chucker two money thymes.

[Exiled]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4325258&itype=CMSID

Calm also provided a link to the discussion above.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Exiled

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Variations on a theme.  

"Note that neither the November 2015 letter from the First Presidency nor Elder Christofferson's interview identified the policy additions and changes as revelation.  Only Elder Nelson made that statement."

Thanks,

-Smac

Not my theme.  I'll say it clearly.  I don't think Pres. Nelson was going rogue.  I think he was expressing his sincere interpretation of what transpired with respect to the policy.

I was noting that neither the FP nor Elder Christofferson made the same observation in their letter/remarks published to explain the policy.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And it's a bit strange for you to feel at liberty to share your opinions, but then suggest I should constrain myself from sharing mine. 

I agree. Strange, but not entirely unusual. I've noticed that we seem to hear things like this on the forum quite frequently. "Let's just agree to disagree," which seems to be expected to mean, "Let's just agree that I can put my opinions forward whenever I like, and you can keep your disagreements to yourself."

[Exiled]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Here it is:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68037-doctrinal-mastery-changes/

Thanks for the help

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not my theme.  I'll say it clearly.  I don't think Pres. Nelson was going rogue.  I think he was expressing his sincere interpretation of what transpired with respect to the policy.

I was noting that neither the FP nor Elder Christofferson made the same observation in their letter/remarks published to explain the policy.

Okay.  Thank you for your clarification.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I thought our theological understanding of revelation is any instruction from God (whether new or not).  But I think I understand the point you are making with respect to the prophet and apostles and the distinction between "revelation" and a "revelatory document".

That said, what new doctrinal ground was broken by the 1978 revelation on the priesthood?

That the day had come when the restriction was to be lifted.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

I agree. Strange, but not entirely unusual. I've noticed that we seem to hear things like this on the forum quite frequently. "Let's just agree to disagree," which seems to be expected to mean, "Let's just agree that I can put my opinions forward whenever I like, and you can keep your disagreements to yourself."

On one occasion I answered one of those "agree to disagree" comments with something along this line: "Great. In the interest of agreeing to disagree, I propose that you cease and desist any and all future public complaints and denigration of the Church of Jesus Christ on this subject, and, as a quid pro quo, I'll refrain from publicly countering them."

Turned out that was not what the person had in mind.

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

I disagree. I think that heresy is always wrong, while hearsay is always unreliable. 

Note the distinction: "always unreliable" doesn't mean "always wrong." Just like a stopped clock is right twice a day, so hearsay getting things right is usually just a happy accident. It really isn't wise to rely upon it without independent corroboration.

One of the difficult things about establishing the reliability of hearsay is the extent to which apparently independent sources may unknowingly be depending upon each other. This was strikingly illustrated in the Mark Hofmann case, where people thought that claims about President Hinckley's involvement with Hofmann were corroborated by multiple witnesses. When the sources of those witnesses' information were traced backwards, they turned out to have all originated with Hofmann himself.

Well, there is an alternative that might be better: namely, if you really don't trust official Church sources (which is implied by your "carefully groomed" remark, above) then perhaps you should just withhold judgment altogether.

I'm glad to know of your intrepidity.

As we kin sea, yew used yore spill chucker two money thymes.

Don’t be a punk, I had some autocorrect issues happening on my phone and replied quickly without review.  I’m bored of the conversation at this point.  Let the echo chamber apologetics carry on...

[smac97]

I don't think kiwi meant any harm. Just a bit of a nose tweak. I thought your use of the word heresy was funny also. Oh well.

I also do not understand your characterization of this board as an echo chamber. It is anything but. 

[carbon dioxide]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

While I would welcome canonization of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," I'm not certain it's necessary. It is an inspired and official proclamation reaffirming doctrinal truths that were already had among the Latter-day Saints at the time it was published. It codified those truths and brought them to the attention of government and civic leaders the mass media, but it didn't break any new ground doctrinally.

Canonizing it would not endow it with any greater verity than it already has, in my view.

 

I would agree.  There is no new revelation in the proclamation.  All the concepts spoken of are either taught in the scriptures or have been taught and understood by general authorities in the church from the beginning.  It is like the articles of faith in my book. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think kiwi meant any harm. Just a bit of a nose tweak. I thought your use of the word heresy was funny also. Oh well.

I also do not understand your characterization of this board as an echo chamber. It is anything but. 

Nor is it primarily an apologetics board any longer — if it ever was. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would agree.  There is no new revelation in the proclamation.  All the concepts spoken of are either taught in the scriptures or have been taught and understood by general authorities in the church from the beginning.  It is like the articles of faith in my book. 

Except that the Articles of Faith <are> canonized — as part of the Pearl of Great Price 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps Nehor comes from the same tribe of Israel that also established themselves in Italy?  

Yes, the Boyardee Tribe, of course

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Don’t be a punk,

Sorry Dad.

[CV75]

While canonization of the Proclamation might be viewed as further retrenchment (it was developed to “warn and forewarn” and to “[declare and reaffirm] …standards, doctrines, and practices”) from 22 years ago, at least it would be following a consistent trajectory that assimilation would not counter. However the Church’s actions are viewed, I don’t think assimilation will use “sophistry that is passed off as truth …to take on the slow stain of the world.” Anything the Church does will tie back to “[strengthening] their families in conformity with these time-honored values.”  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng

The Church both assimilates and retrenches on the same principles that always tie back to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. 

[rockpond]

While it doesn't seem necessary since most members tend to already consider the Family Proclamation to be scripture, I think a possible benefit of canonizing it is that it could help us return to having the D&C be more of a "living" book up scripture.  We haven't added to it since 1978.  Might be nice to start adding to it again.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

While it doesn't seem necessary since most members tend to already consider the Family Proclamation to be scripture, I think a possible benefit of canonizing it is that it could help us return to having the D&C be more of a "living" book up scripture.  We haven't added to it since 1978.  Might be nice to start adding to it again.

