The gospel a generation away from extinction?

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

However, neither does animal sacrifice.  Neither does Nephi slaying Laban.  Neither does the slaying of Nehor.  Neither do the deaths described in 2 Kings 2 ("Go up, thou bald head...").  And so on.

Don’t worry about me. If they strike me down I shall become more powerful than they can possibly imagine.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, here is one where I think we are in the better position, but nevertheless Brigham clearly states what condition he would consider today's Church to be in:

• "Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will summons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishopric, and all the elders of Israel, suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction, -- we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed."
  Gov. Young in Joint Session of the Legislature,  Feb 5th 1852.

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting that Brigham Young . . . was correct in stating this?  That he would be correct in his corollary (and theoretical) assessment that rejection of the above sentiment would put us in 2019 in a state of "apostasy?"  That Brigham Young was infallible and pristinely perfect in each and every thing he ever said?

Quote

Or this one from Heber C. Kimball:

• First counselor Heber C. Kimball tells Sunday meeting that plural marriage “would end he said when the Church had gone to the Devil or the Priesthood taken from this people – then God would give it to another people.”
  February 1st 1849

Same questions as above.

Quote

You don't think based on these that Brigham and those members who believed him and followed him as prophet would consider us as heretics today, or in apostasy?

Based solely on their finite perspectives in 1852 and 1849?  Possibly.  Or possibly not.  

Quote

Remember, we aren't debating which of us is right or wrong. 

Then what is the point in cherry-picking inflammatory statements from church leaders from 170 years ago?

Quote

We are addressing whether or not yesterday's saints would consider the Church today to have embraced some heretical notions. 

So all this is based on some magical "what if" scenario involving

• Brigham Young and Heber Kimball getting snatched away from their lives ~1850 (a few years after having been forced from their homes in Illinois, and having crossed the plains under tremendous adversity, and having faced death and toil the likes of which you and I cannot begin to appreciate), then
• their being stuffed into the TARDIS and thrown forward into 2019, and
• their not being given any information on any intervening events that occurred during the 170-year leap, and
• their being confronted by you with a litany of decontextualized, gotcha, shock-value questions, followed by
• a demand that they immediately pass judgment on whether the Saints in 2019 have "embraced some heretical notions."

And this exercise in theorizing is helpful or meaningful . . . how, exactly?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 24, 2019 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Some also made it clear they were not sure when and Alma talked about hoping it would be in his day. It was not.

Precisely. And then the day came. 

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If the church still holds a position as Brigham did, then it suggests that even to today, those who will become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter polygamy, and I suppose we should add, with the church's current twist on this concept, even if they only become polygamists, officially, after this life.  That is to say that men in the church today will have to take on additional wives in the hereafter. 

Journal of Discourses 11: 269; ” It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at lest in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained…The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God are those who enter into polygamy.”

In that discourse Brigham said something about being polygamists at least in our faith, and by that I understand that he meant that we should at least be able to acknowledge that God is okay with a man having more than one wife, and if we can then we are polygamists at least in our faith, even if we personally do not have more than one wife.  And it seems to me that it doesn't take much mental effort at all to realize that God is okay with a man having more than one wife because Abraham had more than one wife and God was okay with Abraham having more than one wife, otherwise our Lord and many of his authorized messengers would not have mentioned him so prominently as the father of our faith.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It used to be said in the Church, at least unofficially, such a thing suggests that there will be more women than men who are exalted, and many women would otherwise be single which is anathema and contrary to the laws of eternity...  Or some such thing.

Meh, okay.  People say lots of things.  Not sure how much difference it makes what people say about this.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well of course that's what I'm saying. It really was an elite level in the Church, it seemed, to be a polygamist...now not only is it not elite, but it is terms for ex-communication.  

Heh heh.  Yeah, well, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.  Blessed be the name of our Lord.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Fine.  If you want to say that President Nelson is a polygamist on the grounds that he was married once and after his first wife died he married again, be my guest.  But that's stretching the point to an area I don't really care to travel to.  

I'll go even further than that and agree with what Brigham said when saying that we are all polygamists if we believe God is okay with a man having more than one wife. To enter into polygamy all we have to do is accept polygamy at least in our faith.

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Polygamy was authorized for a time in the Church, and practiced for a time (by a minority of members/households).  Now it does not.

