Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Is it any wonder why the church so often falls behind the curve?

This right here is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Your perception is that "the church so often falls behind the curve.” 

What is the curve the church often falls behind? It’s your perception of morality.

But who’s to say that your perception of morality is correct? Even if your perception of morality is in line with the current general public opinion, this doesn’t prove anything, because God’s take on morality isn’t impacted in the least by public opinion or individual perception. 

Edited January 27, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

One wonders what things President Nelson says today might be ignored and tossed away 50 years from now.  Seems pretty common for the church to do this.

Do you really "wonder" at this?

What about his denunciations of elective abortion?  What about his statements pertaining to marriage as being between a man and a woman?  Or about the Law of Chastity?  Seems like abortion and gay sex/marriage are the two  big "I hope the Brethren eventually come around to my sociopolitical perspective on this"-style topics. 

Any others?  Can you think of statements he has made that might reasonably be construed as problematic by members of the Church in 50 years?

No idea.

So your "One wonders" comment about Pres. Nelson is purely theoretical, with no conceivable yes-this-could-really-happen application?

I sort of find that . . . meaningful.  It's almost as if the Brethren, cumulatively speaking, and generation-over-generation, are getting better at leading the Church.

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't have the agenda you want to seem to like to impugn to others that I have bolded above. 

I was not intending to suggest that, and I apologize for giving that impression.

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I do not see this ever happening. 

Nor do I.  Again, I find that rather meaningful.

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I imagine McConkie, Peterson and others felt pretty confident in their now tossed under the bus comments on race and the priesthood ban.  As did Brigham Young and others about polygamy.  

And yet we cannot formulate any hypothetical for comments from Pres. Nelson being "tossed under the bus" 50 years from now.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 28, 2023 by smac97

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

This right here is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Your perception is that "the church so often falls behind the curve.” 

What is the curve the church often falls behind? It’s your perception of morality.

The church has evolved on social issues.  This is hard to deny.  From my perception, this evolution is slower then the general curve.  You may argue that the church is wrong to evolve on these issues, but you would be an outlier. 

You are correct that this is based on my perception of morality, just as your comments are based on your perception of morality.  That is how relativity works.  

Quote

But who’s to say that your perception of morality is correct?

Who's to say yours is?  I don't believe that man can know absolutes with absolute certainty - that is why faith is required.  We hope that we are right; and I try to follow the spirit as best as possible, as I am sure you do too.  We test the seeds and have some spiritual confirmation in the fruits.  It is all faith based. 

Quote

Even if your perception of morality is in line with the current general public opinion, this doesn’t prove anything, because God’s take on morality isn’t impacted in the least by public opinion or individual perception. 

I agree.  Again, because of relativity.  In my view, God's truth is absolute.  Ours is not.  Ours is relative to time, place, culture, experience, perspective, etc.  We cannot absolutely confirm absolute truth without an absolute perspective as God has.  Hence, faith.   

Edited January 27, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

From my perception, this evolution is slower then the general curve. 

I think when you factor in everything, whether someone behaves more morally because a change of heart or because they want to appear good in society’s eyes (think of the study that said 1/3 of college guys would rape someone if they knew they would get away with it and yet supposedly college would be at the forefront of progressive morality such as civil rights for minorities and women) as well as if the behaviour is superficial in its effect or highly impactful (think all those government programs promoting equality and there is still massive discrimination that goes unrecognized by many as discrimination), my guess is we are not that far, if any, behind the curve generally speaking. I think change tends to be deeper when it is attached to religious belief.

Not sure how to prove it though.  Too bad we don’t have longitudinal studies on racism and prejudices in the Church vs general society. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I think when you factor in everything, whether someone behaves more morally because a change of heart or because they want to appear good in society’s eyes (think of the study that said 1/3 of college guys would rape someone if they knew they would get away with it and yet supposedly college would be at the forefront of progressive morality such as civil rights for minorities and women) as well as if the behaviour is superficial in its effect or highly impactful (think all those government programs promoting equality and there is still massive discrimination that goes unrecognized by many as discrimination), my guess is we are not that far, if any, behind the curve generally speaking. I think change tends to be deeper when it is attached to religious belief.

Not sure how to prove it though.  Too bad we don’t have longitudinal studies on racism and prejudices in the Church vs general society. 

