Turning Back to the Bible, (our) "First", "Foremost", and "Chief Among the Books Proclaimed".

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Resources are not skills, and skills are what you brought up in context of the 3-hour block, which the Church prioritizes for spiritual study. Have you honed these skills and apply them to all the resources you choose to use in your scripture study?

Academics is another worthy pursuit, but why would you want the Church to help you build your scholarship skill, and provide academic resources, outside of its availed institutions and offerings?

Good comment. More and more it seems that so many, both inside and outside the Church, want nothing more than for our Church to spend all three hours, undermining both Scripture and Faith, and devoting our time to exposing nothing but our warts, and ignoring our beauty. I understand those critics outside the Church desiring this, but I am wondering why those inside want this as well. Unless they want as much destruction, so that they are not alone while leaving for the final time.  

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Currently, our Ward is having classes for those who want to attended a class entitled, "Teachings as the Savior Taught", not sure what about the content, as I teach Priesthood, and the class is taught at that time. But I fear that a two hour block would give even less time to explain the issues you listed. When I taught Gospel Doctrine, many were surprised to hear that written scripture in the OT, was passed down via "oral tradition" for generations, before ever being put into the written word. It is human nature, for each generation for narratives passed down by oral tradition to be added too, or certain things to be deleted. But, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, which of course requires both teacher and student to be able to receive it, to make that understanding enter into the lesson. My prayer of course is that all do, but that is probably wishful "hoping". When I teach, I seek out the Lord in prayer, and pray for the Holy Spirit. Also, I took two, maybe three days every week, and during my lesson prep, I would sit on the floor, and it would look like a book explosion happened all around me, due to research material. 

My proposal for a 2 hr block.  40 min sacrament, 30 min SS, and 30 mins Priesthood/RS, with 10 and 5 min breaks between sessions.  

I like your introducing the idea of oral tradition.  I think many other ideas could be introduced this way as well.  Incrementally. 

I attended a Mormon studies conf at UVU a couple weeks ago, one of the main topics was evolution.  Professors of biology from BYU attended, and they and showed class statistics for acceptance of evolution at the beginning of when they teach the biology 101 course and at the end.  The change in student's perspective on this topic was impressive.  Education can work, it takes time and has to be done right or people will dig in their heals and close down to the evidence, but it can be done.  

 

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My proposal for a 2 hr block.  40 min sacrament, 30 min SS, and 30 mins Priesthood/RS, with 10 and 5 min breaks between sessions.  

I like your introducing the idea of oral tradition.  I think many other ideas could be introduced this way as well.  Incrementally. 

I attended a Mormon studies conf at UVU a couple weeks ago, one of the main topics was evolution.  Professors of biology from BYU attended, and they and showed class statistics for acceptance of evolution at the beginning of when they teach the biology 101 course and at the end.  The change in student's perspective on this topic was impressive.  Education can work, it takes time and has to be done right or people will dig in their heals and close down to the evidence, but it can be done. 

But you can't demonstrate the value of a blogger's top scripture scholarship picks for Sunday School as being on a par with BYU professors' resources for college classes.

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why would you assume that those two things are mutually exclusive?  Are you suggesting that study of the mind and study of the heart can't go hand in hand?  I think that's a very Mormon ideal.  

2 Nephi 9:28 keeps it in perspective, I think, and serves us well in leveraging secular and spiritual learning to our personal benefit: "O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God." The counsels of God are conveyed through the Spirit and revelation, and help us learn and know more than what we can merely "of ourselves," which is the nature of purely secular approaches.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

When you use the word "substance" what do you mean.  I think history, linguistics, philosophy and comparative religious studies are very substantive.  

If you are talking about devotional aspects, I think a competent teach should be able to blend those elements in.  

Well, here is the extent of "Lesson 9:“God Will Provide Himself a Lamb” for this year's gospel doctrine lessons.