Many of these treat polygamy interchangeably with the sealing ordinance.  

And polygamy was a predominant issue in the lives of the Saints for many years.  For those commanded to live it, it was an important issue (much like the Law of Moses).  But then the Lord rescinded the command and forbade polygamy.  And you seem unwilling or unable to accommodate this idea.  That some of the Lord's commands are given and then rescinded.  That some of the Lord's commands are given to some, but not to others.

I don't think that's the way the Gospel works.  Again: "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."  (AoF 1:9).  

The issue here, I think, is that you are attempting to characterize further instructions from God as an inherently bad thing.  That each and every commandment, once given, is fixed and immutable.  I think that is an incorrect perception.  

That is not the point I've raised at all.  You are mischaracterized what the point is.  Change is or can be good.  I applaud the Church when it makes good changes, in fact.  Getting rid of polygamy?  Good.  Rescinding the priesthood ban?  Good.  The point is when changes are made it actually is a change.  So if we take a Mormon who lived Mormonism in 1871 and pop that Mormon into today's Mormonism and say "there...have at it.  The Church is the same as it the gospel.  Live with the modern world".  I'd think that such a Mormon would likely see today's Mormonism and worry, "what happened?  have we lost it all?"  if that Mormon felt impowered to try and change things back to what Mormonism was in 1871, then that Mormon might likely be excommunicated, particularly if he felt justified in becoming a polygamist.    

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

"If it gave up polygamy" in defiance or disobedience to God, yes.  Otherwise, no.

Wilford Woodruff addressed this point in his addresses about the Manifesto.  See here (emphasis added):

The issue, then, is not "heresy," which is a word you are only using for exaggerated rhetorical effect, and not because it has usage in the Church, or even much relevance to this discussion.

Rather, the issue at hand is obedience.  To God.  Obedience to God in what He commands us to do.  Many foundational commandments are essentially fixed and immutable.  The Ten Commandments.  Love God and love your neighbor.  Have faith in Jesus Christ.  Repent and be baptized.  However, there are also many commandments that are in force and effect for a time, and otherwise not in effect.  Polygamy is an example of this.

Sure.  I get it.  The issue to you is something other than the point I raised and the point that was under discussion.  Fine.  We can run down any rabbit trail I suppose and think doing so adds to the discussion...and it may.  So fine.  I simply disagree with this approach and obviously I find your explanation wanting.  

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

So the today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea just doesn't seem to work.  The 19th-century Saints who practiced polygamy were in communion with God, and the 21st-century Saints who do not pratice polygamy are in communion with God.  Both sets of persons were/are in communion with God because both were/are being obedient to God.

And all of that which you assert dogmatically is debatable.  Any supposed saint of today could very well think he/she is in communion with God and may not really be.  The same for the Mormon who lived in 1871.  So it may have nothing at all to do with being obedient to God and more to do with perception, presumption, and confusion.  But, really...beside the point.  

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church considers people who enter into polygamy as violating the Law of Chastity.  I suppose polygamy could also be construed as a form of apostasy.  It means "revolt, defection," literally "a standing off."

You are misusing the term.  That's my point.  "Heresy" really isn't in play here.

It's hugely relevant.  You are juxtaposing polygamy as being allowed or not allowed.  You are attempting to fault the Church for allowing it at some times, and forbidding it at others.

I'm not faulting the Church.  I'm pointing out what seem rather obvious--the Church has made changes and some of them are big ones.  

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

  Even the most cursory examination of the issue would reveal that the Church's position on polygamy is based on it being allowed sometimes, and otherwise being forbidden (see, e.g., Jacob 2:30).  The difference between the two circumstances, about which circumstances you are attempting to make hay, is whether polygamy was commanded or forbidden through revelation.

Again, this is hugely relevant.  If you are going to critique the Church's doctrines, it becomes necessary to understand and contextualize those doctrines.  You aren't doing that.

I guess I'm not getting your point, then.

Yes, they are (if they are a member of the Church, that is).  As used in an LDS context, "apostasy occurs whenever an individual {} rejects the revelations and ordinances of God, changes the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebels against the commandments of God, thereby losing the blessings of the Holy Ghost and of divine authority."

The Law of Chastity prohibits homosexual behavior.  To enter into a same-sex relationship is to "reject the revelations" and "rebel against the commandments of God."