My view is that dogma tends to hold religion behind the curve in general.   The way I perceive that working in our church is like this - Besides the standard works, we are taught that we can know official doctrine of the church in this way: 

Quote

Repeated teachings from the current General Authorities and officers. An additional source to evaluate whether something may be considered part of official Latter-day Saint doctrine is if something is being taught collectively by the current general Church authorities and officers acting in their official capacity. For example, currently many in Church leadership are making a pronounced effort to increase devotion to the Sabbath day and meaning to the ordinance of the sacrament, with Church leaders sending training videos and other materials to Church leaders for dissemination in their wards and branches. In another example, a supportive doctrine of Christ’s atonement—his “enabling power” or “strengthening power”—has been oft-repeated in official Church settings by Church officers acting in their capacity.[42] However, the phrase “enabling power” is not found in the standard works, nor is it found in any known official united statement by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.[43] Undoubtedly, however, Jesus Christ’s enabling power is an official, supportive doctrine of the Church as it is oft-repeated and taught collectively by numerous Church officers acting in their official capacity. Venues of delivering authorized Church doctrine by Church officers include general conference addresses, worldwide leadership trainings and broadcasts, regional conferences, and trainings and seminars for ecclesiastical leaders.

There is safety in the cumulative teachings of general Church officers. Though many doctrines are emphasized, those that have staying power and find their way into the talks and statements delivered to the membership of the Church by numerous authorities can be trusted more than individual statements. As the LDS Newsroom article “Approaching Mormon Doctrine” reminds, “A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding [doctrine] for the whole Church.”[44] As Elder Neil L. Andersen said, “The doctrine of the Church . . . is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.”

https://rsc.byu.edu/foundations-restoration/evaluating-latter-day-saint-doctrine

That posses a significant problem when the repeated and consistent teachings of the General Authorities relative to a period of time, and which are justified by their interpretation of scripture turns out not to be “eternal truth” and unchanging doctrine, but rather bias of the time turned into dogma.   Dogma can be perceived and practically speaking is treated as official doctrine in that way.  When doctrine is also taught as "unchanging", and dogma is confused as doctrine, then dogma becomes an anchor that holds the church back.   I think we saw this with many teachings regarding blacks which have only relatively recently been officially disavowed.  Curse of Cain and other related teachings, for example.  The prophets point to it in scripture and repeatedly and consistently teach it for decades and decades.  Dogma becomes indistinguishable from doctrine.  For all intents and purposes they are one and the same under this definition. 

The purpose of doctrine is to anchor us to absolute and unchanging truth:

Quote

 

Doctrine does not change—rather, it changes us, and it changes those we teach.

All doctrine is revealed by God.  Doctrine is eternal truth revealed by God.  
It is unchanging and applicable to all of God's children in the history of the world.  

(quotes are from the video produced by the church)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2019-10-0150-what-is-doctrine?lang=eng

 

So, when people think that something is doctrine, they will resist change with everything they have.  That slows us down.  

That is the problem with absolutism.  It resists evolution and change. 

Naturally, relativism can potentially lead to the opposite problem of liberal progressive change that offends our sense of morality in many ways.  I feel confident that God does not condone all "progression" in social issues. 

That is why I like the paradigm I use of believing that absolute truth exists, but that our relation to it is relative.  It keeps us humble and ever leaning on the Spirit for guidance.  It both anchors us in humility and caution, but frees us to progress beyond dogmatism.   

After all, even the church acknowledges that our understanding of doctrine can evolve and change over time.   That is exactly what I am saying.  Our understanding of doctrine (absolute truth) is relative.  It changes.  Period.  

Quote

As we grow in obedience and understanding, our understanding of Christ and His doctrine will change.
Our knowledge of God's doctrine is always growing, and our understanding is continuously expanded. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2019-10-0150-what-is-doctrine?lang=eng

Absolute truth exists, but we only exist relative to it and can't perceive it as it is.  We can't know that our understanding wont evolve.  And sometimes we are just dead flat wrong (blacks) about doctrine. 

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by pogi

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

you would be an outlier. 

Whether or not someone is an outlier has no bearing in and of itself on whether they are right or wrong. Many examples can be provided in the scriptures and history of the outliers with unpopular views being right and the masses being wrong. And vice versa. 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Who's to say yours is?  I don't believe that man can know absolutes with absolute certainty - that is why faith is required.  We hope that we are right; and I try to follow the spirit as best as possible, as I am sure you do too.  We test the seeds and have some spiritual confirmation in the fruits.  It is all faith based. 