• Study the following scriptures:
  - Abraham 1:1, 5–20. As a young man, Abraham is persecuted by the false priests of Pharaoh. They attempt to sacrifice him, but he is saved by Jehovah.
  - Genesis 15–17; 21. Later in his life, Abraham is promised seed (15:1–6). Sarah gives Hagar to Abraham as his wife; Hagar bears Ishmael (16:1–16). God again speaks of his covenant with Abraham, promising that Abraham will be the father of many nations (17:1–14). The birth of Isaac, through whom the covenant would continue, is announced (17:16–22). Sarah bears Isaac (21:1–12).
  - Genesis 22. God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (22:1–2). Abraham prepares to sacrifice Isaac, but God provides a ram to be sacrificed instead (22:3–19).
  - Note: Genesis 17 tells of the Lord changing Abram’s name to Abraham and Sarai’s name to Sarah (see verses 5, 15). The names Abraham and Sarah are used throughout this section.
  - How did Abraham respond to God’s command to sacrifice Isaac? (See Genesis 22:2–3.) How did Isaac respond to this situation? (See Genesis 22:3–10.) What can we learn from Abraham and Isaac about faith and obedience? (See Hebrews 11:17–19; James 2:21–23.)
  - Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac was a similitude of Heavenly Father’s willingness to sacrifice his Only Begotten Son (Jacob 4:5; Genesis 22:8, 13). What are some similarities between Abraham’s experience and Heavenly Father’s? What is the greatest difference?
  - Additional reading: Hebrews 11:8–19; James 2:21–23;Jacob 4:5; Doctrine and Covenants 132:34–36.

That's the basic lesson outline.  And in my experience most (but not all) teachers would simply read each scripture listed, ask the attached pre-determined question and take a few comments from the class on each one.
That's it, that's all.  A basic review of Abraham's story and a quick discussion on the similarity (type and shadow) it was with the atonement of Jesus Christ.
And I would hope all adult members already know the story of Abraham and Isaac and how it was related to the Atonement.  So not much knowledge acquisition going on.
----------------------------

But while we both want more depth, we want depth on different issues.

Academics such as you seem to want might include:

• Historicity or lack of historicity of Abraham and the patriarchs, or as Wikipedia puts it
  • The Abraham story cannot be definitively related to any specific time, and it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age, along with the exodus and the period of the judges, is a late literary construct that does not relate to any period in actual history. A common hypothesis among scholars is that it was composed in the early Persian period (late 6th century BCE) as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counter-claim on Moses and the Exodus tradition.
• Abraham's place in Islam, Judaism, Christianity

I would be more interested in adding discussion on:

• The principle of the "Abrahamic sacrifice" in the gospel, as in Lectures on Faith #6 or as applied to us today.
• Examples of Abrahamic style sacrifices other faithful have been called on to make, and the significant blessings they received as a result
• The significance of God's bestowing a new name on his followers (probably tricky to do without breaching temple restrictions)
• The blessings of Abraham - endless seed, and how that relates to exaltation
• Christ's admonition to "do the works of Abraham" and how we apply that
• Heck, the fact that Isaac was not a child is worthy of a bit of discussion

Edited March 22, 2018 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Why would you assume that those two things are mutually exclusive?  Are you suggesting that study of the mind and study of the heart can't go hand in hand?  I think that's a very Mormon ideal.  

I do not assume they are mutually exclusive. I am saying that one is far more important than the other and that most members get along fine without textual criticism or original intent.

It is sneaky how you morph your specialized studies into being equivalent with “study of the mind” as if it were a vital part. Of course study of the mind and spirit are both vital but that was not what we were discussing.

Edited March 22, 2018 by The Nehor

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I did not grow up as a "Mormon", so I assure you, it is not a "Mormon deal", that was harsh. 

I didn't say uniquely Mormon ideal and I'm not claiming any kind of exclusivity by saying Mormons came up with this ideal, just that it resonates with Mormon scriptures and Mormon tradition.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Resources are not skills, and skills are what you brought up in context of the 3-hour block, which the Church prioritizes for spiritual study. Have you honed these skills and apply them to all the resources you choose to use in your scripture study?

Academics is another worthy pursuit, but why would you want the Church to help you build your scholarship skill, and provide academic resources, outside of its availed institutions and offerings?

