Outdated sermons- is there benefit to discussing? Denouncing? Denying?

[MustardSeed]

I’m curious about present church member dynamics and behaviors and parenting etc and how much our present subconscious motivations exist due to mostly to history-  historical sermons, etc. It was interesting to me a recent discussion hear about some thing where “I always received ‘this’ message” was is challenged by other board participants with “ I never got that message”. I tend to believe that there are lots of messages that we internalize that we can’t attribute actual CFR’s but that those messages handed down over time Create culture without us actually realizing it.

I get the impression that talking about things that say Brigham Young used to preach will bring multiple responses to the discussion. Some will say “look, here is evidence that our church is not true because look at how messed up this message is.” On the other end, some participants will say “I disagree that that was said” or “ That’s not what he meant” or “ That’s why we have present day prophets and we don’t need to worry about that old stuff” All of which shut down discussion.

I wonder if it’s dangerous to our religion to discuss what previous prophets have taught that we no longer teach. I wonder if it’s threatening to testimonies. I wonder if there is some value in having the discussion and acknowledging the possibility that old teachings may still show up in the way that we presently do things and therefore perhaps we need to self examine and push ourselves a little bit to reflect on a need for a change.

As an example for clarity, because this seems to be a perfect example of an antiquated style of address: Marion G Romney gave an address back in the 70s and I can do the CFR if needed talking about how his dad took him to the train station and encouraged him to have a wonderful mission and that the family would support him but if he returned dishonorably his family would rather pick him up in a pine box.  I find this abhorrent, but also understand Who our leader ship was in the 70s and I understand the leader ship was reacting to an extreme social movement of sexual depravity and freedom. Freaking hippies.

 

It’s these types of things that I wonder how those old messages have been passed down maybe not Word for Word but in attitude and core beliefs That perhaps don’t serve us?  On the other hand I leave space for the fact that some people may still embrace such messaging and support it. What about those on the fence? Would it not be helpful to be willing to have more discussions? I get the impression that this type of discussion is discouraged as though inviting the conversation is threatening or as though the person wanting to have a conversation may be trying to deconstruct others testimonies.

I am happy to do the CFR but I’m afraid that doing so would invite The debate. Which is not a problem but really my question more meta.  I’d like to lean more into that piece of this. But I will provide the CFR if asked.

Edited January 21, 2023 by MustardSeed

[Calm]

Quote

 get the impression that talking about things that say Brigham Young used to preach will bring multiple responses to the discussion. Some will say “look, here is evidence that our church is not true because look at how messed up this message is.” On the other end, some participants will say “I disagree that that was said” or “ That’s not what he meant” or “ That’s why we have present day prophets and we don’t need to worry about that old stuff” All of which shut down discussion.

What type of response do you see that would not shut down conversation while still addressing the issue created by the claim of falseness?  Or do you see that as not necessarily needing to be addressed by a believer?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m curious about present church member dynamics and behaviors and parenting etc and how much our present subconscious motivations exist due to mostly to history-  historical sermons, etc. It was interesting to me a recent discussion hear about some thing where “I always received ‘this’ message” was is challenged by other board participants with “ I never got that message”. I tend to believe that there are lots of messages that we internalize that we can’t attribute actual CFR’s but that those messages handed down over time Create culture without us actually realizing it.

I get the impression that talking about things that say Brigham Young used to preach will bring multiple responses to the discussion. Some will say “look, here is evidence that our church is not true because look at how messed up this message is.” On the other end, some participants will say “I disagree that that was said” or “ That’s not what he meant” or “ That’s why we have present day prophets and we don’t need to worry about that old stuff” All of which shut down discussion.

I wonder if it’s dangerous to our religion to discuss what previous prophets have taught that we no longer teach. I wonder if it’s threatening to testimonies. I wonder if there is some value in having the discussion and acknowledging the possibility that old teachings may still show up in the way that we presently do things and therefore perhaps we need to self examine and push ourselves a little bit to reflect on a need for a change.

As an example for clarity, because this seems to be a perfect example of an antiquated style of address: Marion G Romney gave an address back in the 70s and I can do the CFR if needed talking about how his dad took him to the train station and encouraged him to have a wonderful mission and that the family would support him but if he returned dishonorably his family would rather pick him up in a pine box.  I find this abhorrent, but also understand Who our leader ship was in the 70s and I understand the leader ship was reacting to an extreme social movement of sexual depravity and freedom. Freaking hippies.