Now this is interesting because in the D&C, the only use for “living” other than in reference to people and Deity is the living church (the earthly, human vehicle of the Lord and His teachings) and living water (the symbol of the Lord and His teachings that flows through the church – the New Testament adds “living bread” and “living stone” as symbols of the same).

A “living book” would also be a vehicle of the Lord and His teachings. The canon we have is one “book,” but there are many other media instruments that the living church uses to channel the living water by way of doctrine, priesthood and testimony, conferences, proclamations and published testimony (such as The Living Christ https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/04/the-living-christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng) being just as few that serve the same purpose and that may well find more efficient and effective circulation on a number of fronts than volumes of canon. And of course the members ourselves are "books" inasmuch as we are aligned with the doctrine, priesthood and testimony.

I don't think the idea of continuing revelation either required or was dependent on continuing canonization. I think it is a beneficial to honor our covenants to sustain the canon as we are to sustain the content found in these other vehicles that tie back to these "foundation" testimonies.

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now this is interesting because in the D&C, the only use for “living” other than in reference to people and Deity is the living church (the earthly, human vehicle of the Lord and His teachings) and living water (the symbol of the Lord and His teachings that flows through the church – the New Testament adds “living bread” and “living stone” as symbols of the same).

A “living book” would also be a vehicle of the Lord and His teachings. The canon we have is one “book,” but there are many other media instruments that the living church uses to channel the living water by way of doctrine, priesthood and testimony, conferences, proclamations and published testimony (such as The Living Christ https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/04/the-living-christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng) being just as few that serve the same purpose and that may well find more efficient and effective circulation on a number of fronts than volumes of canon. And of course the members ourselves are "books" inasmuch as we are aligned with the doctrine, priesthood and testimony.

I don't think the idea of continuing revelation either required or was dependent on continuing canonization. I think it is a beneficial to honor our covenants to sustain the canon as we are to sustain the content found in these other vehicles that tie back to these "foundation" testimonies.

I agree and I did not mean to imply that continuing revelation required or was dependent on continuing canonization. 

While I love and look forward to general conference and study then ponder those messages, there is still something in me that is excited at the thought of an ever expanding D&C.  Does it change the message/importance of the Family Proclamation, the Living Christ testimony of the apostles, or any other text that could be inserted therein?  Not really.  At least not for me. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

While it doesn't seem necessary since most members tend to already consider the Family Proclamation to be scripture, I think a possible benefit of canonizing it is that it could help us return to having the D&C be more of a "living" book up scripture.  We haven't added to it since 1978.  Might be nice to start adding to it again.

I suppose.  However, there appears to be a strain of thought amongst some folks in the Church that we needn't listen to the prophets and apostles, nor follow their counsel, until and unless what they have said is formally canonized in scripture.

Perhaps the Proclamation is, in part, intended to help members of the Church overcome this misunderstanding.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now this is interesting because in the D&C, the only use for “living” other than in reference to people and Deity is the living church (the earthly, human vehicle of the Lord and His teachings) and living water (the symbol of the Lord and His teachings that flows through the church – the New Testament adds “living bread” and “living stone” as symbols of the same).

A “living book” would also be a vehicle of the Lord and His teachings. The canon we have is one “book,” but there are many other media instruments that the living church uses to channel the living water by way of doctrine, priesthood and testimony, conferences, proclamations and published testimony (such as The Living Christ https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/04/the-living-christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng) being just as few that serve the same purpose and that may well find more efficient and effective circulation on a number of fronts than volumes of canon. And of course the members ourselves are "books" inasmuch as we are aligned with the doctrine, priesthood and testimony.

I don't think the idea of continuing revelation either required or was dependent on continuing canonization. I think it is a beneficial to honor our covenants to sustain the canon as we are to sustain the content found in these other vehicles that tie back to these "foundation" testimonies.

Love this!

This is the key to the future.  We need to adapt our language to make it open to those who want to become the best humans we can become which is - yes- a Humanist ideal but guess what- - it is also an LDS ideal.

Focusing on the paradigm of a Perfected Human who can communicate with his children through the feelings of their hearts, and finding a purpose in life, is the key in my opinion to communicate to the secular folks who are looking for SOMETHING to believe in, something greater than themselves.

When you see Jesus Christ as such a being- the compassionate ideal Human who can hear your needs and thoughts because he has been through it all, and who is in constant touch with our common Father of our spirits  -- This to me could easily become the paradigm for all who have feelings left to accept the spirit.

They are tired of mumbo jumbo and tired of "religion" that doesn't make sense, but to me keeping the explanations on a family level and letting them know that religion is what gives you purpose in life and seeing this paradigm as just that- a living and perfect paradigm for humans to understand where they came from, what life is for, and where one goes when it ends, is the perfect living paradigm for all.

In my opinion, we just need to see it that way and communicate it that way.

It is a way of LIFE, something one lives every day and that is capable of growing with you as your life changes and in trials, in is able to be flexible to change along with the notion of orthopraxis rather than orthodoxy

LIVE the lifestyle and you will see it works for you.   Make the sacrifices necessary and you will feel the difference.   It is health, it is confidence and love of God and your fellow man, it is fellowship and healing.

All the silly little customs become irrelevant and the gospel of Jesus Christ takes the front of the stage.  Follow the path of Life and not the path of Death- which most now in the world are living.  God has tried and true paradigms of behavior we call the "commandments".   They have worked for thousands of years.  You can see them as God given, as socially evolved, or both.

They work, that is really all that matters.  They are living rules for having a happy life.

Anyway, I will stop preaching.   I kind of like this church.