I appreciate that the Church does not, as you do, throw around provocative terms in a willy-nilly fashion.  The Church hardly uses "heretic" at all, and uses "apostate" very sparingly.  This makes sense, since the term is a powerful and extreme one.  

Oh, brother.  For your idea to work, you have to impute terminology that is not used in the Church.  

Yes.  Why is that?

Yes, the Church has moderated this policy.  And you fault the Church for it.

Meanwhile, you are throwing around provocative terms like "heretic," which the Church doesn't use, and are doing so to find fault with the Church.

The really pernicious thing about faultfinding is that you can always succeed at it.  

Always.

Still not seeing the point, though.

No.  Polygamy is "a law of God."  It is in force at some times and in some circumstances, and is otherwise not in force.

To the extent you are trying to make hay here, you are failing.  The Church has never taught a contradiction about polygamy.  The Church's position is that God commands it at times, and otherwise prohibits it.  

Is it your position that God cannot do this?  That all commandments, once given, are 100% immutable and 100% applicable to everyone, everywhere?  Is that the "very point" you are attempting to make?  If so, it doesn't work.

That the Church doesn't use it the same way the Catholics do doesn't mean our usage is incorrect.

No.  You have attempted to import the term into an LDS context.  And now you're apparently trying to use it to somehow find fault with the Church.  It's weird.  And it's not working.

What?  All this rigmarole is nothing more than an issue of semantics?  Seriously?

I don't know what that means.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh brother.  Have fun.  I've made the points I felt interesting.  In my mind you have deflected, largely, and have confirmed the point.  So cool.  But have fun.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That is not the point I've raised at all.  You are mischaracterized what the point is.  Change is or can be good. 

Then juxtaposing the Church's observance and non-observance of the practice of polygamy does not make sense.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I applaud the Church when it makes good changes, in fact.  Getting rid of polygamy?  Good. 

What about implementing polygamy?  Was that "good?"

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Rescinding the priesthood ban?  Good. 

I'm fairly ambivalent about the Priesthood Ban.  I lean toward it lacking a revelatory provenance.  Nevertheless, I agree that rescinding it was "good."

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The point is when changes are made it actually is a change. 

I don't understand what this means.  It sounds like a tautology.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So if we take a Mormon who lived Mormonism in 1871 and pop that Mormon into today's Mormonism and say "there...have at it.  The Church is the same as it the gospel.  Live with the modern world". 

I don't understand.  What does this mean?  What does it demonstrate?

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd think that such a Mormon would likely see today's Mormonism and worry, "what happened?  have we lost it all?" 

Or . . . not.  "Such a Mormon" would be operating in ignorance of 150 years of history.  And you are suggesting that such a person's assessment would be valuable or meaningful . . . how, exactly?

Any hypothetical involving time travel isn't worth much.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

"If it gave up polygamy" in defiance or disobedience to God, yes.  Otherwise, no.

Wilford Woodruff addressed this point in his addresses about the Manifesto.  See here (emphasis added):

The issue, then, is not "heresy," which is a word you are only using for exaggerated rhetorical effect, and not because it has usage in the Church, or even much relevance to this discussion.

Rather, the issue at hand is obedience.  To God.  Obedience to God in what He commands us to do.  Many foundational commandments are essentially fixed and immutable.  The Ten Commandments.  Love God and love your neighbor.  Have faith in Jesus Christ.  Repent and be baptized.  However, there are also many commandments that are in force and effect for a time, and otherwise not in effect.  Polygamy is an example of this.

Sure.  I get it. 

Apparently not.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The issue to you is something other than the point I raised and the point that was under discussion.  Fine.  We can run down any rabbit trail I suppose and think doing so adds to the discussion...and it may.  So fine.  I simply disagree with this approach and obviously I find your explanation wanting.  

I still don't understand your "point."

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

So the today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea just doesn't seem to work.  The 19th-century Saints who practiced polygamy were in communion with God, and the 21st-century Saints who do not pratice polygamy are in communion with God.  Both sets of persons were/are in communion with God because both were/are being obedient to God.

And all of that which you assert dogmatically is debatable. 

Not if the Church is what it claims to be.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Any supposed saint of today could very well think he/she is in communion with God and may not really be. 