I would suggest that the best way to determine whether or not our perception of morality is in harmony with God’s is to measure our beliefs against God’s word in the scriptures. This is something concrete that can be measured against.

Everyone just trying to "follow the spirit as best as possible" is not something that can be measured. That would basically leave us with everyone just believing and doing whatever they feel like, which would no doubt be heavily influenced by what is popular in society at the present. Under this approach the odds of being in harmony with God’s will are pretty slim.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

In my view, God's truth is absolute.  Ours is not.  Ours is relative to time, place, culture, experience, perspective, etc. 

Agreed. So how do we find God’s truth? 

For most believers this is through searching the scriptures and prayer. 

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Whether or not someone is an outlier has no bearing in and of itself on whether they are right or wrong. Many examples can be provided in the scriptures and history of the outliers with unpopular views being right and the masses being wrong. And vice versa. 

As a relativist, I don’t see “right and wrong” in the same black and white ways that perhaps you do.  I am not suggesting that outliers are “wrong” in any absolute sense that you are using the term, but the conservative church would disagree with your position - if that matters to you. 

36 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I would suggest that the best way to determine whether or not our perception of morality is in harmony with God’s is to measure our beliefs against God’s word in the scriptures. This is something concrete that can be measured against.

Clearly our interpretations of scripture are just as relative as anything else.   There is nothing “concrete” about how we interpret scripture.  It would be impossible to find 2 members who interpret all scripture the same.  So where is the concreteness?

36 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Everyone just trying to "follow the spirit as best as possible" is not something that can be measured.

That is why it is an individual and relative matter.  It is measured individually by the fruits - that is personal.  No one else can know what I experience as fruits of the spirit.  This is by design.

36 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

That would basically leave us with everyone just believing and doing whatever they feel like, which would no doubt be heavily influenced by what is popular in society at the present. Under this approach the odds of being in harmony with God’s will are pretty slim.

That is Gods will.  We will be judged by what we have done with the personal and private individualized light we have been given. 

We rely on faith.  If we could know absolute truth with absolute certainty, then faith would be dead.  That is not the plan.  We feel our way, individually, towards God.  The scriptures and prophets and reason and personal revelation all serve to keep us straying too far if we strive for humility and righteousness.

36 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Agreed. So how do we find God’s truth? 

For most believers this is through searching the scriptures and prayer. 

What you are agreeing to is relativism.  Man’s perspective of truth is relative.  It is inescapable.
That’s how I try to align with it too.  I don’t pretend that I will ever know Gods absolute truth with absolute certainty until I am God and have his perspective, but I believe that I can ever approach it progressively.  When I am at my best, that view keeps me humble and teachable.  It anchors me to my relative spiritual truths and yet allows me to admit that I may be wrong and progress in light and knowledge.  Until then, I walk by faith in a relative experience of life.

Edited January 28, 2023 by pogi

[Grug the Neanderthal]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

I’m a relativist.  I don’t see “right and wrong” in the same black and white ways you do.

Are you saying that you don’t believe that there ultimately is a right and wrong in God’s view? And that what actually constitutes right and wrong is relative to the perspectives of individuals, not what God has said or thinks?

If I’m misunderstanding you, please clarify. 
 

12 hours ago, pogi said:

the conservative church would disagree with your position

Which position of mine are you claiming the “conservative church" disagrees with? That God’s views on right and wrong are what matter and not what the philosophies of men say about right and wrong? Because that’s the only position I’ve taken so far. 

12 hours ago, pogi said:

Clearly our interpretations of scripture are just as relative as anything else.   There is nothing “concrete” about how we interpret scripture.  It would be impossible to find 2 members who interpret all scripture the same.  So where is the concreteness?

There are many things contained in the scriptures that are concrete and not open to interpretation. In fact there many concrete things contained in the scriptures that directly relate to the issue of past and present teachings and policies regarding race and other social issues with in the church.

Is your belief then that what the scriptures have to say is irrelevant and we can just set it aside and follow whatever it is we choose to believe?

Because if that’s the case, I can confidently say that the “conservative church" disagrees with you. 

12 hours ago, pogi said:

12 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[california boy]

53 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There are many things contained in the scriptures that are concrete and not open to interpretation. In fact there many concrete things contained in the scriptures that directly relate to the issue of past and present teachings and policies regarding race and other social issues with in the church.

