Jump to content

'What would dead church leaders think? Short-sighted reasoning


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So, for example, to say that Brigham Young would disapprove of controlled U.S. borders today because he needed free-flowing immigration to feed the gathering to Zion in the 19th century ignores the fact that since the turn of the century (20th, not 21st), the Church has taught and encouraged that converts should remain and build Zion wherever they live instead of physically gathering to one central location. 

I don't think governmental policy should be determined exclusively by the needs of the Church and the members of said church.

"Well, the "Mormons" aren't gathering. Guess we should shut the doors."

That is even more simplistic than arguing what Joseph Smith would say about immigration today.

Link to comment

There is this guy, who is a guest at the Waldorf Hysteria...shall we say, who runs a blog and is currently doing a 55 post series doing this exact thing, what do long dead general authorities have to say about a certain subject. If they said it then it must be true, even though other brethren disagree but hey

Edited by Duncan
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don't think governmental policy should be determined exclusively by the needs of the Church and the members of said church.

"Well, the "Mormons" aren't gathering. Guess we should shut the doors."

That is even more simplistic than arguing what Joseph Smith would say about immigration today.

That was never my contention. This is a non sequitur. 
 

And by the way, arguing governmental policy is beyond the province of this board as I understand it — unless the policy impacts the Church directly somehow, such as potential infringement on religious freedom. 
 

And furthermore, it’s outside the scope of this thread, the topic of which is fallaciously imputing opinions about current events to long-dead Church leaders. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That was never my contention. This is a non sequitur. 

We are clearly already out in la-la land with your OP contending that Brigham Young would change his views because the church didn't need it. The current church certainly hasn't repudiated his views so you are speculating that President Young's views were entirely self-interested. As I said, out in speculative la-la land. A non sequitur is par for the course in this thread.

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We are clearly already out in la-la land with your OP contending that Brigham Young would change his views because the church didn't need it. The current church certainly hasn't repudiated his views so you are speculating that President Young's views were entirely self-interested. As I said, out in speculative la-la land. A non sequitur is par for the course in this thread.

 

No, the “la-la” land supposition is that because President Young said something in, say, 1850, that his opinion would necessarily transfer to an unrelated affair in 2021. It doesn’t matter whether the Church repudiated the 19th century position or not. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, the “la-la” land supposition is that because President Young said something in, say, 1850, that his opinion would necessarily transfer to an unrelated affair in 2021. It doesn’t matter whether the Church repudiated the 19th century position or not. 

You suggested that President Young would agree with the church's current position and then suggested that that means President Young would agree with current U.S. policy. So: la la land.

Link to comment

I think that all we really know is that we probably can't guess what they would think. 

They were a combination of their personal experiences, opinions, beliefs, and the impact of the Spirit.  Having hundreds of years of more experience and working more closely with the Spirit would of course have an effect on their thinking.  

But what that effect would be, I don't think we could accurately say either way. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Furthermore, it is a virtual certainty that they remain dialed into, and even participate in some way in, the ongoing progress of the kingdom of God in mortality. So if changes in the Church have come about over time via divine revelation (and they have) the compelling conclusion is that these Church leaders have seen and approve of said changes. 

Several assumptions here.  Not the least is that every change is divinely instigated.

And when there's correct principle at stake I consider it very likely that these men hold to correct principle in whatever location they reside regardless of whatever winds of change blow through the Church today.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Fether said:

The other implication is that the churchJoseph Smith built was the perfect and completely restored church and everything since then had been corrupting that organization. 
 

In reality, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, etc were Prophets of the era they were called as such. Joseph Smith laid a large foundation and every prophet since built on that foundation. They continued to speak with God and add things when needed, and remove things when they were no longer needed. Should you pluck out Joseph Smith from 1843 and put him here, I could careless whether he hated or loved what he saw. The church today has more light and understanding than ever before and the spiritual understanding and available knowledge the average Saint today exceeds that of the greatest leaders in the early days.

There's a big difference between perfect and complete.  Joseph restored EVERYTHING needed to move from birth to Celestial exaltation.  The restoration was complete.  It wasn't perfect since its dissemination to the world and the organization continues and circumstances change.  But doctrine and ordinance were complete.  Every priesthood key and office, law and ordinance.

