Elder Cook #LDSDevo 9-Sept from Nauvoo

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Ok.  From what I’ve read I agree with Hamba:

Unless you want to actually list some?

Why are you challenging me to "list some" when I've already given you a link? As though you are expecting me to do all the work and spoon feed you. I don't think that reflects good-faith dialogue or a willingness to learn.

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As you know, I reject the 'inspired fiction' descriptor as well, but then I really don't think we have any solid 'evidence' to the contrary. Without the very personal experiences I've had, I'd not be inclined to accept the Book of Mormon as what it purports to be. Even in my acceptance of the book over the course of many years, I've always just bracketed a number of issues about who, when and where. Then I had an experience last year that I never could have expected and which cleared up the who for me. Fantastic stuff, this faith journey!

In my opinion, each time a person comes to accept the Book of Mormon, it's a miracle of the first order.

It is indeed. And I rejoice with you and all who do come to accept it. I just think there are some individuals who need the evidence (or reasoned refutation of attacks by antagonists) to give them a lifeline while they patiently wait to receive this miracle you speak of.

By the way, I do think there is solid evidence. Some of it I have already identified: the testimonies of the 11 men who saw and handled the Nephite record. I would highly recommend to any who have not read it —and to others for whom a review might be useful — the work by the late Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I appreciate the discussion that grew out of my question (while I slept).

It would seem that the "good answer" to my question turned out to be:

Something less than faithful, per @Hamba Tuhan

False doctrine, per @Scott Lloyd

And a departure from the Mormonism that @MiserereNobis was introduced to some years back.

If I have mischaracterized any of the responses, please clarify.  I don't dispute the above assertions.  My point in summarizing here is to illustrate that there actually may not be good answers to all of the tough questions brought up through the implications of troubling history.  And those lack of good answers is, IMO, why we lose many good people from the church.  It's my hope and prayer that we can find a way to make space* for them within our church.

*By making space for them, I don't mean telling them that they can stay as long as they keep silent.

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Quoting myself:

Rage on, bro! 

I'm seeing a pattern here, kind of becoming your MO.  Thanks for playing

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I appreciate the discussion that grew out of my question (while I slept).

It would seem that the "good answer" to my question turned out to be:

Something less than faithful, per @Hamba Tuhan

False doctrine, per @Scott Lloyd

And a departure from the Mormonism that @MiserereNobis was introduced to some years back.

If I have mischaracterized any of the responses, please clarify.  I don't dispute the above assertions.  My point in summarizing here is to illustrate that there actually may not be good answers to all of the tough questions brought up through the implications of troubling history.  And those lack of good answers is, IMO, why we lose many good people from the church.  It's my hope and prayer that we can find a way to make space* for them within our church.

*By making space for them, I don't mean telling them that they can stay as long as they keep silent.

I totally agree.  The good answers don't promote orthodox Mormonism.  Lots of good people are leaving because of their integrity and their inability to fit into a culture that requires silencing and marginalizing of alternative interpretations.  Church leaders seem like they are comfortable losing these people as collateral damage, in their efforts to hold onto and protect others from losing their faith in the church and its leaders.  

Faith in the church and its leaders has become the primary moral value of emphasis and it is conflated with goodness and righteousness.  This faith in the church and its leaders is the golden calf of our day.  It is a very shallow and dangerous morality, but its dominant in contemporary Mormon culture.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I appreciate the discussion that grew out of my question (while I slept).

It would seem that the "good answer" to my question turned out to be:

Something less than faithful, per @Hamba Tuhan

False doctrine, per @Scott Lloyd

And a departure from the Mormonism that @MiserereNobis was introduced to some years back.

If I have mischaracterized any of the responses, please clarify.  I don't dispute the above assertions.  My point in summarizing here is to illustrate that there actually may not be good answers to all of the tough questions brought up through the implications of troubling history.  And those lack of good answers is, IMO, why we lose many good people from the church.  It's my hope and prayer that we can find a way to make space* for them within our church.

*By making space for them, I don't mean telling them that they can stay as long as they keep silent.

Regarding members who reject part of the authoritative teachings, I believe the Church of Jesus Christ is about as tolerant as it can be while still maintaining its doctrinal boundaries. It therefore does “make space” for such individuals.

It is the responsibility of the high leaders of the Church and those who serve under their direction to preserve the purity of the doctrine. I don’t see how it can do this while privileging the position of those who dispute any of the doctrine to the point where their views are placed on an equal footing or given equal stature to the authoritative teachings of the Church. If there are some who cannot abide this and depart over it, that is a choice they themselves make, not the Church. 

That said, beyond the standard baptismal interview questions and the temple recommend interview questions, I know of no doctrinal litmus test pertaining to individual belief for membership or participation in the Church. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I totally agree.  The good answers don't promote orthodox Mormonism.  Lots of good people are leaving because of their integrity and their inability to fit into a culture that requires silencing and marginalizing of alternative interpretations.  Church leaders seem like they are comfortable losing these people as collateral damage, in their efforts to hold onto and protect others from losing their faith in the church and its leaders.  

