Tim Ballard

[ttribe]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think you are right.  You usually have to get Jim Jones (the People's Temple was considered protestant) sized trouble to make the national news.  Lots of odd protestant churches out there.  Like the Remnant  Fellowship started by Gwen Shamblin.   She became a prophetess and started her own church after having some mild success leading workshops teaching people how to pray away the pounds and that being fat meant you needed to repent.

Oh, there are A LOT of wack-a-doodles who come out of various evangelical churches, for sure. Gwen's a good recent example (love that HAIR), but certainly there are notable ones such as Jim Jones (which you referenced), as well as David Koresh, Hyung Jin Moon's gun church thing in Pennsylvania, Westboro Baptist Church, Bill Gothard's IBLP, and on and on and on and on.  Some are just fringe weird stuff but are otherwise harmless, but some are truly deadly. I think one thing that's unique about our LDS wack-a-doodles is that the Church is much more centralized in its source(s) of policy, direction, and doctrine so it's a little more shocking when someone goes so far off script.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I think your observations are spot on.  In my experience, attempts by Dehlin and crew to create a post LDS community have not been successful for the very reason you describe.  Early on Dehlin tried to encourage creation of Mormon Stories Communities in various geographical areas that might have post Latter-day Saints in a critical mass.  That started and stopped and started and sputtered.  And there were a number of reasons.   Some were a bit unseemly in some things that I recall hearing happening in the some groups.  Later Thrive came along but while still around its activities seem limited and also more driven by individuals wanting to organize  groups.  If I recall the last large conference they had may have attracted 500 ot so attendees.  See here for Thrive:

https://www.thrivebeyondreligion.com/

 

 

Wait! You mean exmos aren't some monolithic group of people who worship at the altar of John Dehlin and are waiting with bated breath for his next podcast?! I feel so disillusioned! It can't be!

BTW, IMO, John's an attention-seeking opportunist who likes the spotlight just a bit too much. But, I know his stuff has been helpful to some people.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

BTW, IMO, John's an attention-seeking opportunist who likes the spotlight just a bit too much. But, I know his stuff has been helpful to some people.

He's one of the "experts" that Nightline used on their recent documentary on Ruby Franke.  I have no idea why he's on there as he provideD nothing of any substance to the program.  

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Didn’t we have polygamist fundamental prophet here once? A splinter group from a splinter group sort of thing? I think he has a website, too. 

Was that the guy that said that black people are basically a separate species?

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He's one of the "experts" that Nightline used on their recent documentary on Ruby Franke.  I have no idea why he's on there as he provideD nothing of any substance to the program.  

Attention-seeking opportunist...everybody's got a talent.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Attention-seeking opportunist...everybody's got a talent.

Yep, Tim Ballard has joined a long and glorious tradition.

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yep, Tim Ballard has joined a long and glorious tradition.

Yeah, well, he took the next step to full-blown conman.

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yeah, well, he took the next step to full-blown conman.

I just wish he was the fun kind.

The kind that starts a boy's band to counter the plague of billiards or recommends a superfluous monorail system.

[Analytics]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

But you are not addressing my point (repeated several times over), which is that "most philosophical and belief systems are susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse."

I'll address it.

But first, who gets to decide whether a sincere believer is distorting or misusing his belief system?

It seems a fundamental area where you and I disagree is that you think real Mormonism is a tight, well-defined set of beliefs and behaviors that is internally consistent. You think that if anybody's beliefs are either more liberal or more extreme than your own, they aren't real Mormons and are somehow distorting or misusing the religion. You think if Mormonism inspires somebody to be a good humanist, Mormonism deserves the credit. But if it inspires somebody to be a fundamentalist wacko, Mormonism deserves none of the blame.

From my perspective, Mormonism is an evolving religion filled with inconsistent ideas, teachings, and practices. Furthermore, many of these ideas and teachings imply that there are deeper levels of light and knowledge that only become available once you've proven your faithfulness. The concept that baptismal covenants lead to the Aaronic priesthood which leads to the Melchizedek priesthood which leads to being endowed and anointed in the temple which eventually leads to an esoteric second anointing which will then lead to the second comforter which will then eventually lead to becoming a god is an invitation to extremism. It's part of the plan. 

How one should apply the teachings of the Church to your life isn't always consistent. Sometimes the Liahona is going to point to somewhere other than where the iron rod leads. Sometimes things that are true aren't useful. Sometimes you are told to multiply and replenish the earth while the fruit required to do so is forbidden. You are told to search the scriptures and told that they contain the canonical doctrines, but are then told to follow the brethren. Sometimes prophets think that upholding the reputation of the Church is more important than being honest with members, investigators, and the public about what it really teaches (e.g. lies about polygamy, and misleading members about its financial holdings). The Church asks you to make extreme covenants, but then occasionally counsels against extremism. But is that with a wink like when they canonized denials of polygamy in the D&C in 1835? The Church teaches murder is wrong, but also teaches that on occasion angels command you to murder and that when you receive such a commandment you ought to obey it.

