hope_for_things Posted March 1, 2019 Posted March 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: So what if it was added in some cases? What was revealed to Nephi by an angel has nothing to do with a 19th century context or 21st century culture. It’s simply the word used officially by the Lord to describe 12 important men....a critical Priesthood office. Every revelation is unique to the context its surrounding events. Your exegesis of what the text means is also entirely influenced by your life. Now there are many good things about this approach to scripture, I call it a devotional approach. There are other very interesting things we can learn from scripture by trying to understand the original context and the meaning imparted by the original authors. Both approaches have their application.
hope_for_things Posted March 1, 2019 Posted March 1, 2019 59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Why the false dichotomy? It’s called a hypothetical scenario.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: It’s called a hypothetical scenario. This part of your post was not: “ Did God change the standard or did culture and tradition change?“ It is a question that presupposes a false dichotomy. It does not have to be one or the other. God revealing changes in procedure in response to changing times is a perfectly reasonable concept. But since you bring it up, your “hypothetical scenario” is wrongheaded, as former Church leaders, were they around today, would theoretically be dialed in to whatever God has commanded for the present day. That’s one of the things that qualified them to be Church leaders in the first place. Edited March 2, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 1
cdowis Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: What’s the point of giving recommends if special dispensations can be granted willy-nilly? I don‘t think a recommend should be used as a bargaining chip. You are confused. The bishop is the judge in Israel and that is his authority and prerogative to make that decision. For example someone has not paid tithing for years, he can simply ask if he will pay in the future.
rockpond Posted March 2, 2019 Author Posted March 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: This part of your post was not: “ Did God change the standard or did culture and tradition change?“ it is a question that presupposes a false dichotomy. It does not have to be one or the other. God revealing changes in procedure in response to changing times is a perfectly reasonable concept. I accept that it could be both but I’m confused by your reply... are you suggesting that God revealed a procedural change with respect to the WoW? What would that have been? If you look at @hope_for_things‘s question, it is a “standard” that is being referred to - not a procedure. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 (edited) 41 minutes ago, rockpond said: I accept that it could be both but I’m confused by your reply... are you suggesting that God revealed a procedural change with respect to the WoW? What would that have been? If you look at @hope_for_things‘s question, it is a “standard” that is being referred to - not a procedure. It’s my conviction that God inspired His servants over the years as to the manner and particulars in which the broader concepts of the Word of Wisdom should be implemented among the Latter-day Saints. That’s in line with the principle of ongoing revelation in which I (and, I presume, you) profess to believe. Edited March 2, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 1
rockpond Posted March 2, 2019 Author Posted March 2, 2019 32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It’s my conviction that God inspired His servants over the years as to the manner and particulars in which the broader concepts of the Word of Wisdom should be implemented among the Latter-day Saints. That’s in line with the principle of ongoing revelation in which I (and, I presume, you) profess to believe. Agreed. But I wouldn’t describe it as a “procedural change”. Nor did @hope_for_things. That’s why I was surprised that you switched terms from the word “standard” in the post to which you were replying to procedure. The changes, quite possibly driven by ongoing revelation, appear to be changes in the standard, not in procedure. It’s semantics, I suppose, but then again - so was your criticism of the alleged “false dichotomy”. 1
hope_for_things Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: This part of your post was not: “ Did God change the standard or did culture and tradition change?“ It is a question that presupposes a false dichotomy. It does not have to be one or the other. God revealing changes in procedure in response to changing times is a perfectly reasonable concept. But since you bring it up, your “hypothetical scenario” is wrongheaded, as former Church leaders, were they around today, would theoretically be dialed in to whatever God has commanded for the present day. That’s one of the things that qualified them to be Church leaders in the first place. The question was prompted by Bernard GUI who said that Doctrine doesn’t change. I agree that it isn’t always necessarily a binary approach, I never said it was. That said I think it an appropriate question to ask for people making what I see as unreasonable claims that go against the historical evidence. Your assumption that former church leaders would act in any particular way in our modern culture is another example of an unreasonable claim unsupported by actual evidence. It’s pure speculation. Edited March 2, 2019 by hope_for_things
