Reconciling bruce r. McConkie

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That's why Reece's put only 5 flavors in its Take 5 Candy bar: You can't handle 6!

My first day in the real estate business they taught me to show no more that 3 homes to the same buyers in the same day.

That instantly showed me that I ought to be in investment real estate instead of residential.

I actually had someone NOT buy a house that was perfectly suitable because the kitchen was pink.   I wanted to shake him physically.

My decision that day kept me out of jail. 

 

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

This description of my understanding is based in 1 Nephi 13: 26-29, where an organized collective intentionally did the opposite of what our Church leaders do to collectively seek and promote correct doctrine. Anyone's personal difficulty in knowing (with attendant bias) their intentions notwithstanding.

 

Could you describe the development of your definition more specifically? What, in your own words, is "false doctrine?" How does the scriptural example encompass any and all false doctrine enough to provide a definition?

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Could you describe the development of your definition more specifically? What, in your own words, is "false doctrine?" How does the scriptural example encompass any and all false doctrine enough to provide a definition?

My description was specific to the discussion of the priesthood ban, to show that it was not the result Brigham Young (or whoever), intentionally corrupting correct doctrine (leading the Church astray). The lack of proof that the ban was intentional corruption explains why subsequent prophets sought revelation to lift it. The scriptural example also shows how false doctrine can be inadvertently perpetuated in ignorance, permitting a different description to be used for another context and perspective of the same topic. I suppose someone could apply the scriptural example to "any and all" contexts and perspectives, but I was only addressing one.

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My description was specific to the discussion of the priesthood ban, to show that it was not the result Brigham Young (or whoever), intentionally corrupting correct doctrine (leading the Church astray). The lack of proof that the ban was intentional corruption explains why subsequent prophets sought revelation to lift it. The scriptural example also shows how false doctrine can be inadvertently perpetuated in ignorance, permitting a different description to be used for another context and perspective of the same topic. I suppose someone could apply the scriptural example to "any and all" contexts and perspectives, but I was only addressing one.

Interesting.

So you mean that, lacking the evidence that the ban was intentional corruption, leaders felt obliged to seek revelation to lift it. Otherwise if hypothetically corruption was clearly intentional, revelation might not have been needed?

[pogi]

22 hours ago, Teancum said:

Come on. Science relies on a testable method.  Not at all the same as what you are arguing for.

I never argued that they are the same.  Clearly they are not.  The point Fair Dinkum was making is that revelation can't be trusted in the church because sometimes people get it wrong.  My point is that by those standards, we would have to dismiss science as well.

Sure, science is testable.  That doesn't mean that people don't get it wrong all the time, and it can sometimes take centuries before we figure out that we were interpreting the data wrong or were interpreting data based on an incomplete picture.  It is no different (in that specific regard) than revelation.  Trust me, I understand that there are differences, and I also understand what those differences are.   We should not expect revelation to bypass human fallibility and limited perspective when interpreting spiritual experience as we all see through a glass dimly.  I bring this parable up a lot, but I think it really helps explain it - but people don't really seem to accept the fact that we are all blind to the big picture and limited in perspective.  For some reason, critics (mote often than believers) expect infallibility in personal revelation or they dismiss it outright.  That confounds me.  It is like expecting a child to understand and interpret a language perfectly when they are just babies and toddlers?  We are spiritual babies and toddlers.  Some might even argue that we are less than a baby, but merely "God's in embryo".  Of course we are going to interpret things wrong.  Learning a language is an individual experience and happens on an individual basis - it is not at all like science which is more collaborative and a collective experience of learning. 

 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Interesting.

So you mean that, lacking the evidence that the ban was intentional corruption, leaders felt obliged to seek revelation to lift it. Otherwise if hypothetically corruption was clearly intentional, revelation might not have been needed?