When people believe that the Church is a source of truth, it shouldn't be surprising that they come to different conclusions. Some won't take it very seriously and will just live their lives as good humanists who happen to be members of the Latter-day Saint community. Others will take it more seriously but will put a premium on trying to be the model Mormon that the hierarchy displays. But it shouldn't be surprising that some people who take it seriously will go down one of the faith's rabbit holes and become "extremists" in one way or another.

All I saw @Teancum doing was acknowledging the reality that Mormonism has a relatively large number of rabbit holes for people susceptible to extremism to fall into. Acknowledging this reality is neither disparaging nor indicting people who are more lukewarm in their devotion.

But what about extremism in general? Richard Dawkins says in The God Decision:

Why would anyone want to destroy the World Trade Center and everybody in it? To call bin Laden ‘evil’ is to evade our responsibility to give a proper answer to such an important question. The answer to this question is obvious—if only because it has been patiently articulated ad nauseam by bin Laden himself. The answer is that men like bin Laden actually believe what they say they believe. They believe in the literal truth of the Koran. Why did nineteen well-educated middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed that they would go straight to paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of humans so fully and satisfactorily explained....

But what is so hard for us to understand is that—to repeat the point because it is so important—these people actually believe what they say they believe. The take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism—as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent religion. Voltaire got it right long ago: ‘Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.’ So did Bertrand Russell: ‘Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do.’

As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers. The alternative, one so transparent that it should need no urging, is to abandon the principle of automatic respect for religious faith. This is one reason why I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself, not just against so-called ‘extremist’ faith. The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've never heard of Harrison,

Harrison is the "Spencer" in the book Visions of Glory by John Pontius.  But the book is really Harrison's narration of his claimed visions he says he had when he had three NED experiences.

 

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

Gileadi,

Author of a number of books in Isaiah. Was excommunicated in September 1993 and part of the "September 6."  Was reinstated a few days later.  Has continued  to write Isaiah books and focuses on end times. Seems to be a favorite of preppers and also says the book Visions of Glory is spot in on what the scriptures teach about end times.

 

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

 

or Parret. 

Founder of AVOW.

https://www.ldsavow.com/

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

What are each of them known for (other than I see that Gileadi writes a lot on Isaiah from your link, but I'm assuming there must be more to your problems with him than that).

See above.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dealing with critics and naysayers on this board since 2004 is also pretty "exhausting."  We're at a stalemate, like the trench warfare in WWI, with neither side gaining ground.  Notably, though, you and yours are the aggressors, with me pretty much always defending what you are attacking.

I imagine it is. I recall when I was the defender.  But ya know this board really is not trafficked, or so it seems, that much these days and at least as far as posters, it has been us regulars. 

But are we aggressors?  I guess.  From your viewpoint.  From mine there is no reason why Mormonism or any other religion or ideology is above reproach.  And there was a time when some LDS leaders seem to say that the Church should be challenged, and if false, it should be shown to be as such.

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Publicly accusing an already not-very-popular religious minority of things like "incubating" "murderers" is a pretty serious thing.

Ok. 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

If someone came along and publicly accused you of similarly horrible things, and if you publicly spoke in defense of yourself, I don't think you would take seriously the accuser's taunt that you are being "thin-skinned."

If I faithfully believed ideologies that led me to horrible and potentially murderous behavior then I would deserve the scrutiny.  

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

Well, at least you are being candid.  That's . . . something.

😁

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

But you are not addressing my point (repeated several times over), which is that "most philosophical and belief systems are susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse."

 

I have to say @Analyticsjust addressed this far better and more eloquently than I am able to.  I appreciated his remarks and agree with them.  I would be interested to see your comments to his remarks.

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

By your reasoning, the entire modern medical profession should be disparaged and indicted because some few of its members, in wanton violation of their Hippocratic Oath, professional obligations, and other laws of the land, inflict injuries on their patients.

By your reasoning, all Japanese people should be disparaged and indicted because of Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking, and other WWII atrocities.

By your reasoning, all German people should be disparaged and indicted because of the Holocaust.  

By your reasoning, all American people should be disparaged and indicted because of historical mistreatment of American Indians, the annexation of Hawai'i, the My Lai Massacre, and so on.

By your reasoning, all males should be should be disparaged and indicted because some few of them commit sexual assault and other forms of violence.

By your reasoning, all Muslims should be disparaged and indicted because of 9/11 (and, more recently, 10/7).

By your reasoning, all atheists should be disparaged and indicted because of the atrocities inflicted by atheistic regimes in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc.

By your reasoning, all Jesus should be disparaged and indicted because some of them killed Jesus 2,000 years ago.