An insrutable point.  So what's the point of discussing anything here?

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The same for the Mormon who lived in 1871.  So it may have nothing at all to do with being obedient to God and more to do with perception, presumption, and confusion.  But, really...beside the point.  

And still not clear on what the "point" is.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

The Church considers people who enter into polygamy as violating the Law of Chastity.  I suppose polygamy could also be construed as a form of apostasy.  It means "revolt, defection," literally "a standing off."

You are misusing the term.  That's my point.  "Heresy" really isn't in play here.

It's hugely relevant.  You are juxtaposing polygamy as being allowed or not allowed.  You are attempting to fault the Church for allowing it at some times, and forbidding it at others.

I'm not faulting the Church.  I'm pointing out what seem rather obvious--the Church has made changes and some of them are big ones.  

And in other news, circles are round and water is wet.

I thought you were trying to make some sort of point with the whole today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea.  I guess not.  It was just a turn of phrase, with no particular meaning or accuracy when applied to the Church.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Oh brother.  Have fun.  I've made the points I felt interesting.  In my mind you have deflected, largely, and have confirmed the point.  So cool.  But have fun.

As you like.

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting that Brigham Young . . . was correct in stating this?  That he would be correct in his corollary (and theoretical) assessment that rejection of the above sentiment would put us in 2019 in a state of "apostasy?"  That Brigham Young was infallible and pristinely perfect in each and every thing he ever said?

You really are pedantic sometimes.  No, I am suggesting that Brigham Young and his faithful Church members in the 1850's would consider us today to be in a state of apostasy or heretical in our beliefs.
My point based on Scott's OP is that calling certain movements in the Church today "heretical notions" is hypocritical considering how many formerly heretical notions we embrace today.

Quote

Then what is the point in cherry-picking inflammatory statements from church leaders from 170 years ago?

And this exercise in theorizing is helpful or meaningful . . . how, exactly?

The point is to address the OP from Scott.  That he cherry picked a couple of current contentions among certain members as being heretical (in his case the Inspired Fiction idea and SSM/Chastity changes were labeled heresy).

I find it very helpful and meaningful to show that many of our current beliefs as faithful Church members were considered heretical in the Church a century ago.
And I also find it very helpful and meaningful to at least recognize that among faithful members such as yourself and Scott, items you believe to be heretical today may be commonly accepted Church beliefs in a few years.

So I'll state again - Organizationally speaking, today's Saints are yesterday's heretics and today's heretics could well be tomorrow's Saints.  And God's opinion may differ from both.
 

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then juxtaposing the Church's observance and non-observance of the practice of polygamy does not make sense.

What about implementing polygamy?  Was that "good?"

I'm fairly ambivalent about the Priesthood Ban.  I lean toward it lacking a revelatory provenance.  Nevertheless, I agree that rescinding it was "good."

I don't understand what this means.  It sounds like a tautology.

I don't understand.  What does this mean?  What does it demonstrate?

Or . . . not.  "Such a Mormon" would be operating in ignorance of 150 years of history.  And you are suggesting that such a person's assessment would be valuable or meaningful . . . how, exactly?

Any hypothetical involving time travel isn't worth much.

Apparently not.

I still don't understand your "point."

Not if the Church is what it claims to be.

An insrutable point.  So what's the point of discussing anything here?

And still not clear on what the "point" is.

And in other news, circles are round and water is wet.

I thought you were trying to make some sort of point with the whole today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea.  I guess not.  It was just a turn of phrase, with no particular meaning or accuracy when applied to the Church.

As you like.

-Smac

i applaud your willingness to at least try to have a conversation with him.  I think his "point" was what it has usually been: He thinks the Church is wrong because it isn't what he thinks it should be to be the true Church. 

He thinks the true Church should never change any doctrine or procedure or what it has ever said to anyone even when times and circumstances have changed.  That it should be what it has always been in every way with no exceptions.

Which is why he's not in it anymore, I suppose.  Why would he be in it if he thought it was wrong?  What would the "point" of that be?  

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

The issue, then, is not "heresy," which is a word you are only using for exaggerated rhetorical effect, and not because it has usage in the Church, or even much relevance to this discussion.
Rather, the issue at hand is obedience.  To God.  Obedience to God in what He commands us to do.  Many foundational commandments are essentially fixed and immutable.  The Ten Commandments.  Love God and love your neighbor.  Have faith in Jesus Christ.  Repent and be baptized.  However, there are also many commandments that are in force and effect for a time, and otherwise not in effect.  Polygamy is an example of this.