Hypothetically, if the subsequent prophets were convinced that the ban was a corruption of correct doctrine, they would have just lifted it. Now they might add that the Lord inspired them to find the proof, or led them to the proof, or that they sought the Lord’s confirmation to proceed to lift the ban, and innumerable other possibilities one might imagine to “reconcile Bruce R. McConkie” (or not). But that isn’t what they say happened for lifting the ban (see https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng), and they haven’t called out the ban as an intentional corruption of correct doctrine by past leaders.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

I never argued that they are the same.  Clearly they are not.  The point Fair Dinkum was making is that revelation can't be trusted in the church because sometimes people get it wrong.  My point is that by those standards, we would have to dismiss science as well.

Sure, science is testable.  That doesn't mean that people don't get it wrong all the time, and it can sometimes take centuries before we figure out that we were interpreting the data wrong or were interpreting data based on an incomplete picture.  It is no different (in that specific regard) than revelation.  Trust me, I understand that there are differences, and I also understand what those differences are.   We should not expect revelation to bypass human fallibility and limited perspective when interpreting spiritual experience as we all see through a glass dimly.  I bring this parable up a lot, but I think it really helps explain it - but people don't really seem to accept the fact that we are all blind to the big picture and limited in perspective.  For some reason, critics (mote often than believers) expect infallibility in personal revelation or they dismiss it outright.  That confounds me.  It is like expecting a child to understand and interpret a language perfectly when they are just babies and toddlers?  We are spiritual babies and toddlers.  Some might even argue that we are less than a baby, but merely "God's in embryo".  Of course we are going to interpret things wrong.  Learning a language is an individual experience and happens on an individual basis - it is not at all like science which is more collaborative and a collective experience of learning. 

 

But revelation is not testable and science does not ask me to follow a prophet and base my life on that prophet even though these prophet get a lot of things wrong. So yea science is EXTREMELY different than "revelation." If you think former LDS critics seem to expect more from revelation (not infallibility) is is because they were taught to follow what the leaders say and not deviate. It is the apologists who seem to want to diminish the value or accuracy of their "revelations."

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

But revelation is not testable and science does not ask me to follow a prophet and base my life on that prophet even though these prophet get a lot of things wrong.

Revelation is testable (Alma 32).  You are not expected to be a blind follower.  On the contrary, you are expected to test and confirm for yourself.   

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

If you think former LDS critics seem to expect more from revelation (not infallibility) is is because they were taught to follow what the leaders say and not deviate.

How is that any different than science?  "Follow the science!"  While science is testable, the vast majority of people are blind followers.  They don't know diddly squat about science or how to perform experiments.  Almost all simply place trust in these prophets/scientists who are fallible, and are largely expected to do so.  Trying to convince a scientific culture that their core beliefs are wrong and based on falsely interpreted or incomplete data, is a very unpopular position to be in.  Just ask Alfred Wegener, who's published theories on continental drift were rejected (by other scientists) in his lifetime.  Listen to scientific consensus!!!  It wasn't until long after his death that his published theory finally caught on.  The same sad story goes for Ignaz Semmelweiz, Aristarchus, Nicholas Copernicus, Gregor Mendell, Johannes Kepler, Amedeo Avogardo, etc. etc.  None of these scientists lived to see their science accepted as valid.  They lived and died with their theories rejected by scientific consensus.   It often takes many, many decades for beliefs to change, despite compelling evidence.  You see, there is an unwritten expectation to just follow the popular opinion of the day or be shamed and shunned as a "science denier".  The culture of science really is not that different from religion, to be honest.  Unfortunately, scientific consensus can become a bias in and of itself.   The major difference between the two cultures is that science is expected to be fallible, religion is not.

Yes, we are taught to follow our leaders, just as we are taught to follow the science, or scientists rather (since almost no one really knows how to do science).  Unfortunately, in both cases we all too often follow blindly, placing nothing more than our trust in our religious and scientific leaders.   The only difference is that our religious leaders almost demand that we test for ourselves and not just take their word for it.  If only science demanded the same, instead of just placing our trust/faith in the peer review process.  It is unrealistic for the layman to test scientific claims unlike with Mormonism where the lay man is expected to test for himself.  