 

 Well see I am not accusing all Latter-day Saints.  I am calling out the awful parts of LDS doctrine.  There really is a difference here. But for all you list above there are certainly dogma, ideologies and teachings that should be called out that in much of the above. But really the point a to point b argument you are making above, no I don't think it works and it is flawed. I reject it. I did not accuse YOU or any faithful LDS poster of carrying the odd and strange LDS doctrine to extremes and I think it highly unlikely any of you would do so (well they may be one here who I will not name.  😏)

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your "reasoning" is not reasonable, T.  It is mired in collective guilt and prejudice. 

I guess I don't follow your second sentence above.  Whose guilt and prejudice?

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

And given what just happened on 10/7, we ought to be paying attention to, and working to overcome, sentiments which tend to precipitate such terrible things.  Collective guilt is not reasonable.  Indicting entire communities and groups because of the misconduct of some few of its members is not reasonable.

But see I honestly do not think my comments are indicting an "entire community."  

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Funny, then, that even you concede that observant Latter-day Saints, in living according to the doctrines of their faith, end up being pretty decent people, often even very good people. 

Well there was nothing to concede because I neve argued that most practicing Latter-day Saints were not decent people.

 

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

You wouldn't expect that from a philosophical/religious belief system awash in "abhorrent" teachings.

Awash?  I guess you could extrapolate that if you really work at it.  Look, I have friends that are big MAGA groupies.  A number still think that the election was stolen from Trump.  I think there are core tenants that MAGA political views can lead to dangerous behavior, like we saw on January 6. I think Trump is a danger to our  democracy.  But my MAGA friends are pretty decent folks.  And I just watched the documentary The Insurrectionist Next Door.  Seems most of these on the show were decent and got caught up in some bad ideas. See there is a difference between what I am saying and how you are portraying it.

 

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I invite you to consider why you don't.  Might it be that you refrain because you are listening to your better angels?  And if so, what might those better angels have to say about the terrible things you so regularly say against your former faith and its adherents?

I think I gave you the why as to why I do not examine other faiths or ideologies. Let me repeat. My interest is in Mormonism.  And it is what I know best.  That seems pretty obvious. It dooes not mean I do not think there are not other religious ideologies that breed extremism and excessively. I believe I mentioned Islam and Christian Nationalism.

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Might it be that life is short, and time is to precious to spend on venting anger and venom and condemnation against entire populations of communities because some of their members engage in misconduct?  That such ugly habits might, in the end, become an exhausting and embittering and soul-destroying enterprise?

Smac, I spend little time doing such things. And I do not think I am doing anything  you describe. Your casting such a disparaging view of me or other critics is quite humorous really. I spend a little time here.  I don't think I put near the time into my posts here as you do. You lengthy and cumbersome posts must take a significant amount of time.  I spend no time outside of this board on these type of things.

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

.

Proceed as you see fit, of course.  In considering the legacy of Mr. Hitchens' generalized sentiments, I hope you give some consideration to the extensive rebuttal commentary from Daniel C. Peterson on his blog (here), which includes dozens, perhaps hundreds, of links to stories styled as entries in the "Christopher Hitchens Memorial 'How Religion Poisons Everything' File©" (DCP has a mildly sardonic sense of humor).  The links are to news items about the Church and its members, in large and small ways, serving other people (mostly people who are not members of the Church), and also to various scholarly materials about the physical and mental and emotional benefits of religiosity (including, but not limited to, the Church).

I gotta say this line and rabbit hole of your response left me rolling on the floor laughing. One brief sentence referencing Hitchens and how many things did you post and link to?  How long did that take you?  But I would have loved to see Hitchens and Dan Peterson debate. I would have even paid good money to do so.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Of all the communities in the world, you have chosen to indict and condemn the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose good works and efforts are amply attested to in the voluminous links above.  I hope in time you can turn away from the selective misanthropy or whatever it is that drives such animosity, and at least find some level of détente relative to your former faith and its adherents.  And then, maybe with more time, you could even come to see that its virtues and strengths outweigh its failures and weaknesses.

Kinda hard to gauge the effectiveness of the Church in persuading its members to not do something.  If those efforts are made, and if they are successful, how would you know it?

I do.  From personal experience, from observations, from the data - both systemic and anecdotal.

Again, take a look at the news items that DCP has accumulated as a rebuttal to Mr. Hitchens.  How likely is it that the substantial goodness and decency of observant Latter-day Saints have nothing to do with their being observant Latter-day Saints?

I don't really know what this means.  Conclusory denigrations like "chock full of weirdness that can be taken to extremes" do not illuminate, particularly given all the good that the Church does, and given that the the "taken to extremes" thing is something the Church is encouraging its members not to do.

If the Church was the terrible and malignant community you seem to want it to be, if it was inducing people into debaucheries and depravities and atrocities, I could understand you feeling "contempt" for it.  As it is, though, I don't get the junction between you being familiar with the Church and you "hold{ing} more contempt" for it, particularly given, as you seem to acknowledge, that the doctrines of the Church, when observed and followed in day-to-day living, tend to create pretty good people.  And as DCP has amply noted above, the Church is also doing a lot of good in the world.