 

It’s these types of things that I wonder how those old messages have been passed down maybe not Word for Word but in attitude and core beliefs That perhaps don’t serve us?  On the other hand I leave space for the fact that some people may still embrace such messaging and support it. What about those on the fence? Would it not be helpful to be willing to have more discussions? I get the impression that this type of discussion is discouraged as though inviting the conversation is threatening or as though the person wanting to have a conversation may be trying to deconstruct others testimonies.

I am happy to do the CFR but I’m afraid that doing so would invite The debate. Which is not a problem but really my question more meta.  I’d like to lean more into that piece of this. But I will provide the CFR if asked.

I think that nothing is dangerous to talk about, only how we talk about it and what we do with it. Approaching these topics (old vs new) with transparency of motive and in good faith sets a good stage for discussion.

I also think that we interpret these speeches, old and new, in a way that suits our personality and justifies our attitudes and core beliefs. This is why, if we are going to point to old speeches, the Sermon on the Mount properly informs our interpretation of anything said since. But our bias, which isn’t always bad, is based in how much light of Christ and life experience we apply from infancy and is pretty much set before we learn to read the Bible or The Friend. That is why this is "the gospel of repentance."

Edited January 21, 2023 by CV75

[MustardSeed]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

What type of response do you see that would not shut down conversation while still addressing the issue created by the claim of falseness?  Or do you see that as not necessarily needing to be addressed by a believer?

I would hope other believers could say “I wonder how this old messaging affects me in ways that I can’t see?” so that we could figure out the answer together.  I deeply wonder about myself. I consider myself a believer.  
I’m not sure if I just answered your question, Calm.  You are much sharper than I am. 

[MustardSeed]

Ultimately I am constantly searching for the truth. I do believe that our version of the truth in the church sometimes gets convoluted with culture which is impacted by our history. It would be nice if we could simply operate as CV 75 talks about here, simply from gospel basics. But we cannot ignore the impact of culture and history on what we believe, what we teach, what we expect. Since I was a child I have examined church culture with suspicion. All I want is to know what is true. I think it’s really important that we can have conversations To challenge what isn’t true. 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Ultimately I am constantly searching for the truth. I do believe that our version of the truth in the church sometimes gets convoluted with culture which is impacted by our history. It would be nice if we could simply operate as CV 75 talks about here, simply from gospel basics. But we cannot ignore the impact of culture and history on what we believe, what we teach, what we expect. Since I was a child I have examined church culture with suspicion. All I want is to know what is true. I think it’s really important that we can have conversations To challenge what isn’t true. 

So would your approach be along the lines of responding to a comment where someone said ‘this “is evidence that our church is not true because look at how messed up this message is”’ with a “I agree we need to realize that messages can be messed up, but the truth needs to be dug out from under the misunderstandings and cultural baggage before we can determine if the basic doctrines of the Church are actually true or false, so let’s figure out the actual messages being sent and received and find out what created those first’?

[MustardSeed]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

So would your approach be along the lines of responding to a comment where someone said ‘this “is evidence that our church is not true because look at how messed up this message is”’ with a “I agree we need to realize that messages can be messed up, but the truth needs to be dug out from under the misunderstandings and cultural baggage before we can determine if the basic doctrines of the Church are actually true or false, so let’s figure out the actual messages being sent and received and find out what created those first’?

Definitely. I wish there was MUCH more of this. 
 

Edited January 21, 2023 by MustardSeed

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Ultimately I am constantly searching for the truth. I do believe that our version of the truth in the church sometimes gets convoluted with culture which is impacted by our history. It would be nice if we could simply operate as CV 75 talks about here, simply from gospel basics. But we cannot ignore the impact of culture and history on what we believe, what we teach, what we expect. Since I was a child I have examined church culture with suspicion. All I want is to know what is true. I think it’s really important that we can have conversations To challenge what isn’t true. 

I use this as a key for determining which seemingly offensive principles are true or not: “The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, “that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;” and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.” (Joseph Smith)

This means, to me, for the purposes of the OP, we often have to filter out -- which is not to ignore -- “the impact of culture and history on what we believe, what we teach, what we expect,” i.e., our individual, personal bias, before we can have the truth confirmed to us by an incidental witness by the power of the Holy Ghost or by maintaining His constant companionship and continuing to move forward. I have found that spiritual power, the greatest manifestation being charity, cuts through cultural and historical barriers primarily by giving us patience with them and secondarily by giving us gratitude for the light that shone through their darkness.