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 (edited) 32 minutes ago, rockpond said: Agreed. But I wouldn’t describe it as a “procedural change”. Nor did @hope_for_things. That’s why I was surprised that you switched terms from the word “standard” in the post to which you were replying to procedure. The changes, quite possibly driven by ongoing revelation, appear to be changes in the standard, not in procedure. It’s semantics, I suppose, but then again - so was your criticism of the alleged “false dichotomy”. “Hot drinks” in D&C 89 has been interpreted to mean tea and coffee, whether served hot or cold. That’s an example of what I mean by God-inspired and God-ordained procedure. It is not spelled out in the original revelation, but it comes from God through prophets, notwithstanding. And my use of “false dichotomy” is not a matter of semantics. It had nothing to do with what HfT called “a hypothetical scenario,” but rather with his binary question of whether the changes were God-directed or whether they resulted from changes in culture. What he called a “hypothetical scenario” was his notion that Church leaders of yesteryear would not “pass” an interview about the Word of Wisdom today. Edited March 2, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
hope_for_things Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It’s my conviction that God inspired His servants over the years as to the manner and particulars in which the broader concepts of the Word of Wisdom should be implemented among the Latter-day Saints. That’s in line with the principle of ongoing revelation in which I (and, I presume, you) profess to believe. Assuming everything done by church leaders is inspired seems risky. These same kind of assumptions perpetuated racist doctrines for over a century or sexism in temple rituals for even longer. The underlying trust seems risky at best and potentially negligent and complicit with harmful practices.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The question was prompted by Bernard GUI who said that Doctrine doesn’t change. I agree that it isn’t always necessarily a binary approach, I never said it was. That said I think it an appropriate question to ask for people making what I see as unreasonable claims that go against the historical evidence. You assumption that former church leaders would act in any particular way in our modern culture is another example of an unreasonable claim unsupported by actual evidence. It’s pure speculation. No more unreasonable than your fanciful speculation that Church leaders of yesteryear automatically would reject divine direction that has come about since their day.
JLHPROF Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 7 hours ago, Bwils4 said: Doctrines don't change, but can be clarified. 😁 - you're kidding right? Quote God doesn't make mistakes. He runs His Church and will do with it as He sees fit. Yes, he doesn't make mistakes. But the rest is way oversimplified. Quote This is not a Church run by men in suits. It is the Church of Jesus Christ. Actually it's both. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Assuming everything done by church leaders is inspired seems risky. These same kind of assumptions perpetuated racist doctrines for over a century or sexism in temple rituals for even longer. The underlying trust seems risky at best and potentially negligent and complicit with harmful practices. It’s a risk that I’m quite ready and willing to take, given that I’m immensely more disposed to trust God-anointed prophets and apostles than I am anonymous faultfinders on an Internet message board.
JLHPROF Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Quote Assuming everything done by church leaders is inspired seems risky. It’s a risk that I’m quite ready and willing to take, given that I’m immensely more disposed to trust God-anointed prophets and apostles than I am anonymous faultfinders on an Internet message board. It's not an either/or. It's not "believe everything the GA's do is inspired or the internet trolls that they aren't". I seriously believe we underestimate how important agency is to God. It's entirely possible that some of that inspiration is merely permissive council. God give us what we want and deserve as often as anything he wants for us. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It's not an either/or. It's not "believe everything the GA's do is inspired or the internet trolls that they aren't". I seriously believe we underestimate how important agency is to God. It's entirely possible that some of that inspiration is merely permissive council. God give us what we want and deserve as often as anything he wants for us. I know it annoys the trolls when I say so, but given the choice, I’ll cast my lot with the prophets rather than trolls in the great and spacious building. Edited March 2, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 1
JLHPROF Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I know it annoys the trolls when I say so, but given the choice, I’ll cast my lot with the prophets rather than trolls in the great and spacious building. Better to cast your lot on correct principles don't you think? In general that means the prophets over the GSB trolls. But nobody is getting any closer to God because they obey a prophet in error. God wants our hearts, us to learn to tell truth from error. Most of the time that learning can come from agreeing with the prophets. On occasion it may mean disagreement. I'm reminded of that great outspoken Bishop Edwin Woolley: "After another heated debate between Brother Brigham and Brother Woolley, Brigham said: “Now, Bishop Woolley, I guess you will go off and apostatize.” Woolley responded: “If this were your church, President Young, I would be tempted to do so. But this is just as much my church as it is yours, and why should I apostatize from my own church?” I can only hope President Nelson has men like that in his councils. Edited March 2, 2019 by JLHPROF 2
hope_for_things Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: No more unreasonable than your fanciful speculation that Church leaders of yesteryear automatically would reject divine direction that has come about since their day. Nice try, but I haven’t done that. I’m only comparing the historical record against the current practice. No speculation needed. It’s you who are speculating. 1
hope_for_things Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It’s a risk that I’m quite ready and willing to take, given that I’m immensely more disposed to trust God-anointed prophets and apostles than I am anonymous faultfinders on an Internet message board. Some prefer to outsource their moral authority to others. I don’t find that wise.