Yet, there still remains this bogus notion of infallibility with prophets, despite their claims of fallibility.   Yes, we are taught to follow them, but we are also taught to not follow them blindly.  Those two principles go hand in hand.  Do you see the difference?  Good luck trying to get the lay public to not follow science blindly by testing and experimenting for themselves! 

Edited July 18, 2021 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

But revelation is not testable ...

Of course it is!

I have literally tens of thousands of personal experiences I could share. Here's one that I've written about on this forum before:

One Thursday morning on my way to work, I arrived at the train station, bought a ticket, got it punched, walked through the turnstile, walked about two metres, and hit a spiritual 'brick wall'. The impression was clear: Go back into the station; someone needs you.

I argued against this impression. I'd arrived at the station at that very time because the train was always super-full, and my only hope of getting into a carriage versus having to ride on the outside of it (scary!) was to be waiting on the platform in about 60 seconds. I had to get to work. The next train was 20 minutes later, and that would make me late to my first class. Etc., etc.

In short, I didn't want this impression to be revelation. I wanted it to be a random thought based on nothing, concocted by my own brain. I needed it to be unreliable. So I took another step towards the platform. 'Hamba, go back into the station; someone needs you'.

I felt completely stupid, but I turned around, walked back through the turnstile and past the attendant who had previously punched my ticket. It was my intention to quickly walk a circuit of the station, confirm that I was just being silly, buy another ticket, and still make it onto the platform before it got too crowded.

In the back corner of the train station, I came upon an 18-year-old young man who had been riding on the outside of an earlier train and hadn't leaned in far enough as the train approached the station; consequently, the calf muscle had been ripped from the back of his left leg (attached only at the ankle). With no money to pay for an ambulance, he'd been placed in the corner and covered with a flattened cardboard carton so that no one had to watch him bleed out and die.

If, confident in my own 'wisdom', I had caught the train and gone to work that morning, I would have known nothing. I also would have reduced my capacity, I believe, to receive further revelation.

Instead, I had some of the most powerful experiences of my life, including the ministration of angels and the shortest priesthood blessing I have ever given.

Edited July 19, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

But revelation is not testable and science does not ask me to follow a prophet and base my life on that prophet even though these prophet get a lot of things wrong. So yea science is EXTREMELY different than "revelation." If you think former LDS critics seem to expect more from revelation (not infallibility) is is because they were taught to follow what the leaders say and not deviate. It is the apologists who seem to want to diminish the value or accuracy of their "revelations."

In my 40 years in the church I have never heard that we should "follow a prophet and base my life on that prophet even though these prophet get a lot of things wrong."

I don't know how you come up with this stuff 

Instead I have heard again and again to try every principle and get my own testimony 

Your credibility is slipping big time

Quit making stuff up

Edited July 19, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Of course it is!

I have literally tens of thousands of personal experiences I could share. Here's one that I've written about on this forum before:

One Thursday morning on my way to work, I arrived at the train station, bought a ticket, got it punched, walked through the turnstile, walked about two metres, and hit a spiritual 'brick wall'. The impression was clear: Go back into the station; someone needs you.

I argued against this impression. I'd arrived at the station at that very time because the train was always super-full, and my only hope of getting into a carriage versus having to ride on the outside of it (scary!) was to be waiting on the platform in about 60 seconds. I had to get to work. The next train was 20 minutes later, and that would make me late to my first class. Etc., etc.

In short, I didn't want this impression to be revelation. I wanted it to be a random thought based on nothing, concocted by my own brain. I needed it to be unreliable. So I took another step towards the platform. 'Hamba, go back into the station; someone needs you'.

I felt completely stupid, but I turned around, walked back through the turnstile and past the attendant who had previously punched my ticket. It was my intention to quickly walk a circuit of the station, confirm that I was just being silly, buy another ticket, and still make it onto the platform before it got too crowded.