Funny how an ordinance that extends into eternity can be considered only a temporary law.

Quote

The Church considers people who enter into polygamy as violating the Law of Chastity.  

Yes they do.  But they had to change the Law of Chastity in the Temple to get there.  They could change it again if "continuing revelation" allowed it right?

Quote

You are misusing the term.  That's my point.  "Heresy" really isn't in play here.

 The Church hardly uses "heretic" at all, and uses "apostate" very sparingly.  This makes sense, since the term is a powerful and extreme one.  

Meanwhile, you are throwing around provocative terms like "heretic," which the Church doesn't use, and are doing so to find fault with the Church.

The OP utilized the term heresy.  We are just addressing the OP topic.  Take it up with Scott if you think he shouldn't use the term heretical.

Edited September 24, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You really are pedantic sometimes.  No, I am suggesting that Brigham Young and his faithful Church members in the 1850's would consider us today to be in a state of apostasy or heretical in our beliefs.
My point based on Scott's OP is that calling certain movements in the Church today "heretical notions" is hypocritical considering how many formerly heretical notions we embrace today.

The point is to address the OP from Scott.  That he cherry picked a couple of current contentions among certain members as being heretical (in his case the Inspired Fiction idea and SSM/Chastity changes were labeled heresy).

I find it very helpful and meaningful to show that many of our current beliefs as faithful Church members were considered heretical in the Church a century ago.
And I also find it very helpful and meaningful to at least recognize that among faithful members such as yourself and Scott, items you believe to be heretical today may be commonly accepted Church beliefs in a few years.

So I'll state again - Organizationally speaking, today's Saints are yesterday's heretics and today's heretics could well be tomorrow's Saints.  And God's opinion may differ from both.
 

Except for cases in the past where people believed something was heresy when in truth it really wasn't even though some people thought it was, please provide an example of such a thing.  An actual heresy the Church now accepts as truth today.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

The issue, then, is not "heresy," which is a word you are only using for exaggerated rhetorical effect, and not because it has usage in the Church, or even much relevance to this discussion.
Rather, the issue at hand is obedience.  To God.  Obedience to God in what He commands us to do.  Many foundational commandments are essentially fixed and immutable.  The Ten Commandments.  Love God and love your neighbor.  Have faith in Jesus Christ.  Repent and be baptized.  However, there are also many commandments that are in force and effect for a time, and otherwise not in effect.  Polygamy is an example of this.

Funny how an ordinance that extends into eternity can be considered only a temporary law.

Nobody said the marriage ordinance has ever been "only a temporary law."  Where are you getting that?

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

The Church considers people who enter into polygamy as violating the Law of Chastity.  

Yes they do.  But they had to change the Law of Chastity in the Temple to get there. 

Not really.  The Law of Chastity has never authorized homosexual behavior under any circumstances.  

And even if the Law had to be "changed," so what?  Since when are we as a church bereft of obtaining further light and knowledge to address changes in society?  Same-sex marriage was an innovation.  Shortly after it became the law of the land, the Church addressed it formally.  How is that a problem?

What's next?  Are you going to complaint about how the Church had to "change" the Word of Wisdom to account for heroin, fentanyl, marijuana, etc.?

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They could change it again if "continuing revelation" allowed it right?

Certainly.  I don't see that happening (though I remain open to it on a theoretical basis).

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

On my mission, we had a saying:

"Trust in God, but always lock your bike."

 

I think it would be prudent for the current leadership to adapt it with this approach:

"Trust the Church will never go away, but lead it as if it could."

 

As for the Church changing its views on the historicity of The Book of Mormon or the ability of God to tolerate homosexual sex, I hope it never changes.  I hope 100 years from now, LDS leaders are just as firm in their insistence on these topics as they are today.  Even if it turns the Church into a tiny group of historically delusional, homophobic managers of a massive investment portfolio*, I hope they never waver.