I respectfully submit that the Church's virtues far outweigh its flaws. 

I do not see much symmetry between what you do and what I do.  I am not interested in publicly disparaging and insulting other religious groups.  As far as defending religious groups, much of what I say on this board can be applied ecumenically, and many of the above links from DCP also demonstrate the merits and virtues of other religious groups.

So religionists are motivated by their worldview, but humanists are not?  How do you figure?

When a Latter-day Saint engages in sexual misconduct, he has to either A) substantially distort B) disregard, and/or act in violation of the doctrines and teachings of the Church.

Conversely, observant Latter-day Saints who do not engage in sexual misconduct are, I think, often deliberately acting in accordance with the doctrines and teachings of the Church.

Meanwhile, the central premises of a humanist worldview often involves things like A) God does not exist, B) nor does sin, C) "morality" is whatever the individual wants it to be, and D) there are no real consequences for our actions because when we die, we just end up as worm food.  So isn't it possible that such a dissolute and unprincipled worldview might induce its adherents into thinking they can get away with it?

I think worldviews and moral frameworks matter.  And I think the worldview and framework espoused by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is pretty darn good.  Great, even.  Wonderful, even.

All the more tragic, then, to see some Latter-day Saints misuse and distort and abuse these precepts.  But when and if that happens, I don't see how you can blame the Church for it. 

I'm often indifferent to disparagements about the Church.  Publicly accusing us of incubating murders and other atrocities was, and is, beyond the pale of civil discourse, and manifestly beneath you.

Sure!  Are you in Utah?  Let's talk by private message.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well all the rest is more of the same. I do not live in Utah and do not get there often.  But I have two brothers there. One in Sandy and the other in Brigham City.  Next time I am there maybe we can meet up for lunch.  I am sure neither of us are the monsters we view each other as here.  😁

[Calm]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Was that the guy that said that black people are basically a separate species?

Maybe…don’t have time right now to double check if this was the same person:

What I had to do was much shorter than expected…

That would be a yes as he saw blacks as not of the Adamic Race.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74133-polygamy-and-authority/?do=findComment&comment=1210064141

 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'll address it.

But first, who gets to decide whether a sincere believer is distorting or misusing his belief system?

I think the Church is, and must be, the ultimate and only authoritative source and arbiter of its own doctrines, and of the parameters and interpretation and application thereof.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

It seems a fundamental area where you and I disagree is that you think real Mormonism is a tight, well-defined set of beliefs and behaviors that is internally consistent.

Pretty much.  I think the Church has done a good job of establishing doctrine and differentiating it from speculative/conjectural/folksy beliefs.  Elder Andersen put it well:

Quote

Neil L. Andersen makes an important point about doctrine--that it should be established in unity. That is what has been agreed upon since the beginning of the Restoration (D&C 26:2; 107:27;)

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It 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.

The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been” (Ether 12:6) ^[1]

Notes

1. Jump up↑ Neil L. Andersen, "Trial of Your Faith,", Ensign (November 2012)

The Church has also taken repudiating measures when necessary (blood atonement, Adam-God, theories about black folks, etc.), and also clarifying and corrective measures (cautions against extremism, condemning racism, etc.).

The Church has the Standard Works, and a variety of manuals that go quite a ways in establishing the doctrines of the Church.  There are some ambiguities and unknowns, but the Church seems to do well regarding doctrines that, in Mormonspeak, are "essential for our salvation."  See, e.g., here (emphases added) :

Quote

What Can I Study?

A deep understanding of the gospel will help us distinguish between pure and partial truth. We’ll be most successful if we focus our energy to build “upon the rock of our Redeemer” (Helaman 5:12).

When he was a member of the Seventy, Elder Lawrence E. Corbridge said: “There are unlimited claims and opinions leveled against the truth. … You can spend a lifetime desperately tracking down the answer to every claim … and never come to a knowledge of the most important truths.”⁴

So instead of spending your energy tracking down individual answers every time you have a question, take time each day to deepen your understanding of those fundamental truths that anchor your faith to the Rock, Jesus Christ.

The basic doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes faith, repentance, covenants, prophets, revelation, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, the plan of salvation, and our divine identity as children of God.⁵ These truths help us move along the covenant path; they are essential for our exaltation.

Peripheral truths, on the other hand, are not essential for our salvation.
...

We believe that through the Holy Ghost we can know “the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5). And while that is certainly true, it’s important to remember that one of the roles of the Holy Ghost is to help us receive a testimony of fundamental doctrine—“of Jesus Christ and of His work and the work of His servants upon the earth” (Bible Dictionary, “Holy Ghost”).