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

we often have to filter out -- which is not to ignore -- “the impact of culture and history on what we believe, what we teach, what we expect,”

Is it your opinion that members at large do this well? 
I don’t think we do it well enough as a society even. I mean, we try.  We teach about the holocaust and about slavery and we suggest that those things are bad but we could do better drawing straight lines from history to our daily present attitudes and behaviors.  Instead, I think it’s easier to say “that was then and I’m evolved. “ what if we aren’t as evolved as we like to think? 

[manol]

I have no idea how to reliably avoid responses to difficult history that shut down discussion, but I really like this approach:

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

... if we are going to point to old speeches, the Sermon on the Mount properly informs our interpretation of anything said since.

Let me explain:

Imo looking through the lens of "who said what and when, what was their status, and are they dead yet?", or any other lens which examines the external circumstances of a message rather than the message itself, is focusing on the wrong thing.  

Instead, I think we'd do better to look through the lens of correct principles as taught in the Sermon on the Mount and a few other places.  And imo it's okay if understandings and/or applications of correct principles have progressed over time, and imo it's okay if that progression has not always been consistent. 

Imo the LDS Church has generally done an excellent job of teaching correct principles, but expecting them to have done an infallible job (with no room for improvement via course-correction) is unrealistic.

Edited January 21, 2023 by manol

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Definitely. I wish there was MUCH more of this. 
 

Here is where I take my bias to be good: we can determine if the basic doctrines of the Church true or false through a spiritual process. The messages impacted by culture, history, circumstance, expediency, etc. more often than not still tie back to those. It's OK if past messages are misinterpreted, then or today, as long as the basic ones -- the actual messages -- are not and take precedence. This is a matter of wisdom and varies from person to person, and it is possible to discuss issues in a constrictive way. It also a matter taken up by those with the keys to shed new light on, change or disavow past teachings. When this is done, we are left with applying the distillation of the basic doctrine in a polluted world.

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Is it your opinion that members at large do this well? 
I don’t think we do it well enough as a society even. I mean, we try.  We teach about the holocaust and about slavery and we suggest that those things are bad but we could do better drawing straight lines from history to our daily present attitudes and behaviors.  Instead, I think it’s easier to say “that was then and I’m evolved. “ what if we aren’t as evolved as we like to think? 

All I know is that the light of Christ is available to all of us because He knows we can all respond well to it, and He only can judge how well we respond to it. He hasn't destroyed us yet -- I know that sounds evasive to your question, but this is a gospel of repentance!

I’m not sure that keys to retrospectively draw straight lines from history to doctrine have been delegated in this world (like the keys for resurrection). Our revealed doctrine and revealed history are both matters of faith, so God doesn’t spell out a divinely interpreted connection between sacred doctrine and secular history. The daily present attitudes and behaviors across a global Church are also insufficiently homogenous to address, so we have prophets set forth the basics of pure doctrine and rely upon the Holy Ghost to govern us, and bring us to Zion, instead. It seems to me that we are doctrinally more evolved today as a people than in 1830, which is consistent with the restoration being a continuing process, meaning we are not as evolved as we presumably will be. We can only work with what we've got and progress from here, and we have a track record for that, I believe. 

[Pyreaux]

Today, the askers have been more times than not been proverbial sharks trying to sense blood in the water. I find I need to respond with a proverbial punch to the snout, so I don't seem weak. It could appear that I'm trying to quicky shut them down by coming out strong. Honest questions don't require them to toy with us.

I concur the subjects should be often discussed, ideally full responses among knowledgeable peers or well-known resources for when one's ready and questioning. Enough so that at least the title of the subject has been added to even a youth's zeitgeist long before we are beaten to it by an unknowledgeable stranger who'd just love to be the one to tell them first. Like, talking about sex and drugs to a youth before the world does.

Edited January 22, 2023 by Pyreaux

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, manol said:

I have no idea how to reliably avoid responses to difficult history that shut down discussion, but I really like this approach:

Let me explain:

Imo looking through the lens of "who said what and when, what was their status, and are they dead yet?", or any other lens which examines the external circumstances of a message rather than the message itself, is focusing on the wrong thing.  