 

*Paraphrase of how the world might see them one day, not my own personal views.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/23/2019 at 9:07 AM, ALarson said:

Many now believe that the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate, but that doesn't mean they believe it is "pious fiction".  From my observations, most still believe it is inspired and contains great truths.  So maybe inspired fiction is a better term to describe how many believe who do not believe the events literally took place?

Either of these views are to me rather simplistic and I would never use these terms though I believe that it is IRRELEVANT if it is historic or not.  It is the BELIEF that the Book of Mormon contains God's wisdom and is a second testament of Christ that is relevant since historicity of any scripture is NEVER relevant to its spiritual message.

You want peace in your life?  On faith you accept the belief that Christ took it all upon himself so we can have peace.  Period.  No science on how that was done, no exact dates- and eyewitnesses who saw it all and still didn't accept the spiritual truth.

You take that belief on and God confirms it for you- or you don't.  It's as simple as that!!

The rest is linguistic alphabet soup!

There were eyewitnesses to the savior's crucifixion- absolutely eyewitness who saw with their own eyes historic events unfold before them- who were not converted.

We who live today and of course could not be direct eyewitnesses to these events STILL take them as "true" and their BELIEF that Jesus took upon himself our sins and trials gives them eternal peace.

So it is not "facts" - historical or otherwise that save us- it is our FAITH in Christ "after all we can do" that saves us from sin and death.

We are here to live by faith which is not saying that we are "here to live by SCIENTIFIC FACTS proven to be "true".

Faith is the HOPE for things UNSEEN by definition!!

Did God actually organize the universe in 6 days?   Did that donkey really speak?  Did the earth stop rotating when Joshua held up his hands, and resume when he put them down?

Are these HISTORICAL FACTS?

So making those who ask these questions and consider these things into infidels and say that they believe that scripture is pious OR inspired fiction is another twisted simplistic sophistry designed to make the gospel more difficult to comprehend and in my opinion those who think that way are the culprits leading to all these problems.

At least half if not all of what we see in the CES letter and all the other garbage out there we see in anti-Mormon literature today is based on these kind of absolutist, literalistic pronouncements, and people who are unsophisticated in thinking things through are buying into these strawman-based arguments of good-intending folks who simply are unsophisticated in thinking in abstract terms about language and what is "fiction" and what is "science", or what is "pious" or not, and therefore missing the nuances of language which then influences others to accept their arguments. 

So you end up with "Oh yeah these guys who preach the Book of Mormon as pious/inspired fiction are the cause of all the problems" while they themselves might wonder about the universe standing still for Joshua.  So now we get out mental gymnastics about maybe how it only "appeared" to stop - all to defend the idea that scripture is God-Breathed which we don't believe anyway!!!

So everyday we get to reenact the Scopes evolution trial and  Galileo vs Cardinal Bellarmine - both of which were dark age farces- and triumphs of sophistry, (regardless of the dates they occurred) - in backward thinking.

The only one who got the rebuttal to Bellarmine right was Galileo- the "evil" scientist- who taught that the scriptures were to" tell us how to get to heaven- NOT how heaven goes."

HE totally got it!

So on one side we have childish arguments put forward in favor of the church, answered by childish arguments from the anti's and it all ends up like a school-yard fuss over who threw the first punch.

We gotta get past this folks.

It's this childish thinking that is causing the rift on both sides, feeding horrible arguments against more horrible arguments.

Edited September 24, 2019 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nobody said the marriage ordinance has ever been "only a temporary law."  Where are you getting that?

Plural marriage is a separate ordinance from marriage.  But I'm not going to debate that.  It's evident enough to me from the history of the practice and the wording of the sealing ceremony.  I am certain you would disagree.

Quote

And even if the Law had to be "changed," so what?  Since when are we as a church bereft of obtaining further light and knowledge to address changes in society?  Same-sex marriage was an innovation.  Shortly after it became the law of the land, the Church addressed it formally.  How is that a problem?

You seen no conflict in saying a law cannot change and then simultaneously acknowledging that it was changed previously?  That is an argument being used frequently.

Quote

What's next?  Are you going to complaint about how the Church had to "change" the Word of Wisdom to account for heroin, fentanyl, marijuana, etc.?

The Word of Wisdom has never changed.  Church policy changed but D&C 89 still remains unaltered.

Quote

Certainly.  I don't see that happening (though I remain open to it on a theoretical basis).