Studying peripheral truths of the gospel is not a bad thing. And sometimes it can strengthen our testimonies when we find answers to our “nonessential” questions. But testimonies cannot be founded on peripheral truths. Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin (1917–2008) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has said, “We should understand and live by the simple, basic truths and not complicate them. Our foundations should be solid and deep-rooted.”⁸

 

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

You think that if anybody's beliefs are either more liberal or more extreme than your own, they aren't real Mormons and are somehow distorting or misusing the religion.

No, I don't think that.  You are materially misstating what I think.

You are not even close.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

You think if Mormonism inspires somebody to be a good humanist, Mormonism deserves the credit.

I don't see how this could happen.  And I have never thought it.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

But if it inspires somebody to be a fundamentalist wacko, Mormonism deserves none of the blame.

If a doctor provides sound and reasonable medical advice to a patient, and if the patient follows that advice and gains the intended and foreseeable benefits of that advice, then the doctor deserves credit for doing his job well.

If a doctor provides sound and reasonable medical advice to a patient, and if the patient materially distorts / ignores / misapplies that advice, and in so does things that are damaging and destructive to himself and others, then the doctor does not deserve to be blamed for the patient's "wacko" behavior.

This does not seem to be a controversial concept.  Except it is, when the Church is in the crosshairs of those who dislike it.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

From my perspective, Mormonism is an evolving religion filled with inconsistent ideas, teachings, and practices.

Okay.  I think the basic (and even most of the more nuanced) doctrines are quite consistent, coherent, reasonable, and plausible.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Furthermore, many of these ideas and teachings imply that there are deeper levels of light and knowledge that only become available once you've proven your faithfulness.

As I have said previously, the concept of restored priesthood authority, the "Living Prophets and Apostles" concept, is second only to the Atonement of Jesus Christ in terms of doctrinal significance.  So when "crazies ignore" the counsel of living prophets and apostles - which you now acknowledge is being provided - it becomes more difficult to inculpate the Church for the misconduct of those "crazies."

I have also said that "most philosophical and belief systems are susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse."

The Church does not encourage the kinds of excesses and secretive "off the grid" types of "knowledge" that so many extremists/whackos claim.  Again, as Elder Andersen put it: 

Quote

There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It 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.

So I think you are substantially and fundamentally mischaracterizing the teachings of the Church.  What you are describing contradicts what Elder Andersen said.  In his capacity as an apostle.  Over the pulpit, during General Conference.  What you are describing is more akin to the justifications and rationalizations that are used by people who are ignoring the Brethren, not following them. 

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

The concept that baptismal covenants lead to the Aaronic priesthood which leads to the Melchizedek priesthood which leads to being endowed and anointed in the temple which eventually leads to an esoteric second anointing which will then lead to the second comforter which will then eventually lead to becoming a god is an invitation to extremism. It's part of the plan. 

I think you are not fairly or accurately characterizing the Church.  Your reasoning does not pan out in reality.  The Latter-day Saints who are following the precepts ("concepts") are, in the main, doing just fine.  Again, a central component of the Restored Gospel is the idea that we have living prophets and apostles, and that they help the body of the Church with course corrections, clarifications, and ongoing counsel to avoid not just sin, but also overzealousness and, as Elder Cook put it in 2003, "looking beyond the mark."

You are omitting this from your assessment, and I think that is unfair and incorrect.  

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

How one should apply the teachings of the Church to your life isn't always consistent.

In broad strokes, there is a lot of consistency in the Restored Gospel.  Believe in God.  Repent and be humble and penitent.  Get baptized.  Attend church and participate in the faith community.  Study the scriptures.  Listen to and follow the counsel of living prophets and apostles.  Serve others.  Keep the Worth of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity.  Pay tithing.  Get married and have kids (if possible).  Work hard, get an education, improve yourself, be self-reliant, minimize and avoid debt where possible.  Obey the laws of the land.

This is the stuff the Latter-day Saints are asked to do.  When they do these things, they tend to lead overall good and productive lives.  The "whackos" in the Church are, in retrospect, pretty much always notably and profoundly outside "the teachings of the Church" in some respects.

Ammon Bundy was not obeying the law of the land or listening to prophets and apostles when he did his armed takeover thing (which, I note, the Church publicly and specifically condemned).

Chad Daybell was neck-deep in extremism and priestcraft, adultery, and so on.  He was doing things the Brethren have told us, many times over, not to do.  The same goes for Lori Vallow.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Sometimes the Liahona is going to point to somewhere other than where the iron rod leads.

Well, no.

The "Liahona" being . . . what?  Personal revelation?

I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

See also this 2004 New Era article by Elder Lund (item #3 in particular) :

Quote

How can I distinguish between true and counterfeit revelation?

Through the scriptures and the statements of modern prophets, we find principles that can help us determine how to decide if revelation comes from the Lord or from another source. I would like to briefly outline five of those guidelines or principles.