JLHPROF Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Some prefer to outsource their moral authority to others. I don’t find that wise. There's a difference between standing for moral principle and rebelling against God's servants. Priesthood authority is not meaningless but we also have accountability for our own actions and can't just say "we are following our leaders". It's a wise man that can use his agency and learn right from wrong for himself without becoming a law unto himself, and rebelling against true authority. Most of us usually can't find the balance and become mindless sheep following blindly or foolish sheep wandering away needing to be set right. Edited March 2, 2019 by JLHPROF 1
rockpond Posted March 2, 2019 Author Posted March 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: “Hot drinks” in D&C 89 has been interpreted to mean tea and coffee, whether served hot or cold. That’s an example of what I mean by God-inspired and God-ordained procedure. It is not spelled out in the original revelation, but it comes from God through prophets, notwithstanding. And my use of “false dichotomy” is not a matter of semantics. It had nothing to do with what HfT called “a hypothetical scenario,” but rather with his binary question of whether the changes were God-directed or whether they resulted from changes in culture. What he called a “hypothetical scenario” was his notion that Church leaders of yesteryear would not “pass” an interview about the Word of Wisdom today. What I was referring to as a difference in semantics is your switch in terminology from “standard” to “procedure”. It’s consistent with what I know about you to not want to suggest that the standard was changed, so you called it a procedural change even though the post you were responding to referred to a change in standard. For me, the WoW is a standard. Changing its interpretation is a change in the standard, not a procedural change. And the statement that early church leaders wouldn’t “pass” by today’s standard is correct given that it seems well established that some did partake of alcohol and coffee. Your claim that they would behave differently if alive in our day is likely true but doesn’t change the accurate point that was made.
rockpond Posted March 2, 2019 Author Posted March 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I know it annoys the trolls when I say so, but given the choice, I’ll cast my lot with the prophets rather than trolls in the great and spacious building. Really, Scott? Trolls? Because they disagree with you? It’s been a fair discussion. You really ought to delete this post.
rockpond Posted March 2, 2019 Author Posted March 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: No more unreasonable than your fanciful speculation that Church leaders of yesteryear automatically would reject divine direction that has come about since their day. CFR that HfT ever made such a claim. C’mon Scott. 1
Bernard Gui Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, cdowis said: You are confused. The bishop is the judge in Israel and that is his authority and prerogative to make that decision. For example someone has not paid tithing for years, he can simply ask if he will pay in the future. I have been a bishop and in 4 other bishoprics. I’m not confused, thank you. I would ask for a period of time in which the member would demonstrate his/her willingness to obey the commandments before issuing the recommend, and yes, that would include the Word of Wisdom. A recommend is a measure of current worthiness as well as future willingness IMO. For example, I would not issue a recommend to someone who has an on-going moral problem on the promise that they will stop next month. That would be unfair to the member who needs a period of repentance. Edited March 2, 2019 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Every revelation is unique to the context its surrounding events. Your exegesis of what the text means is also entirely influenced by your life. Now there are many good things about this approach to scripture, I call it a devotional approach. There are other very interesting things we can learn from scripture by trying to understand the original context and the meaning imparted by the original authors. Both approaches have their application. I’m all for context.
Bernard Gui Posted March 2, 2019 Posted March 2, 2019 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: But you said doctrines don’t change and I think they clearly do. As for a brief conversation allowing for past leaders to go to the temple judging their past behavior by a contemporary standard, I entirely disagree. For polygamy alone they would be excommunicated let alone for their use of prohibited substances in the WoW. They certainly would not be allowed to enter the temple by the current leaders. Depends on what we mean by doctrine, of course, but like I said, after a brief conversation they would see eye to eye. After all, they represent the same Lord - the author of their faith - and the giver of the doctrine and commandments. In fact, they’ve already had those conversations and are now one with God and each other. 1
Recommended Posts