And no, I don't believe for a second that the Church today has more light and understanding than Joseph.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There's a big difference between perfect and complete.  Joseph restored EVERYTHING needed to move from birth to Celestial exaltation.  The restoration was complete.  It wasn't perfect since its dissemination to the world and the organization continues and circumstances change.  But doctrine and ordinance were complete.  Every priesthood key and office, law and ordinance.

And no, I don't believe for a second that the Church today has more light and understanding than Joseph.

You are right, Joseph is the exception.
 

But I do believe the church had a whole had only become closer to that “perfect” state

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You suggested that President Young would agree with the church's current position and then suggested that that means President Young would agree with current U.S. policy. So: la la land.

I suggested that President Young today would agree with the divine position, whatever that might be. If you’re insisting that in the current immortal sphere where he dwells he is at odds with the Almighty, well, it is you, not I, who takes the problematic view. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Several assumptions here.  Not the least is that every change is divinely instigated.

And when there's correct principle at stake I consider it very likely that these men hold to correct principle in whatever location they reside regardless of whatever winds of change blow through the Church today.

I didn’t say that “every change is divinely instigated.” That’s your own inference. 
 

What I’ve suggested is what is said in your second paragraph above: that wherever there HAS been a divinely directed change (which I think is most of the time, as I believe Jesus Christ guides His Church via continual revelation), the deceased prophets, in the current state of intelligence they have attained to, are more likely than not to agree with it. It is foolishness to insist that they are forever stuck in whatever state of intelligence, wisdom, outlook, etc. they had at the time they died. 
 

We’ve observed that apostles (namely Elders Mark E. Peterson, Delbert L. Stapley, Bruce R. McConkie) altered their views during their lifetimes on the race issue. Why would anyone think prophets would not go on learning, growing, maturing after passing from mortality?
 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You suggested that President Young would agree with the church's current position and then suggested that that means President Young would agree with current U.S. policy. So: la la land.

You continue to garble my statements. 
 

I never said President Young would agree with current U. S. policy. I said that his 19th century views are an extremely weak basis for concluding he has any view one way or the other on 21st century current events. 
 

Stop trying to turn this thread into a political discussion. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I lose patience with the occasional remark about what Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or whoever would think about X if he were alive today. 
 

Why? Because the underlying implication is nearly always that they would be plucked out of the time in which they lived and plunked down in present day without any orientation and would therefore disapprove of the way things are done in the Church today. That is faulty reasoning. And a form of presentism. 


I think the opposite assumption that they would be pleased with everything is equally faulty.  I think the truth is likely somewhere in between the two extremes.

Why should we assume that “X” is always divinely inspired? 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, pogi said:


I think the opposite assumption that they would be pleased with everything is equally faulty.  I think the truth is likely somewhere in between the two extremes.

Why should we assume that “X” is always divinely inspired? 

I never said that X is “always divinely inspired.” I said that WHENEVER it is divinely inspired (which is most of the time), deceased prophets are likely to be in accord with it. 
 

And I reject your premise that men of God who spent their lives in his service are just as likely as not to embrace falsehood after they die. I believe they go on serving God and being tutored by Him and receiving truth as they encounter it. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never said that X is “always divinely inspired.” I said that WHENEVER it is divinely inspired (which is most of the time), deceased prophets are likely to be in accord with it. 

Actually, you should read your OP.  You didn’t say anything about divine inspiration in the OP - which is why I brought it up.  You didn’t define “X”, you just made it sound like you think that they would always agree with “X”. 
 

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 And I reject your premise that men of God who spent their lives in his service are just as likely as not to embrace falsehood after they die. I believe they go on serving God and being tutored by him and receiving truth as they encounter it. 

I don’t know what you are talking about.  Looks like a straw man to me. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I lose patience with the occasional remark about what Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or whoever would think about X if he were alive today. 
 

Why? Because the underlying implication is nearly always that they would be plucked out of the time in which they lived and plunked down in present day without any orientation and would therefore disapprove of the way things are done in the Church today. That is faulty reasoning. And a form of presentism. 
 