Instead, I think we'd do better to look through the lens of correct principles as taught in the Sermon on the Mount and a few other places.  And imo it's okay if understandings and/or applications of correct principles have progressed over time, and imo it's okay if that progression has not always been consistent. 

Imo the LDS Church has generally done an excellent job of teaching correct principles, but expecting them to have done an infallible job (with no room for improvement via course-correction) is unrealistic.

I think we have a good track record for fallibility and course correction (gospel of repentance and all that!)  ! You mention the word "expectation" which I think is part of the bias and doesn't always serve well (sometimes it does).

[blackstrap]

I just looked at the Sermon on the Mount again. Good stuff still after 2000 years. One thing though, why are there not more one eyed and one armed Christians? 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m curious about present church member dynamics and behaviors and parenting etc and how much our present subconscious motivations exist due to mostly to history-  historical sermons, etc. It was interesting to me a recent discussion hear about some thing where “I always received ‘this’ message” was is challenged by other board participants with “ I never got that message”. I tend to believe that there are lots of messages that we internalize that we can’t attribute actual CFR’s but that those messages handed down over time Create culture without us actually realizing it.

I get the impression that talking about things that say Brigham Young used to preach will bring multiple responses to the discussion. Some will say “look, here is evidence that our church is not true because look at how messed up this message is.” On the other end, some participants will say “I disagree that that was said” or “ That’s not what he meant” or “ That’s why we have present day prophets and we don’t need to worry about that old stuff” All of which shut down discussion.

I wonder if it’s dangerous to our religion to discuss what previous prophets have taught that we no longer teach. I wonder if it’s threatening to testimonies. I wonder if there is some value in having the discussion and acknowledging the possibility that old teachings may still show up in the way that we presently do things and therefore perhaps we need to self examine and push ourselves a little bit to reflect on a need for a change.

As an example for clarity, because this seems to be a perfect example of an antiquated style of address: Marion G Romney gave an address back in the 70s and I can do the CFR if needed talking about how his dad took him to the train station and encouraged him to have a wonderful mission and that the family would support him but if he returned dishonorably his family would rather pick him up in a pine box.  I find this abhorrent, but also understand Who our leader ship was in the 70s and I understand the leader ship was reacting to an extreme social movement of sexual depravity and freedom. Freaking hippies.

 

It’s these types of things that I wonder how those old messages have been passed down maybe not Word for Word but in attitude and core beliefs That perhaps don’t serve us?  On the other hand I leave space for the fact that some people may still embrace such messaging and support it. What about those on the fence? Would it not be helpful to be willing to have more discussions? I get the impression that this type of discussion is discouraged as though inviting the conversation is threatening or as though the person wanting to have a conversation may be trying to deconstruct others testimonies.

I am happy to do the CFR but I’m afraid that doing so would invite The debate. Which is not a problem but really my question more meta.  I’d like to lean more into that piece of this. But I will provide the CFR if asked.

Think about it:

1. We have problems today no one else as a culture has ever had.

2. We need divine guidance about those new problems we have, that no other generation has had which are exactly the same combination. (Nobody has had pandemics going during stagflation with a possible nuclear war and severe congressional division, and problems with two presidents who seem untrustworthy, while Christian church attendance is in a tailspin and free abortions are nearly considered a right, there is a spy in the supreme court, and climate change is leading to unstoppable continuing disasters.

3. Why would anyone worry about why Brigham Young had a problem with what someone said 150 years ago??

WHY?

If you actually believe that God can still have prophets today, why would we argue about issues that are dead and gone and have been for years?

Fergitaboutit.

It's time to worry about NOW!

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I find this abhorrent, but also understand Who our leader ship was in the 70s and I understand the leader ship was reacting to an extreme social movement of sexual depravity and freedom. Freaking hippies.

Well having been one, a certified student radical studying under Angela Davis, and hanging out in the Hashberry as much as I could, let me tell you that was CHILD'S PLAY compared to today.

Then the big deal was to legalize marijuana. And get contraceptives. That eliminated any worries about unrestricted sex.

Now you get off a plane at LA Airport and there are BILLBOARDS advertising places to get weed, and now you get contraceptives on the internet.