Could you list just 10 things in the scriptures that are concrete and not open to interpretation?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Murder is unforgiveable

Except for Nephi, the anti Nephi Lehites, and when Samuel told Saul to “go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (of obedience is better than sacrifice fame). 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Could you list just 10 things in the scriptures that are concrete and not open to interpretation?

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God

2. God created heaven and earth

3. Jesus suffered and died to pay for the sins of the world

4. Jesus was resurrected on the third day and broke the bands of death

5. Jesus healed the sick

6. Jesus raised the dead

7. Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip

8. Jesus had a crown of thorns placed on his head

9. Jesus was crucified 

10. Jesus said "If ye love me keep my commandments.”

11. Jesus gave many commandments.

12. Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan by John the Baptist

13. Jesus walked on water

14. Jesus calmed the storm

15. Jesus turned water into wine

16. Jesus said that baptism is required for salvation 

18. Jesus said that the path to eternal life is straight and narrow and few find it

20. Jesus taught many parables and interpreted many of them.

21. Jesus command all men to repent or they must suffer for their own sins

I can provide thousands of examples like these. And among these are things that are relevant to the church’s past and present teachings on race and other social issues. 

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

Wow.  I guess it helps you to disparage others? Do you better now? This is a discussion board.  I hardly worry about such things outside of this board. And thinking critically about this here is hardly obsessing.

 

But guess what Bernard.  I invested a significant part of my life in your church. It has had impact on means my family and my friends.  And I still have family and friends involved.  So I am  I am sorry if it hurts your feeling that I am critical of men you claim to be prophets, seers and revelator to such an extent that you need to be disparaging.  It is not my fault that they seem to expect to be followed fairly unquestionably but get so much wrong. The apologetic course has become such that the apologist has to downplay their role in ways they never do themselves.  

Don’t be sorry. You can’t hurt my feelings. 

Making an observation that you appear to be obsessed with LDS leaders is not disparaging. 

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

The metrics of the thread topic.

The topic is about historical speech, but you refer to current leaders.

Quote

The leaders claim to be prophets, seer and revelators. Yet their track record is no better than any other human leaders.  Thus I treat what they say as thus

What metric are you using to compare current leaders with others?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God

2. God created heaven and earth

3. Jesus suffered and died to pay for the sins of the world

4. Jesus was resurrected on the third day and broke the bands of death

5. Jesus healed the sick

6. Jesus raised the dead

7. Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip

8. Jesus had a crown of thorns placed on his head

9. Jesus was crucified 

10. Jesus said "If ye love me keep my commandments.”

11. Jesus gave many commandments.

12. Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan by John the Baptist

13. Jesus walked on water

14. Jesus calmed the storm

15. Jesus turned water into wine

16. Jesus said that baptism is required for salvation 

18. Jesus said that the path to eternal life is straight and narrow and few find it

20. Jesus taught many parables and interpreted many of them.

21. Jesus command all men to repent or they must suffer for their own sins

I can provide thousands of examples like these. And among these are things that are relevant to the church’s past and present teachings on race and other social issues. 

 

 

Let’s start with #1.  What we mean by son of God is not the same as what trinitarians believe.  We may use the same words, but it doesn’t mean the same thing.  There are subtleties and nuances and differences of interpretation on the most basic and fundamental principles.  You can’t say “God” without conjuring up thousands of different perspectives and interpretations of what “God” even means, even within our own faith.  Same with “Jesus”.  That pretty much takes care of the rest of the passages you site.

For fun, let’s look at #2.  1) What is God?, 2) what is heaven spoken of in this passage?  The sky?  Gods abode?  Does God abide in the sky (“There’s a better home awaiting in the sky Lord, in the sky”)? What is heaven?  What does it mean that God created the earth?  Again we may use the same words, but that means different things to different people.  For some creation was ex-nihlo over 7 days, for example.  For others it was “organized” over billions of years.  What Mormons mean by created is not the same as what Catholics mean.  Even within our religion there are many different interpretations of the single word “created”. 

Yes, we use the same language, but it means different things to different people. The way we understand and interpret that language is entirely relative.  Wherever language is used, relative interpretation and understanding exists, and the scriptures are no exception.