1 It is God who determines all aspects of revelation.

We can study and pray; on occasion we can add fasting to our prayers; we can importune the Lord with deep yearnings; we can keep sacred covenants—all of these will help create a climate that fosters spiritual growth. But we must remember that when all is done, it is still up to the Lord to determine when the revelation comes, how it is given, what is revealed, and to whom.

With the utmost earnestness and the deepest of pleadings, the Savior called on His Father in the Garden of Gethsemane to remove the dreaded cup of His coming sacrifice. But that request was followed immediately by these profound words: “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39). That should be part of every request we take to the Lord. In that simple phrase lies the key to our willingness to let the Lord decide what is best.

2 The content given in a revelation is more important than the form in which it comes.

Another mistake some make is to covet the more dramatic forms of revelation. God reveals His mind and will to man across a broad spectrum of experiences. These may range from the very direct and dramatic: the appearance of divine beings, open visions, fire from heaven. Or they may be very subtle: quiet premonitions, gentle thoughts, a feeling of peace. These are by far the most common. We must be careful we don’t feel that only the more direct forms of revelation are valid.

3 Revelation from God does not contradict gospel principles or go contrary to established Church policy and procedure.

When there is new doctrine or new procedures to come forth, you will get it in one of three ways:

a. A formal press conference will be called by the leaders of the Church, at which an official announcement will be made.

b. It will be announced through the Church News, the Ensign, or other official Church communications.

c. It will be announced in general conference by those in authority.

Otherwise, we should be very wary about accepting it, and we should not share it with others.

4 The Lord wants us to use our agency and develop spiritual self-reliance.

The scriptures and the prophets warn us about seeking to be directed in every matter of life. The Lord says:

“It is not meet [it is not proper or good] that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward” (D&C 58:26).

There are some things that don’t matter to the Lord; He leaves the choice up to us (see D&C 60:5). Striking the balance between trust in the Lord and spiritual self-reliance is a delicate matter, but it is clear that the Lord does not want us to be spiritual robots who are afraid to move without first being told what to do.

5 A person is not given revelation to direct another person unless they have priesthood or family responsibility for that person.

This principle is described by Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as the principle of “stewardship in revelation.” This means that “only the President of the Church receives revelation to guide the entire Church. Only the stake president receives revelation for the special guidance of the stake. The person who receives revelation for the ward is the bishop. … When one person purports to receive revelation for another person outside his or her own area of responsibility … you can be sure that such revelations are not from the Lord” (“Revelation,” New Era, Sept. 1982, 46).

See also this FAIR article: How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?

Quote

Within the Church there are occasionally claims by those who affirm to be members of the Church (and sometimes by those even outside of official Church membership) that they have received a revelation that contradicts revelation claimed by the prophet on behalf of the whole Church. These claims to revelation are spread publicly and often stir controversy among Latter-day Saints because of the opposition the person enacts against the Church's leadership.

These claims are all too familiar for mature Latter-day Saints. Such claims are heard frequently and to hear that revelation contradicts the prophet can cause some dissonance for those that are seeking to understand what Latter-day Saint doctrine can inform these epistemological discussions and provide answers to resolve these seemingly difficult problems.

This article will seek to identify principles and procedures that people can follow if they believe that they have received revelation that contradicts that of the President of the Church, the First Presidency, and/or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. These will be sought for from the official scriptures and teachings of the leaders of the Church.

Five Things to Do in Case of Belief of Contradictory Revelation

1. AS A FIRST STEP, MEMBERS OUGHT TO CONSIDER WHETHER THEY ARE MISTAKEN OR MISLED.
...
2. MEMBERS SHOULD PRAY TO HAVE THEIR HEART CHANGED IF THIS IS NECESSARY.
...
3. MEMBERS SHOULD BE PATIENT.
...
4. IF, AFTER ALL THIS, WE STILL BELIEVE WE ARE BEING TOLD THAT THE LEADERS OF THE CHURCH ARE WRONG, WE ARE STILL NOT AUTHORIZED TO PUBLICLY PREACH OR URGE A DIFFERENT COURSE OF ACTION OR TEACHING.
...
5. MEMBERS MAY BE TAUGHT THINGS BY REVELATION THAT MAY BE TRUE, AND FOR THEIR COMFORT, BUT IT IS STILL NOT THEIR PLACE TO SPREAD THEM PUBLICLY, USE THEM TO ADVOCATE FOR CHANGE, AND SO FORTH.

 

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Sometimes things that are true aren't useful.

I don't know what you mean here.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Sometimes you are told to multiply and replenish the earth while the fruit required to do so is forbidden.

What?

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

You are told to search the scriptures and told that they contain the canonical doctrines, but are then told to follow the brethren.

Yes.  

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Sometimes prophets think that upholding the reputation of the Church is more important than being honest with members, investigators, and the public about what it really teaches (e.g. lies about polygamy, and misleading members about its financial holdings).

Meh.  This is just straying into diatribe/rant territory.  