In the back corner of the train station, I came upon an 18-year-old young man who had been riding on the outside of an earlier train and hadn't leaned in far enough as the train approached the station; consequently, the calf muscle had been ripped from the back of his left leg (attached only at the ankle). With no money to pay for an ambulance, he'd been placed in the corner and covered with a flattened cardboard carton so that no one had to watch him bleed out and die.

If, confident in my own 'wisdom', I had caught the train and gone to work that morning, I would have known nothing. I also would have reduced my capacity, I believe, to receive further revelation.

Instead, I had some of the most powerful experiences of my life, including the ministration of angels and the shortest priesthood blessing I have ever given.

I have had many similar experiences myself, and so I believe you.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have had many similar experiences myself, and so I believe you.

And there is no other reason why you should believe me.

Of course, our critics will see gullibility where we see familiarity.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Of course it is!

I have literally tens of thousands of personal experiences I could share. Here's one that I've written about on this forum before:

One Thursday morning on my way to work, I arrived at the train station, bought a ticket, got it punched, walked through the turnstile, walked about two metres, and hit a spiritual 'brick wall'. The impression was clear: Go back into the station; someone needs you.

I argued against this impression. I'd arrived at the station at that very time because the train was always super-full, and my only hope of getting into a carriage versus having to ride on the outside of it (scary!) was to be waiting on the platform in about 60 seconds. I had to get to work. The next train was 20 minutes later, and that would make me late to my first class. Etc., etc.

In short, I didn't want this impression to be revelation. I wanted it to be a random thought based on nothing, concocted by my own brain. I needed it to be unreliable. So I took another step towards the platform. 'Hamba, go back into the station; someone needs you'.

I felt completely stupid, but I turned around, walked back through the turnstile and past the attendant who had previously punched my ticket. It was my intention to quickly walk a circuit of the station, confirm that I was just being silly, buy another ticket, and still make it onto the platform before it got too crowded.

In the back corner of the train station, I came upon an 18-year-old young man who had been riding on the outside of an earlier train and hadn't leaned in far enough as the train approached the station; consequently, the calf muscle had been ripped from the back of his left leg (attached only at the ankle). With no money to pay for an ambulance, he'd been placed in the corner and covered with a flattened cardboard carton so that no one had to watch him bleed out and die.

If, confident in my own 'wisdom', I had caught the train and gone to work that morning, I would have known nothing. I also would have reduced my capacity, I believe, to receive further revelation.

Instead, I had some of the most powerful experiences of my life, including the ministration of angels and the shortest priesthood blessing I have ever given.

As an aside, I find it astounding that there is a civilized municipality where one is intentionally left to die because he can’t afford an ambulance. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As an aside, I find it astounding that there is a civilized municipality where one is intentionally left to die because he can’t afford an ambulance. 

Many nations lack the basic social welfare and safety nets that people in the 'developed world' take for granted.

Edited July 19, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Many nations lack the basic social welfare and safety nets that people in the 'developed world' take for granted.

Makes me better appreciate the society in which I live. 
 

But even where government is deficient in providing the safety nets, it strikes me as contrary to basic humanity to leave a seriously injured person unattended. 

Edited July 19, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Makes me better appreciate the society in which I live. 
 

But even where government is deficient in providing the safety nets, it strikes me as contrary to basic humanity to leave a seriously injured person unattended. 

Agree, very sad.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Many nations lack the basic social welfare and safety nets that people in the 'developed world' take for granted.

What happened to the man?  Did he make it to a hospital?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But even where government is deficient in providing the safety nets, it strikes me as contrary to basic humanity to leave a seriously injured person unattended. 

Yes.  I get a government that can't help in that kind of situation (or has chosen to not to by putting it's resources in other places) but I just can't imagine how no other person tried to help.

[MrShorty]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In my 40 years in the church I have never heard that we should "follow a prophet and base my life on that prophet even though these prophet get a lot of things wrong."