We hippies won, and now we get to deal with the fallout

We need real prophets for TODAY

Edited January 22, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Is it your opinion that members at large do this well? 
I don’t think we do it well enough as a society even. I mean, we try.  We teach about the holocaust and about slavery and we suggest that those things are bad but we could do better drawing straight lines from history to our daily present attitudes and behaviors.  Instead, I think it’s easier to say “that was then and I’m evolved. “ what if we aren’t as evolved as we like to think? 

Yeah, but we are more de-volved if that is a word.  Evolution is about SURVIVAL and now it seems like all of society has signed a suicide pact.

The Way of Death seems to be the freeway we are speeding down.

-Didache, Way of Death, 1st century tome

didache.pdf

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

I just looked at the Sermon on the Mount again. Good stuff still after 2000 years. One thing though, why are there not more one eyed and one armed Christians? 

I know a guy that fits this:

He's one of the best Christians I know, and his favorite LDS hymn is #260, "Who's on the Lord's Side".

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by InCognitus

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I know a guy that fits this:

He's one of the best Christians I know, and his favorite LDS hymn is #260, "Who's on the Lord's Side".

 

Cheech Marin?

[MustardSeed]

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Think about it:

1. We have problems today no one else as a culture has ever had.

2. We need divine guidance about those new problems we have, that no other generation has had which are exactly the same combination. (Nobody has had pandemics going during stagflation with a possible nuclear war and severe congressional division, and problems with two presidents who seem untrustworthy, while Christian church attendance is in a tailspin and free abortions are nearly considered a right, there is a spy in the supreme court, and climate change is leading to unstoppable continuing disasters.

3. Why would anyone worry about why Brigham Young had a problem with what someone said 150 years ago??

WHY?

If you actually believe that God can still have prophets today, why would we argue about issues that are dead and gone and have been for years?

Fergitaboutit.

It's time to worry about NOW!

This is what I address in the op. I don’t worry about what previous said. What I’m asking for is an honest look at what is the generational impact of such beliefs? I am not concerned at all that outrageous things were said. I mean they sound pretty awful today but it doesn’t damage my testimony at all .  What I’m saying is, how was that sentiment carried subconsciously through generations? Is it worth a look. 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

What I’m saying is, how was that sentiment carried subconsciously through generations? Is it worth a look. 

Yes, it is always better to know how to prevent further mistakes, but getting INTO the dead issues is a waste of time; on the other hand, many don't see them as dead issues.

THAT is the real problem.

Adam-God theory? Fascinating- AND it can be seen as an answer to the old saw "Did God create man or did man create God?"

Both! God creates humanity in His human image, but how did God get that human image. ?? 

But you hear that once, and that's it!

It's not a solvable question! It's a paradox! 

Death before the fall? It's interpretation. Human death before there were humans? Impossible.

Who cares about animal death? The interpretation is always the answer. Clearly the only interpretation that makes sense is that it's speaking of human spiritual death.

So once you see the answer to the alleged problem, it's over.

Why keep beating a dead horse?

 

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, it is always better to know how to prevent further mistakes, but getting INTO the dead issues is a waste of time; on the other hand, many don't see them as dead issues.

THAT is the real problem.

Adam-God theory? Fascinating- AND it can be seen as an answer to the old saw "Did God create man or did man create God?"

Both! God creates humanity in His human image, but how did God get that human image. ?? 

But you hear that once, and that's it!

It's not a solvable question! It's a paradox! 

Death before the fall? It's interpretation. Human death before there were humans? Impossible.

Who cares about animal death? The interpretation is always the answer. Clearly the only interpretation that makes sense is that it's speaking of human spiritual death.

So once you see the answer to the alleged problem, it's over.

Why keep beating a dead horse?

 

I’m not communicating clearly enough what my issue is.  My bad.  Moving on. 

[bluebell]

I do think there is value in brining up outdated sermons in certain contexts, because it reminds us that we are likely surrounded by some current sermons that will one day fit the same bill and that we should proceed with caution rather than just accept everything a leader says as the will of God.

 

[MustardSeed]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do think there is value in brining up outdated sermons in certain contexts, because it reminds us that we are likely surrounded by some current sermons that will one day fit the same bill and that we should proceed with caution rather than just accept everything a leader says as the will of God.

 

Well in one sentence you said it best. This is why I appreciate you! Thank you.