I think you would be hard pressed to start a thread asking “what does _____ mean in the scriptures to you” without finding disagreement and diversity of opinions on anything you fill in the blank with.  Do yourself a favor, don’t start with “horse”.  Some don’t believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon but still uphold it as scripture.  It simply is interpreted in different relative ways on so many different levels.  

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by pogi

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Let’s start with #1.  What we mean by son of God is not the same as what trinitarians believe.  We may use the same words, but it doesn’t mean the same thing.  There are subtleties and nuances and differences of interpretation on the most basic and fundamental principles.  You can’t say “God” without conjuring up thousands of different perspectives and interpretations of what “God” even means, even within our own faith.  Same with “Jesus”.  That pretty much takes care of the rest of the passages you site.

Words mean what they mean. If someone were to declare that Jesus is NOT the son of God. We can easily show that they are wrong from the scriptures, regardless of differing beliefs about what the exact relationship between Father and Son is.

Plus there are many things about the nature of God written in the scriptures which tell us a great deal about who/what God is and what our relationship with God is. In my opinion extreme differences in understanding the nature of God are because people choose to reject or twist things in the scriptures they disagree with, not because they interpret them differently. 

Same goes for the rest of the list. These things are concrete. 

5 hours ago, pogi said:

For fun, let’s look at #2.  1) What is God?, 2) what is heaven spoken of in this passage?  The sky?  Gods abode?  Does God abide in the sky (“There’s a better home awaiting in the sky Lord, in the sky”)? What is heaven?  What does it mean that God created the earth?  Again we may use the same words, but that means different things to different people.  For some creation was ex-nihlo over 7 days, for example.  For others it was “organized” over billions of years.  What Mormons mean by created is not the same as what Catholics mean.  Even within our religion there are many different interpretations of the single word “created”. 

Again, if someone were to declare that there is no God and that God did NOT create heaven and earth, we can easily show from the scriptures that this is false, regardless of differing views on what the nature of God is, where heaven is, how God created the earth, etc. 

It sounds like you don’t believe we should use the actual words of God contained in the scriptures as a measuring stick for truth. Instead we should pick and choose what we believe in the scriptures and what we don’t as we see fit and all create our own “truth" relative to our own perception, which is heavily influenced by the culture and social norms we live in. Which then creates countless different "truths" with literally nothing to guide us to know what is or isn’t actually true. 

And this method also makes it impossible to come to a consensus about any point of doctrine or make a single declaration that a belief or teaching is right or wrong, which includes past and present teachings of apostles and other church leaders about social issues. 

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

So your "One wonders" comment about Pres. Nelson is purely theoretical, with no conceivable yes-this-could-really-happen application?

Dude it was simple speculative rhetoric based on the way you and others equivocate and past leaders word as to they.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I sort of find that . . . meaningful.  It's almost as if the Brethren, cumulatively speaking, and generation-over-generation, are getting better at leading the Church.

Maybe.  How about tossing using Mormon.  It seems pretty clear this was a pet peeve of the current President and even one of his predecessors publically sort of scolded then ELder Nelson about his conternation over the church being called the Mormon Church.  President Monson led the Meet the Mormons campaign.  Were Monson and Hinkley not inspired or did they not get revelation?  Suddenly now Nelson is in power he can change things.  Maybe a small thing over all but still I would not be surprised if some other church president allows the use of Mormon again.  And while I do not see homesexual marrige aven being sacntioned but the church if they did they would simply say ignore what we said in the past. We were speaking under limited light and knowledge like they have over the priesthood ban.  Yet when past leaders spoke on this they did not speak with speculative qualification.  And they were apparently wrong.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I was not intending to suggest that, and I apologize for giving that impression.

Nor do I.  Again, I find that rather meaningful.

And yet we cannot formulate any hypothetical for comments from Pres. Nelson being "tossed under the bus" 50 years from now.

Thanks,

-Smac

See above.  but yea maybe it is tough to nail something down because it seems the leaders know how problematic all the used to be bold proclamations and things past leaders said are to them now.  So they are cautious and have pretty much watered down what they say.  

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Don’t be sorry. You can’t hurt my feelings. 

Making an observation that you appear to be obsessed with LDS leaders is not disparaging. 

I disagree.  And it is a rather specious observation on a discussion board in a topic about LDS leaders.  And on a board that invites critics and believer to participate. 

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The topic is about historical speech, but you refer to current leaders.