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

The Church asks you to make extreme covenants, but then occasionally counsels against extremism.

Equivocation.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

But is that with a wink like when they canonized denials of polygamy in the D&C in 1835?

More diatribe stuff.  What happened in 1835 is not really pertinent to the current discussion.

Regarding 1835, though, FAIR has a good article about it here.  And as our own Ben McGuire aptly noted back in 2005: "The point you miss {} is that it wasn't a revelation. It wasn't considered a revelation. It wasn't presented to the church as a revelation."

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

The Church teaches murder is wrong, but also teaches that on occasion angels command you to murder and that when you receive such a commandment you ought to obey it.

Nonsense.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

When people believe that the Church is a source of truth, it shouldn't be surprising that they come to different conclusions.

Nor should it be surprising that the Restored Gospel, like pretty much all philosophical and belief systems, is susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse.

You have previously characterized some of the teachings of Jesus Christ as being "in fact moral, humanist values."  I have elsewhere commented:

Quote

"Humanist values" presuppose Judeo-Christian ethics as a starting point.  Nietzsche had it right, I think, when he said that humanism is "nothing more than an empty figure of speech" and a "secular version of theism."  It would be like me quoting Hamlet's Soliloquy and then concluding with "By the way, Shakespeare has no bearing on what I just said."

Humanists, of course, can also "come to different conclusions" about "values."  If anything, i think they are even more susceptible to that than the Latter-day Saints, as humanists are untethered from any authoritative voice of authority or moral code.  

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Some won't take it very seriously and will just live their lives as good humanists who happen to be members of the Latter-day Saint community. Others will take it more seriously but will put a premium on trying to be the model Mormon that the hierarchy displays. But it shouldn't be surprising that some people who take it seriously will go down one of the faith's rabbit holes and become "extremists" in one way or another.

Nor should we be surprised when some humanists will go down a "rabbit hole" and "become 'extremists' in one way or another."  As I noted previously:

Quote

Quote

The secular persons you brought up in relation to sexual abuse, I don't think there abuse is rooted in their ideology. I think they are simply acting evilly and badly.

So religionists are motivated by their worldview, but humanists are not?  How do you figure?

When a Latter-day Saint engages in sexual misconduct, he has to either A) substantially distort B) disregard, and/or act in violation of the doctrines and teachings of the Church.

Conversely, observant Latter-day Saints who do not engage in sexual misconduct are, I think, often deliberately acting in accordance with the doctrines and teachings of the Church.

Meanwhile, the central premises of a humanist worldview often involves things like A) God does not exist, B) nor does sin, C) "morality" is whatever the individual wants it to be, and D) there are no real consequences for our actions because when we die, we just end up as worm food.  So isn't it possible that such a dissolute and unprincipled worldview might induce its adherents into thinking they can get away with it?

I think worldviews and moral frameworks matter.  And I think the worldview and framework espoused by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is pretty darn good.  Great, even.  Wonderful, even.

All the more tragic, then, to see some Latter-day Saints misuse and distort and abuse these precepts.  But when and if that happens, I don't see how you can blame the Church for it. 

 

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Why would anyone want to destroy the World Trade Center and everybody in it?

Why would anyone want to commit genocide in Cambodia/Kampuchea?

Daniel Peterson has some good thoughts on this line of reasoning (such as it is) :

Quote

In response to my blog entry (“A late thought on a memorable day”), published yesterday, about the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, a long-time and vocally atheistic commenter here shared this venerable slogan with us:

“Science flies men to the moon. Religion flies planes into buildings.”

For anybody who wants to evaluate the borrowed witticism above, though (hint: it doesn’t even begin to withstand informed scrutiny; several of the 9-11 hijackers apparently spent their last night of mortality at a strip club), I recommend two important books as first steps on the road to relevant wisdom.  The first of them was written by Robert Pape, a distinguished professor of political science at the University of Chicago, while the second is by Graham Fuller, who. among other things, formerly served as the station chief for the Central Intelligence Agency in Kabul, Afghanistan, and then as the vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA:

• Robert Pape, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2006) — “One of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject of suicide terrorism, the esteemed political scientist Robert Pape has created the first comprehensive database of every suicide terrorist attack in the world from 1980 until today. In Dying to Win, Pape provides a groundbreaking demographic profile of modern suicide terrorist attackers — and his findings offer a powerful counterpoint to what we now accept as conventional wisdom on the topic. He also examines the early practitioners of this guerrilla tactic, including the ancient Jewish Zealots, who in A.D. 66 wished to liberate themselves from Roman occupation; the Ismaili Assassins, a Shi’ite Muslim sect in northern Iran in the eleventh and twelfth centuries; World War II’s Japanese kamikaze pilots, three thousand of whom crashed into U.S. naval vessels; and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a secular, Marxist-Leninist organization responsible for more suicide terrorist attacks than any other group in history. Dying to Win is a startling work of analysis grounded in fact, not politics.”