To accept the restored gospel is to believe in life after death and, ergo, that deceased Church leaders go on living in the spirit world. Furthermore, it is a virtual certainty that they remain dialed into, and even participate in some way in, the ongoing progress of the kingdom of God in mortality. So if changes in the Church have come about over time via divine revelation (and they have) the compelling conclusion is that these Church leaders have seen and approve of said changes. 
 

So, for example, to say that Brigham Young would disapprove of controlled U.S. borders today because he needed free-flowing immigration to feed the gathering to Zion in the 19th century ignores the fact that since the turn of the century (20th, not 21st), the Church has taught and encouraged that converts should remain and build Zion wherever they live instead of physically gathering to one central location. 

I was with you until you brought in the part about borders. Why did you go there, specifically? 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So, for example, to say that Brigham Young would disapprove of controlled U.S. borders today because he needed free-flowing immigration to feed the gathering to Zion in the 19th century ignores the fact that since the turn of the century (20th, not 21st), the Church has taught and encouraged that converts should remain and build Zion wherever they live instead of physically gathering to one central location. 

...does not agree with....

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I suggested that President Young today would agree with the divine position, whatever that might be. If you’re insisting that in the current immortal sphere where he dwells he is at odds with the Almighty, well, it is you, not I, who takes the problematic view. 

You suggested much more than that he would agree with the divine position.

You are annoyed that others are using Brigham Young's statements and actions as a support for a liberal immigration policy. So you point out that God does not require it as much and that therefore Brigham Young does not want largely open borders so anyone using the quotes that way should shut up.

When called out you go on with nonsense about Brigham Young and God being at odds when we don't know the mind of God or Brigham Young on US immigration policy. You are trying to subtly suggest that a strict border is okay since from about the end of WW2 the church has encouraged members to stay in their home nations and build Zion which is true. However that does not say anything about God's opinion on immigration policy. It is far weaker evidence that the quotes from President Young supporting immigration. Your argument seems to be that silence is more convincing than POSSIBLY out of date prophetic counsel which is silly.

Also clearly a not-very-stealthy attempt at another political thread.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

...does not agree with....

You suggested much more than that he would agree with the divine position.

You are annoyed that others are using Brigham Young's statements and actions as a support for a liberal immigration policy. So you point out that God does not require it as much and that therefore Brigham Young does not want largely open borders so anyone using the quotes that way should shut up.

When called out you go on with nonsense about Brigham Young and God being at odds when we don't know the mind of God or Brigham Young on US immigration policy. You are trying to subtly suggest that a strict border is okay since from about the end of WW2 the church has encouraged members to stay in their home nations and build Zion which is true. However that does not say anything about God's opinion on immigration policy. It is far weaker evidence that the quotes from President Young supporting immigration. Your argument seems to be that silence is more convincing than POSSIBLY out of date prophetic counsel which is silly.

Also clearly a not-very-stealthy attempt at another political thread.

I’m getting the same vibe. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I’ve suggested is what is said in your second paragraph above: that wherever there HAS been a divinely directed change (which I think is most of the time, as I believe Jesus Christ guides His Church via continual revelation), the deceased prophets, in the current state of intelligence they have attained to, are more likely than not to agree with it. 

Of course. I'll absolutely agree that where God's direction comes of course they agree.

But take immigration for example.  I don't see why Brigham would have changed his views on gathering and immigration.  Last I checked we still have the 10th article of faith.  Brigham's views support that.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course. I'll absolutely agree that where God's direction comes of course they agree.

But take immigration for example.  I don't see why Brigham would have changed his views on gathering and immigration.  Last I checked we still have the 10th article of faith.  Brigham's views support that.

We do have some hints on God’s views on immigration and refugee policy:

“And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.
And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.”

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We do have some hints on God’s views on immigration and refugee policy:

“And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.
And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.”

And even if Brigham is in board with Saints staying in their own countries to build up Zion, how does that say anything about nonmembers who come knocking at the door?  Letting them in wherever it may be and then teaching them the Gospel is certainly one way to build each of our Zion communities. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...