Past leaders who got a lot wrong means current one's as well

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What metric are you using to compare current leaders with others?

What are you looking for?  I just look at what the past leaders say and see the poor track record they have had on getting some major thing correct.  If they got big things wrong so can the current ones.  Quite simple and not hard to grasp.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God

2. God created heaven and earth

3. Jesus suffered and died to pay for the sins of the world

4. Jesus was resurrected on the third day and broke the bands of death

5. Jesus healed the sick

6. Jesus raised the dead

7. Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip

8. Jesus had a crown of thorns placed on his head

9. Jesus was crucified 

10. Jesus said "If ye love me keep my commandments.”

11. Jesus gave many commandments.

12. Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan by John the Baptist

13. Jesus walked on water

14. Jesus calmed the storm

15. Jesus turned water into wine

16. Jesus said that baptism is required for salvation 

18. Jesus said that the path to eternal life is straight and narrow and few find it

20. Jesus taught many parables and interpreted many of them.

21. Jesus command all men to repent or they must suffer for their own sins

I can provide thousands of examples like these. And among these are things that are relevant to the church’s past and present teachings on race and other social issues. 

 

 

So not a single concrete commandment or gospel principle.  Just stories about Christ that have to be taken on faith.  How does these examples you gave give us answers to how we are to follow God that are concrete?

[california boy]

13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except for Nephi, the anti Nephi Lehites, and when Samuel told Saul to “go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (of obedience is better than sacrifice fame). 

More than that.  Millions of innocent people have been murdered in war that was all able to be justified in the name of God. Millions.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

So not a single concrete commandment or gospel principle.

That’s not what you asked for, but I can provide plenty of those, too. 

And I did mention two concrete commandments, to repent and to be baptized. And I can provide many, many more examples.

[pogi]

17 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Are you saying that you don’t believe that there ultimately is a right and wrong in God’s view?

God's view is not our view.  It is relative.  God's truth is absolute because of his holistic perspective.  Our truth is not.  God's view is relative to what he can perceive - everything (making it absolute).   Our view is relative to only what we can perceive.  In that way absolutism and relativism don't have to be mutually exclusive ideas.  They simply describe limited perspective of man vs the holistic perspective of God. 

17 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And that what actually constitutes right and wrong is relative to the perspectives of individuals, not what God has said or thinks?

God's truth is relative to God's absolute position.  Our truth is relative to our restricted and limited position.  

17 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Is your belief then that what the scriptures have to say is irrelevant and we can just set it aside and follow whatever it is we choose to believe?

The scriptures are an imperfect picture, they are an approximation.  They do not absolutely correspond with absolute truth of God.  There is no perfect correspondence in mortality.  Such an endeavor is futile.  God's ways are not our ways.  His thoughts are not our thoughts.  His truth therefore, is not our truth.  What we have been provided is a way to eventually and ultimately remove all limiting filters and expand our perspective until it ultimately aligns in oneness with God's truth, as we become God.  

Think of God's absolute truth like an incomprehensibly large picture on a screen with almost infinite number of pixels.   Each pixel cannot be understood and perceived as it is intended in isolation from the other pixels.  A few yellow pixel independent from the intermingled blue pixels will not be interpreted as intended to be perceived as green, for example.  The whole is greater then the sum of its parts.  Absolute truth cannot be understood proper without perceiving of that wholeness.  The pixels that have been revealed to us are extremely limited.  The give us enough to provide a path of enlarging our perspective and improving our interpretation over time, a process that will continue on for millennia before exaltation and wholeness/oneness of perspective of the absolute is achieved.  Our perspective and interpretation of the few pixels we have now can is in no be considered absolute in isolation from what we do not have.  What we have is relative.  It places us on a path of progression of understanding.

This is what I believe:

Quote

 

As we grow in obedience and understanding, our understanding of Christ and His doctrine will change.
Our knowledge of God's doctrine is always growing, and our understanding is continuously expanded. 