I don't know how you come up with this stuff 

Instead I have heard again and again to try every principle and get my own testimony 

I agree, that I have been long taught to get my own testimony of the Church and individual principles. The problem that I have encountered is that there seems to be a very strong assumption that, if I do seek my own testimony, I WILL get a testimony that whatever Elder McKonkie (or other Church leader the combined voice of the Church leaders) teaches is true. The thing that I think is missing from this discussion is exploring what to do when the expected testimony does not come, or, worse, when we feel like God is trying to tell us something contrary to what the Church or its leaders are teaching.

Pres. Oaks talked about choosing to be loyal to the brethren in the absence of a testimony. Others talk about not needing confirmation of every teaching because they once received confirmation that Elder McKonkie (or other prophet/apostle) was legitimately called by God to be a prophet/apostle, so they do not feel any need to separately confirm every teaching by the prophet/apostle. Perhaps that is where some feel like the doubled down "follow the prophet" message comes from.

I think the advice to put stuff like that on a metaphorical shelf can be good, but it also feels like a stalling or delaying tactic. It often seems that, at some point, someone has to deal with the issues on their shelf, or, because they get so many things on the shelf, it becomes overwhelming to deal with them all at once (the shelf breaks). In cases like that, would it be better to deal with issues of testimony one issue at a time rather than shelving them?

Ever since that one investigator (while I was serving a mission) told us that she felt led by God to stop reading the BoM and meeting with the missionaries, I have wondered if the best answer is to recognize that God can lead people down paths that do not include the Church and its teachings. It kind of cuts into the "strait and narrow" or "one true church" ideas, but it sometimes feels like the best approach. Of course, that needs to go both ways so that those who leave the Church do not see those of us who stay as "deluded" or "blinded" and a willingness to accept that maybe God has His reasons for leading some of us to join and stay in the Church. A whole lot of all or nothing thinking may need to fall by the way side to accept this kind of approach.

While I agree that we are encouraged to seek our own testimony, I don't think adequate air time has been given to exploring what should happen when the confirming witness or testimony does not come.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Of course it is!

I have literally tens of thousands of personal experiences I could share. Here's one that I've written about on this forum before:

One Thursday morning on my way to work, I arrived at the train station, bought a ticket, got it punched, walked through the turnstile, walked about two metres, and hit a spiritual 'brick wall'. The impression was clear: Go back into the station; someone needs you.

I argued against this impression. I'd arrived at the station at that very time because the train was always super-full, and my only hope of getting into a carriage versus having to ride on the outside of it (scary!) was to be waiting on the platform in about 60 seconds. I had to get to work. The next train was 20 minutes later, and that would make me late to my first class. Etc., etc.

In short, I didn't want this impression to be revelation. I wanted it to be a random thought based on nothing, concocted by my own brain. I needed it to be unreliable. So I took another step towards the platform. 'Hamba, go back into the station; someone needs you'.

I felt completely stupid, but I turned around, walked back through the turnstile and past the attendant who had previously punched my ticket. It was my intention to quickly walk a circuit of the station, confirm that I was just being silly, buy another ticket, and still make it onto the platform before it got too crowded.

In the back corner of the train station, I came upon an 18-year-old young man who had been riding on the outside of an earlier train and hadn't leaned in far enough as the train approached the station; consequently, the calf muscle had been ripped from the back of his left leg (attached only at the ankle). With no money to pay for an ambulance, he'd been placed in the corner and covered with a flattened cardboard carton so that no one had to watch him bleed out and die.

If, confident in my own 'wisdom', I had caught the train and gone to work that morning, I would have known nothing. I also would have reduced my capacity, I believe, to receive further revelation.

Instead, I had some of the most powerful experiences of my life, including the ministration of angels and the shortest priesthood blessing I have ever given.

Your testing method produces conflicting results. My personal revelation tells me that the LDS Church is nothing like it claims.  Yours is the opposite.  How do we reconcile this?