See, I don't.  Because I believe God DOESN'T change his eternal laws and ordinances.  And no continuing revelation will ever do so.  Except the false ones.

Edited September 24, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

On my mission, we had a saying:

"Trust in God, but always lock your bike."

 

I think it would be prudent for the current leadership to adapt it with this approach:

"Trust the Church will never go away, but lead it as if it could."

That makes some good sense, especially in consideration of the fact that the Church is the people in it and the people in it can easily go astray, at which point we then usually refer to them as apostates although I suppose they might also sometimes be heretics too.

In fact, maybe we should start right now, without waiting to be commanded to start treating people that way.  How would you like that, cinepro?  Any in favor of e treating cinepro as someone who could become an apostate or a heretic may now say Aye.  Any opposed?

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

On my mission, we had a saying:

"Trust in God, but always lock your bike."

 

I think it would be prudent for the current leadership to adapt it with this approach:

"Trust the Church will never go away, but lead it as if it could."

 

As for the Church changing its views on the historicity of The Book of Mormon or the ability of God to tolerate homosexual sex, I hope it never changes.  I hope 100 years from now, LDS leaders are just as firm in their insistence on these topics as they are today.  Even if it turns the Church into a tiny group of historically delusional, homophobic managers of a massive investment portfolio*, I hope they never waver.

 

*Paraphrase of how the world might see them one day, not my own personal views.

 

uh, I think I agree-ish? 

I am never quite sure about you.... 

Please be more clear about if you are a square peg in a round hole or vice versa. Or maybe an octagon.  It's like using an allen wrench set that is metric on an sae bolt head.   It's hard to argue with you with all those funny corners sticking out.    Just make it simple for us simpletons please.    We got the tar and feathers going on the pot and it's hard to figure out who gets to be the honoree.

That's enough emojis for today. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You really are pedantic sometimes.  No, I am suggesting that Brigham Young and his faithful Church members in the 1850's would consider us today to be in a state of apostasy or heretical in our beliefs.
My point based on Scott's OP is that calling certain movements in the Church today "heretical notions" is hypocritical considering how many formerly heretical notions we embrace today.

The point is to address the OP from Scott.  That he cherry picked a couple of current contentions among certain members as being heretical (in his case the Inspired Fiction idea and SSM/Chastity changes were labeled heresy).

I find it very helpful and meaningful to show that many of our current beliefs as faithful Church members were considered heretical in the Church a century ago.
And I also find it very helpful and meaningful to at least recognize that among faithful members such as yourself and Scott, items you believe to be heretical today may be commonly accepted Church beliefs in a few years.

So I'll state again - Organizationally speaking, today's Saints are yesterday's heretics and today's heretics could well be tomorrow's Saints.  And God's opinion may differ from both.
 

Smac made a solid rebuttal to your earlier contention. I was going to express essentially the same ideas, but Smac got to it before I did (good job, Smac). 

It is pointless fantasizing to imagine someone being snatched from some time in the past and being plunked down in 2019 and expect him to immediately have any informed or intelligent or meaningful perspective about what he encounters. 

But I will say this. One who lived in days of old whose disposition was to hearken to the revelations of God as conveyed through His authorized servants would be as inclined to do so regardless of the age  in which he lived. In other words, a faithful follower of Christ who lived anciently would more than likely be a faithful follower of Christ if he lived today — given that he was subject to similar circumstances, experiences, stimuli and gifts of the Spirit to which we today are subject — including acceptance of all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and all that He will yet reveal. 

That’s my considered opinion. 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Smac made a solid rebuttal to your earlier contention. I was going to express essentially the same ideas, but Smac got to it before I did (good job, Smac). 

No, he didn't.  Smac did what he always does and rather than sincerely consider an idea he disagrees with he attempts to make it seem as unworthy of consideration as possible.  He's a great debater (obviously).

Quote

It is pointless fantasizing to imagine someone being snatched from some time in the past and being plunked down in 2019 and expect him to immediately have any informed or intelligent or meaningful perspective about what he encounters. 

And that isn't even close to my point.  Not in the slightest.

Quote

But I will say this. One who lived in days of old whose disposition was to hearken to the revelations of God as conveyed through His authorized servants would be as inclined to do so regardless of the age  in which he lived. In other words, a faithful follower of Christ who lived anciently would more than likely be a faithful follower of Christ if he lived today — given that he was subject to similar circumstances, experiences, stimuli and gifts of the Spirit to which we today are subject — including acceptance of all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and all that He will yet reveal. 