I've brought up both resources and skills in this thread and I think they go hand in hand.  Have I "honed these skills.. and applied them to all the resources?"  I'm sure I have room for improvement on that.  

Why wouldn't the Church want to help us all to learn and grow, isn't that also a Mormon ideal.  Didn't Joseph seek to learn as much as he could, the school of the prophets, studying out of the best books, etc.  The tone of your message seems to indicate that you'd prefer less learning and growth from the church or some limited status.  I'm all for effectiveness and efficiency, the church could offer multiple different smaller classes for different interests and levels of learning.  I was in a Sunday School presidency in recent years where we have 4 adult SS class options every week.  It was great, everyone in the ward loved the variety and learned a lot.  We came up with curriculum and got approval from the Stake to use it.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But you can't demonstrate the value of a blogger's top scripture scholarship picks for Sunday School as being on a par with BYU professors' resources for college classes.

I'm not sure I understand your criticism.  Ben Spackman taught at BYU in recent years, so he was recently a BYU instructor, and he is currently working on his Doctorate at Claremont.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Good comment. More and more it seems that so many, both inside and outside the Church, want nothing more than for our Church to spend all three hours, undermining both Scripture and Faith, and devoting our time to exposing nothing but our warts, and ignoring our beauty. I understand those critics outside the Church desiring this, but I am wondering why those inside want this as well. Unless they want as much destruction, so that they are not alone while leaving for the final time.  

Excuse me, but who promoting an undermining of scripture and faith and a complete focus on the negative and ignoring the beauty of religion?  Not me.  However, I think its important to acknowledge and recognize that there is another option in between the extremes of a whitewashed unrealistic picture of the past, and a complete focus on the warts.  I think people would be better served with something real.  

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Excuse me, but who promoting an undermining of scripture and faith and a complete focus on the negative and ignoring the beauty of religion?  Not me.  However, I think its important to acknowledge and recognize that there is another option in between the extremes of a whitewashed unrealistic picture of the past, and a complete focus on the warts.  I think people would be better served with something real.  

Just the other day, in your own thread, if I recall correctly, you suggested it was all fiction.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

2 Nephi 9:28 keeps it in perspective, I think, and serves us well in leveraging secular and spiritual learning to our personal benefit: "O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God." The counsels of God are conveyed through the Spirit and revelation, and help us learn and know more than what we can merely "of ourselves," which is the nature of purely secular approaches.

I think this is a fine scripture if we truly consider that the foolishness of men applies to the men who are our church leaders and fellow church members equally.  If you want to use this scripture as some kind of tribalistic divine approval of Mormon church culture and infallible church leaders, then I think you're missing the point of the scripture.  We need to be humble and teachable, and that means we need to consider that we've got things wrong and hearken to the counsels of God which can come to us in mysterious ways. 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I didn't say uniquely Mormon ideal...

I just used your term, not mine. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

But while we both want more depth, we want depth on different issues.

Academics such as you seem to want might include:

• Historicity or lack of historicity of Abraham and the patriarchs, or as Wikipedia puts it
  • The Abraham story cannot be definitively related to any specific time, and it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age, along with the exodus and the period of the judges, is a late literary construct that does not relate to any period in actual history. A common hypothesis among scholars is that it was composed in the early Persian period (late 6th century BCE) as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counter-claim on Moses and the Exodus tradition.
• Abraham's place in Islam, Judaism, Christianity

I would be more interested in adding discussion on:

• The principle of the "Abrahamic sacrifice" in the gospel, as in Lectures on Faith #6 or as applied to us today.
• Examples of Abrahamic style sacrifices other faithful have been called on to make, and the significant blessings they received as a result
• The significance of God's bestowing a new name on his followers (probably tricky to do without breaching temple restrictions)
• The blessings of Abraham - endless seed, and how that relates to exaltation
• Christ's admonition to "do the works of Abraham" and how we apply that
• Heck, the fact that Isaac was not a child is worthy of a bit of discussion

I think many of your suggestions are excellent and I would applaud having those discussions.  I just have a more expansive view of what is possible and what can be discussed.  I also think our culture is a dire need of an honest evaluation of the core principles of the gospel that we want to emphasize.  I think the articles of faith are old and need a refresh.  We need to consider all the light and knowledge we've received since those were written, and through common consent and inspiration align on what principles are the core of Mormonism in the 21st century.  