Faith in the church and its leaders has become the primary moral value of emphasis and it is conflated with goodness and righteousness.  This faith in the church and its leaders is the golden calf of our day.  It is a very shallow and dangerous morality, but its dominant in contemporary Mormon culture.  

The above is, of course, preposterous rhetoric and bluster. The Church of Jesus Christ has always championed goodness and righteousness, and part of that is preserving and upholding the purity of the doctrine. To suggest that those two aims are mutually exclusive is simply wrong. 

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Regarding members who reject part of the authoritative teachings, I believe the Church of Jesus Christ is about as tolerant as it can be while still maintaining its doctrinal boundaries. It therefore does “make space” for such individuals.

It is the responsibility of the high leaders of the Church and those who serve under their direction to preserve the purity of the doctrine. I don’t see how it can do this while privileging the position of those who dispute any of the doctrine to the point where their views are placed ion an equal footing or given equal stature to the authoritative teachings of the Church. If there are some who cannot abide this and depart over it, that is a choice they themselves make, not the Church. 

That said, beyond the standard baptismal interview questions and the temple recommend interview questions, I know of no doctrinal litmus test pertaining to individual belief for membership or participation in the Church. 

Alright... so the “good answer” to my question was a rejection of the authoritative teachings of the church.  Seems problematic to me. 

So, since there is no doctrinal litmus test, I can go in to my temple recommend interview and answer the questions precisely how they are written while keeping my “false doctrine” beliefs to myself and all is well?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Alright... so the “good answer” to my question was a rejection of the authoritative teachings of the church.  Seems problematic to me. 

So, since there is no doctrinal litmus test, I can go in to my temple recommend interview and answer the questions precisely how they are written while keeping my “false doctrine” beliefs to myself and all is well?

Persistently teaching false doctrine in the Church, however well intentioned one claims to be, is problematic. This seems self-evident to me. 

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The above is, of course, preposterous rhetoric and bluster. The Church of Jesus Christ has always championed goodness and righteousness, and part of that is preserving and upholding the purity of the doctrine. To suggest that those two aims are mutually exclusive is simply wrong. 

I'm not saying there isn't an emphasis on goodness as well, only that I see the emphasis on faith in the church and its leaders as dominant and higher up on the hierarchy of priority.  

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Persistently teaching false doctrine in the Church, however well intentioned one claims to be, is problematic. This seems self-evident to me. 

Which really makes the response to my question not a “good answer” if it can’t even be taught and is (in your opinion) false doctrine. 

[cinepro]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

Given that he didn't actually translate the plates delivered to him by Moroni, using the Urim and Thummin that were supposedly preserved for that purpose, why do I, as a church member, have to believe that what we currently hold in our hands as the Book of Mormon is a historical record?  If it wasn't actually translated from a historical document but was, rather, revealed to Joseph Smith, why must it be an actual history of a people who inhabited this continent in the manner and population size that the Book of Mormon claims?

What is the good answer to that question?

I think President Hinckley answered your question:

Quote

Other churches are approaching their foundational stories and turning them into metaphor at times and going perhaps for the essence of the meaning. But that isn't true for you or for this church. I'm wondering if you can develop that idea: Why can't there be a middle ground in the way those foundational stories are understood?

Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/hinckley.html

Once the Church gives ground on the historicity of the Book of Mormon,  the rest quickly comes crashing down like a house of cards.  That's why you have to believe it is historical.  And that's why if you don't, you have to keep your mouth shut.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I think President Hinckley answered your question:

Once the Church gives ground on the historicity of the Book of Mormon,  the rest quickly comes crashing down like a house of cards.  That's why you have to believe it is historical.  And that's why if you don't, you have to keep your mouth shut.

Yep, I’ve heard quite a few first hand accounts of people who have left the church because they agree with Pres. Hinckley. 

I don’t. 

[CV75]

On 9/10/2018 at 6:05 PM, rockpond said:

Starting a thread for thoughts and discussion on Elder Cook's devotional with Sister Kate Holbrook and Brother Matt Grow.  Link.

I liked that they did not shy away from the tough questions.  Also, the two PhD historians "Kate" and "Matt" were impressive.  Sister Holbrook's testimony of the Book of Mormon (toward the end) really stood out to me as a highlight.

I wish that Elder Cook had fielded more of the tough questions himself, I would have enjoyed hearing his take on them.  And I wish there had been some more direct answers to those questions... but I know those direct answers are troublesome and may not be the best for a worldwide broadcast.

To me, what constitutes a "good answer" on matters of ecclesiastical history is a balance of verifiable facts with testimony. Both can be critiqued, but due to the spiritual nature of the subject and material, the expectation is that the facts and testimony are shared and received with empathy. Hence the cleaving (as in D&C 88:40) between those who teach and those who learn.