That’s my considered opinion. 

I don't disagree with this.  Again, not my point.
I felt in the interest of self reflection it was important to recognize that when we call those with differing ideas about the gospel in the Church participating in "heretical notions" it is only honest to recognize the hypocrisy in such a statement.
Apparently Smac and you don't feel the same way.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, he didn't.  Smac did what he always does and rather than sincerely consider an idea he disagrees with he attempts to make it seem as unworthy of consideration as possible.  He's a great debater (obviously).

And that isn't even close to my point.  Not in the slightest.

I don't disagree with this.  Again, not my point.
I felt in the interest of self reflection it was important to recognize that when we call those with differing ideas about the gospel in the Church participating in "heretical notions" it is only honest to recognize the hypocrisy in such a statement.
Apparently Smac and you don't feel the same way.

That’s a safe assumption, for my part, anyway. 

Furthermore, I think it scurrilous to accuse Smac of pedantry for disagreeing with you and either of us of hypocrisy for identifying as heretical certain notions that contradict core doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ (which notions are, by definition, heresy). 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s a safe assumption, for my part, anyway. 

Furthermore, I think it scurrilous to accuse Smac of pedantry for disagreeing with you and either of us of hypocrisy for identifying as heretical certain notions that contradict core doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ (which, by definition, are heresy). 

Rep point for use of the great word "scurrilous".

And I don't accuse Smac of pedantry for disagreeing, only for the methodology he often uses.  Many disagree with me here frequently.  Even he has disagreed with me at other times in better faith.

And I suppose I should apologize for insinuating that either of you are personally hypocrites.  To me the parallels are just too obvious.
The idea that the Book of Mormon is fictional instead of historical is to use your word, a heretical notion that some Church members today hold.
The idea that polygamy could ever be withdrawn was a heretical notion according to many saints in the 1800s, yet that is exactly what we believe today.
Who knows what idea we call a heretical notion today could be among our future core beliefs?

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Rep point for use of the great word "scurrilous".

And I don't accuse Smac of pedantry for disagreeing, only for the methodology he often uses.  Many disagree with me here frequently.  Even he has disagreed with me at other times in better faith.

And I suppose I should apologize for insinuating that either of you are personally hypocrites.  To me the parallels are just too obvious.
The idea that the Book of Mormon is fictional instead of historical is to use your word, a heretical notion that some Church members today hold.
The idea that polygamy could ever be withdrawn was a heretical notion according to many saints in the 1800s, yet that is exactly what we believe today.
Who knows what idea we call a heretical notion today could be among our future core beliefs?

That some Church members hold a false notion pertaining to the Restoration does not make said notion any the more praiseworthy. 

And plurality of wives has not been withdrawn as a doctrine, though its practice has been discontinued by divine directive. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And plurality if wives has not been withdrawn as a doctrine, though its practice has been discontinued by divine directive. 

Correct.  And for a faithful member of the LDS Church in the year 1860 the idea that such a thing could ever happen in the Church was an heretical notion.
Just as you consider notions heretical today that could one day be affirmed by leaders.

Edited September 25, 2019 by JLHPROF

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In other words, a faithful follower of Christ who lived anciently would more than likely be a faithful follower of Christ if he lived today — given that he was subject to similar circumstances, experiences, stimuli and gifts of the Spirit to which we today are subject — including acceptance of all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and all that He will yet reveal. 

I think you could get rid of those two last "givens" and just leave it at that.  They fact that they live today covers those points.  Just suggesting....

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think you could get rid of those two last "givens" and just leave it at that.  They fact that they live today covers those points.  Just suggesting....

I agree but didn’t want to seem presumptuous. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, he didn't.  Smac did what he always does and rather than sincerely consider an idea he disagrees with he attempts to make it seem as unworthy of consideration as possible.  He's a great debater (obviously).

Actually, no.  I am still struggling to understand the "idea" being posed.  

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And that isn't even close to my point.  Not in the slightest.

Then perhaps you could clarify your "point."  I'm just not seeing it.

I'm all for substantive discussion.  I'm just not understanding the substance of what you are saying.

Thanks,

-Smac