 

[hope_for_things]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do not assume they are mutually exclusive. I am saying that one is far more important than the other and that most members get along fine without textual criticism or original intent.

It is sneaky how you morph your specialized studies into being equivalent with “study of the mind” as if it were a vital part. Of course study of the mind and spirit are both vital but that was not what we were discussing.

How do you evaluate "most members get along fine".  Would 33% activity rate be one measure of evaluation?  Would 20% activity of Millennials and post Millennials generations be considered getting along fine.  

Why is accessing the knowledge of the academy sneaky?   Are you a conspiracy thinking person that eschews certain types of scholarly pursuit?  

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Just the other day, in your own thread, if I recall correctly, you suggested it was all fiction.

There is great meaning and beauty and power in myth and fiction.  I'm guessing you didn't understand my perspective based on this comment.  I am not a person that dwells in the negative.  

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I just used your term, not mine. 

I said Mormon ideal, not uniquely Mormon ideal.  There is a huge difference.  I wasn't throwing shade on any non-Mormons, I appreciate all religions.  I don't believe in exclusive truth claims for authority at all.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I said Mormon ideal, not uniquely Mormon ideal.  There is a huge difference.  I wasn't throwing shade on any non-Mormons, I appreciate all religions.  I don't believe in exclusive truth claims for authority at all.  

That is a wonderful thing, as do most everyone here. But, since this is a Mormon discussion board, most comments are framed as such. There are countless discussion boards that discuss all Faiths, but only a few where members can do so without being attacked for our beliefs. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There is great meaning and beauty and power in myth and fiction.  I'm guessing you didn't understand my perspective based on this comment.  I am not a person that dwells in the negative.  

I understand the power of myth and fiction, but I also "know" the POWER found only in the truth. I believe in that POWER, and do not believe that truth to be akin to fables and bedtime stores. Also, I am not attempting to be unkind, just accurate. I am not a person that dwells in the negative (to use your words) either, but thanks for the insinuation. 

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I understand the power of myth and fiction, but I also "know" the POWER found only in the truth. I believe in that POWER, and do not believe that truth to be akin to fables and bedtime stores. Also, I am not attempting to be unkind, just accurate. I am not a person that dwells in the negative (to use your words) either, but thanks for the insinuation. 

It sounds like your definition of truth in this context is not the same as how I would describe pragmatic truth.  If you're talking about facts of history and empirical truth, those are different kinds of truth than religious truth from my perspective.  

And I wasn't insinuating that you dwell in the negative at all, I apologize for that misunderstanding.  I thought you were critiquing people like me as wanting to dwell on the negative and all the warts of history, which I don't want to do.  That is the limitation of message boards I guess, we often misunderstand each other.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

It sounds like your definition of truth in this context is not the same as how I would describe pragmatic truth.  If you're talking about facts of history and empirical truth, those are different kinds of truth than religious truth from my perspective.  

And I wasn't insinuating that you dwell in the negative at all, I apologize for that misunderstanding.  I thought you were critiquing people like me as wanting to dwell on the negative and all the warts of history, which I don't want to do.  That is the limitation of message boards I guess, we often misunderstand each other.  

No worries brother, it is all in the family.  

[JLHPROF]

48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the articles of faith are old and need a refresh.  We need to consider all the light and knowledge we've received since those were written, and through common consent and inspiration align on what principles are the core of Mormonism in the 21st century.  

I am very curious about this statement.

• 1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
  2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
  3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
  4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second,Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
  5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
  6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors,teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
  7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation,visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
  8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
  9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
  10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory.
  11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
  12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
  13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Exactly which ones do you have an issue with?
I can see that the 10th might get dropped one day (downplaying the literal gathering and Jackson county prophecies) but other than that where is there an issue?

[CV75]

Wow! A trifecta!