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In my 40 years in the church I have never heard that we should "follow a prophet and base my life on that prophet even though these prophet get a lot of things wrong."

I don't know how you come up with this stuff 

Instead I have heard again and again to try every principle and get my own testimony 

Your credibility is slipping big time

Quit making stuff up

You misunderstand me.  I said I have always been taught to follow thee prophet.   But in MY EXPERIENCE they get a lot wrong.  I did not mean that this exact quote was taught. Perhaps my comment was poorly worded.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes.  I get a government that can't help in that kind of situation (or has chosen to not to by putting it's resources in other places) but I just can't imagine how no other person tried to help.

And just put a cardboard over him so no one would have to see him die???

[Tacenda]

57 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I agree, that I have been long taught to get my own testimony of the Church and individual principles. The problem that I have encountered is that there seems to be a very strong assumption that, if I do seek my own testimony, I WILL get a testimony that whatever Elder McKonkie (or other Church leader the combined voice of the Church leaders) teaches is true. The thing that I think is missing from this discussion is exploring what to do when the expected testimony does not come, or, worse, when we feel like God is trying to tell us something contrary to what the Church or its leaders are teaching.

Pres. Oaks talked about choosing to be loyal to the brethren in the absence of a testimony. Others talk about not needing confirmation of every teaching because they once received confirmation that Elder McKonkie (or other prophet/apostle) was legitimately called by God to be a prophet/apostle, so they do not feel any need to separately confirm every teaching by the prophet/apostle. Perhaps that is where some feel like the doubled down "follow the prophet" message comes from.

I think the advice to put stuff like that on a metaphorical shelf can be good, but it also feels like a stalling or delaying tactic. It often seems that, at some point, someone has to deal with the issues on their shelf, or, because they get so many things on the shelf, it becomes overwhelming to deal with them all at once (the shelf breaks). In cases like that, would it be better to deal with issues of testimony one issue at a time rather than shelving them?

Ever since that one investigator (while I was serving a mission) told us that she felt led by God to stop reading the BoM and meeting with the missionaries, I have wondered if the best answer is to recognize that God can lead people down paths that do not include the Church and its teachings. It kind of cuts into the "strait and narrow" or "one true church" ideas, but it sometimes feels like the best approach. Of course, that needs to go both ways so that those who leave the Church do not see those of us who stay as "deluded" or "blinded" and a willingness to accept that maybe God has His reasons for leading some of us to join and stay in the Church. A whole lot of all or nothing thinking may need to fall by the way side to accept this kind of approach.

While I agree that we are encouraged to seek our own testimony, I don't think adequate air time has been given to exploring what should happen when the confirming witness or testimony does not come.

And if only 1% of the LDS is on the earth, surely God would provide other avenues to get to Him. 

[Amulek]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And if only 1% of the LDS is on the earth, surely God would provide other avenues to get to Him. 

That's what temples are for.

 

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That's what temples are for.

 

And the Millennium:

Quote

In the Millennium, when the Kingdom of God is established on the earth in power, glory and perfection, and the reign of wickedness that has so long prevailed is subdued, the Saints of God will have the privilege of building their temples, and of entering into them, becoming, as it were, pillars in the temples of God, and they will officiate for their dead. Then we will see our friends come up, and perhaps some that we have been acquainted with here. If we ask who will stand at the head of the resurrection in this last dispensation, the answer is - Joseph Smith, Junior, the Prophet of God. He is the man who will be resurrected and receive the keys of the resurrection, and he will seal this authority upon others, and they will hunt up their friends and resurrect them when they shall have been officiated for, and bring them up. And we will have revelations to know our forefathers clear back to Father Adam and Mother Eve, and we will enter into the temples of God and officiate for them. Then man will be sealed to man until the chain is made perfect back to Adam, so that there will be a perfect chain of Priesthood from Adam to the winding-up scene. This will be the work of the Latter-day Saints in the Millennium. (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.116)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 19, 2021 by smac97