[In other words, our truth will change.  It is relative]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2019-10-0150-what-is-doctrine?lang=eng

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by pogi

[The Great Pretender]

On 1/27/2023 at 5:04 PM, smac97 said:

B) Avoidance/Mitigation of Presentism: "Presentism," that is, "uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts," is a poor basis for either generalized historiography or passing condemnatory moral judgments on people long dead.  It "transforms the study of history from an intellectually honest inquiry into a mass of politically and emotionally charged means of furthering political and social agendas that have nothing to do with a genuine intellectual interest in learning the cultural roots of our current cultural ideals and realities."  It is, "at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation" because "{i}nterpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior."  Consequently, "{o}ur forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards."  Presentism therefore ought to be avoided, or at lease acknowledged and addressed in discussions such as these, as it enables us to contextualize and understand the past, and therefore take lessons in both emulating our predecessors' virtues and strengths and avoiding or overcoming their weaknesses and failures.  That is, of course, "not to say that any of these findings are irrelevant or that we should endorse an entirely relativist point of view."  Rather, "we must question the stance of temporal superiority that is implicit {in presentism}."  Historical figures ought to be viewed in ways that involve more than condemning them for their failures and mistakes and errors. 

Does "presentism" apply to prophets?

Our own material states that prophets (and I believe we have 15 of them) prophesy of the future: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2001/11/prophets-prophesy-of-the-future?lang=eng.

By all means defend Elder Petersen's material on race. Personally, I find it revolting and twisted. He had served as a prophet (though not the prophet with all keys) for 10 years when he made a statement that should have been accepted as prophecy, and he continued to serve for another 30 years after the event — without retracting it. You need a reminder? He referred to what will happen in the Celestial Kingdom, implying he had knowledge of the hereafter since the Celestial Kingdom remains a long way ahead, even now.

He was doing what we believe Moroni did in prophesying about the future: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-and-doctrine-of-the-book-of-mormon-teacher-manual/lesson-6-the-book-of-mormon-was-written-for-our-day?lang=eng

Surely modern-day prophets should be far more visionary than those who lived a primitive (even savage) version of the gospel? Should we really cut a prophet some slack when he oversteps the mark? I am now tempted to be negative about certain prophecies, but I'll step back from the precipice and prepare for the Sabbath instead.

Edited January 28, 2023 by The Great Pretender

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Words mean what they mean.

Words are like the pixels I described above.  They have different meanings in different contexts and from different perspectives.  We give words meaning by how we interpret them from our context.  That might not align with how the author intended.  Words don't have inherent absolute meaning in and of themselves.    "God" is meaningless without context.  Even with the comprehensive context of all LDS scripture, we still interpret "God" to mean different things.  Our context is limited.  God's context is absolute.  Scriptures do not provide an absolute context to provide incontrovertible and absolute black and white meaning.  We all interpret them differently.  

6 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

It sounds like you don’t believe we should use the actual words of God contained in the scriptures as a measuring stick for truth.

The scriptures are one of several tools we can use to set us on a path of spiritual development towards oneness with God.  They cannot be used in isolation. Even when all the tools available to us are employed, we will not see "God" in the same way.  It simply will never be absolute until we are God's ourselves.  We see through a glass darkly in mortality.  

6 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Instead we should pick and choose what we believe in the scriptures and what we don’t as we see fit and all create our own “truth" relative to our own perception, which is heavily influenced by the culture and social norms we live in. Which then creates countless different "truths" with literally nothing to guide us to know what is or isn’t actually true. 

Even the church picks and chooses what to believe in scripture. The scriptures are not the ultimate authority.  We are not sola-scripturians.  We are not scriptural literalists.  We are all cafeteria Mormons, like it or not. 

6 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And this method also makes it impossible to come to a consensus about any point of doctrine or make a single declaration that a belief or teaching is right or wrong, which includes past and present teachings of apostles and other church leaders about social issues. 

Human consensus is never going to align with God's view in any absolute sense.  Limited consensus can be achieved in different groups and has happened within the church.  But we have seen that consensus is not stationary and our understanding of what we had consensus on at one point can evolve.  

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by pogi

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

That’s not what you asked for, but I can provide plenty of those, too. 

And I did mention two concrete commandments, to repent and to be baptized. And I can provide many, many more examples.

You made this statement

 

Quote

In fact there many concrete things contained in the scriptures that directly relate to the issue of past and present teachings and policies regarding race and other social issues with in the church.

I am asking you to provide just 10 things in the scriptures directly related to the issue of past and present teachings and policies regarding race and other social issues that everyone can agree with found in the scriptures.  

Can you give 10 teachings or principles from the scriptures that everyone can agree on as you have claimed????  If you want to include the two you mentioned, I would be glad to comment on those as part of your list.