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I've brought up both resources and skills in this thread and I think they go hand in hand.  Have I "honed these skills.. and applied them to all the resources?"  I'm sure I have room for improvement on that.  

Why wouldn't the Church want to help us all to learn and grow, isn't that also a Mormon ideal.  Didn't Joseph seek to learn as much as he could, the school of the prophets, studying out of the best books, etc.  The tone of your message seems to indicate that you'd prefer less learning and growth from the church or some limited status.  I'm all for effectiveness and efficiency, the church could offer multiple different smaller classes for different interests and levels of learning.  I was in a Sunday School presidency in recent years where we have 4 adult SS class options every week.  It was great, everyone in the ward loved the variety and learned a lot.  We came up with curriculum and got approval from the Stake to use it.  

I see no evidence that the Church doesn’t want to help us learn and grow in all areas of life. Maybe your stake president will see fit to share your Sunday School innovation. If not, is that the fault of the Church?

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure I understand your criticism.  Ben Spackman taught at BYU in recent years, so he was recently a BYU instructor, and he is currently working on his Doctorate at Claremont.  

Maybe I can re-phrase: You can't demonstrate the value of Ben Spackman’s top scripture scholarship picks for Sunday School as being as useful for meeting the purposes of Sunday School (“1. Strengthen individuals’ and families’ faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ through teaching, learning, and fellowshipping. 2. Help Church members “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77) at church and at home.” -- https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/sunday-school/12.1?lang=eng&_r=1#121 ) as BYU’s curriculum and resources are for college-level evolutionary science classes, the purpose of which is, “Students will be able to describe the history and development of evolutionary thought… Students will be able to list and describe the evidence for evolution and its required corollaries…Students will be able to describe the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Provide detailed explanations of the the processes of evolution by mutation, migration, genetic drift, non-random mating, and natural selection… Students will be able to explain adaptation, providing examples from several different fields of biology (e.g., cell biology, physiology, conservation biology, bioinformatics, medicine, behavior, etc.)… Students will be able to describe the history of life on earth. Identify major evolutionary transitions over time, and explain the tools and evidence that support current hypotheses of the history of life.”  https://catalog.byu.edu/life-sciences/biology/evolutionary-biology-0 ). I’m sure you were a wonderful Sunday School presidency member though, and maybe you can vouch for Ben Spackman being consulted to improve Sunday School curriculum.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think this is a fine scripture if we truly consider that the foolishness of men applies to the men who are our church leaders and fellow church members equally.  If you want to use this scripture as some kind of tribalistic divine approval of Mormon church culture and infallible church leaders, then I think you're missing the point of the scripture.  We need to be humble and teachable, and that means we need to consider that we've got things wrong and hearken to the counsels of God which can come to us in mysterious ways. 

I’m happy that you seek to be humble, teachable, introspective, and hearken to the counsels of God as they come to you in mysterious ways. Can you give some examples from your most recent experience? Hopefully they are more demonstrative of these prized qualities than condemning how you think I might misapply the scripture in a way that suits your idée fixe over tribalism and fallibility!

[Calm]

I can vouch for Ben Spackman being consulted to improve my SS curriculum.  Ben is not only brilliant, but wise and wonderful.

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I am very curious about this statement.

• 1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
  2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
  3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
  4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second,Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
  5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
  6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors,teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
  7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation,visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
  8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
  9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
  10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory.
  11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
  12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
  13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Exactly which ones do you have an issue with?
I can see that the 10th might get dropped one day (downplaying the literal gathering and Jackson county prophecies) but other than that where is there an issue?

What I would do if I were approaching a reformation of our core principles, would be an evaluation of what is essential to Mormonism and I would try to make it very simple and less descriptive.  Another problem I have with the AoF as currently constituted is I have no reason to believe that Joseph Smith ever intended them to be canonized.  Its really the closest thing to a creed that the LDS church has, and Joseph was very anti creeds.  I just don't think it serves us well to have these declarations of specific beliefs and I see that much of the light and knowledge we have received as a society and people is in contradiction to some of these simplistic statements.  I would scrap the whole list and start over from scratch, and make the ideas more broad principles and less specific.