• Graham E. Fuller, A World without Islam (2010) — “What if Islam never existed? To some, it’s a comforting thought: no clash of civilizations, no holy wars, no terrorists. But what if that weren’t the case at all? In A World without Islam, Graham E. Fuller guides us along an illuminating journey through history, geopolitics, and religion to investigate whether or not Islam is indeed the cause of some of today’s most emotional and important international crises. Fuller takes us from the birth of Islam to the fall of Rome to the rise and collapse of the Ottoman Empire. He examines and analyzes the roots of terrorism, the conflict in Israel, and the role of Islam in supporting and energizing the anti-imperial struggle. Provocatively, he finds that contrary to the claims of many politicians, thinkers, theologians, and soldiers, a world without Islam might not look vastly different from what we know today.”

I won’t even begin to mention the deep religious motivations of such scientists as Nicolas Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, and Johannes Kepler, whose work in the relevant fields of astronomy, physics, and mathematics constitutes the very foundation upon which the “science [rests that] flies men to the moon.”

And here:

Quote

A few days ago, I published a post here in which I replied to the silly atheist slogan “Science flies men to the moon. Religion flies planes into buildings.”  Responding to my response, an occasional participant on the Peterson Obsession Board who does not appear to be as reflexively hostile to theism as many of the others there — an (American?) physicist teaching in Germany who has never been a Latter-day Saint — offered an alternative slogan:  “Religion builds hospitals.  Science builds hydrogen bombs.”  Given his profession as a physicist and the recent box office success of the biographical film Oppenheimer, it’s a fairly obvious riposte.  And it’s certainly at least as “true” (which is to say, at least as much of a caricature and very nearly as false) as the first one.

However, one of the regulars on the Obsession Board quickly answered that the revised slogan isn’t really available to Latter-day Saints, since the (greedy, unfeeling, uncharitable) Church doesn’t build hospitals.

But this is deeply misleading.  As the Wikipedia article on “Intermountain Health” explains, “Intermountain Health [initially “Intermountain Healthcare”] was founded on April 1, 1975, after the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints donated fifteen hospitals, as a system, to what would become Intermountain Health.”  Moreover, the Christopher Hitchens Memorial “How Religion Poisons Everything” File™ positively overflows with examples of the Church not only providing humanitarian aid around the globe but donating cash and medical equipment and the like to clinics in impoverished areas.  I’ve been posting account after account after account here of such donations.

In a curiously related matter, I read a post online at another location in which a critic blamed Utah’s high rates of obesity and diabetes on Latter-day Saint culture.  Others immediately joined the chorus of condemnation.  So l looked up data, by state, on obesity (also here, where Utah ranked thirty-seventh of the fifty states) and diabetes.

DCP has a fairly extensive series of entries on this blog themed as excerpts from the “Christopher Hitchens Memorial ‘How Religion Poisons Everything’ File.”  These entries include one, some or many links to stories about religious people doing things, both large-scale and otherwise, to improve the world, as well as various sociological/medical studies analyzing the many substantial physical, mental and emotional health benefits of religious observance.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

To call bin Laden ‘evil’ is to evade our responsibility to give a proper answer to such an important question.

To focus on bin Laden and ignore Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. is also to evade our responsibility.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers. The alternative, one so transparent that it should need no urging, is to abandon the principle of automatic respect for religious faith. This is one reason why I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself, not just against so-called ‘extremist’ faith. The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.

Most philosophical/ideological and belief systems are susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse.

Including, notably, your preferred source of moral guidance: secular humanism.  But I won't be holding my breath for you to acknowledge a causal bridge between that and "extremism."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 3, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Author of a number of books in Isaiah. Was excommunicated in September 1993 and part of the "September 6."  Was reinstated a few days later. 

My understanding was that he was re-baptized in February 1996, not "a few days later" (see, e.g., here).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

But are we aggressors?  I guess.  From your viewpoint. 

I think publicly accusing an already unpopular religious minority of incubating murderers renders you an aggressor, and not just from my "viewpoint."

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

From mine there is no reason why Mormonism or any other religion or ideology is above reproach. 

I quite agree.  I have never suggested otherwise.  I have, instead, said stuff like this:

Quote

{W}e need to acknowledge that we have invited scrutiny of the claims of the Church.  Consequently, we need to accommodate the possibility of members of the Church coming to a conclusion that those claims are not what they claim to be.  We need to allow that.  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things

There is, nevertheless, a country mile between "scrutiny of the claims of the Church" and publicly accusing us of incubating murderers.

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

And there was a time when some LDS leaders seem to say that the Church should be challenged, and if false, it should be shown to be as such.

True (I commented on this at length here).

But come on.  Surely you can differentiate between reasoned and principled scrutiny (and, yes, criticism and challenges) and publicly accusing us of incubating murderers?

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Publicly accusing an already not-very-popular religious minority of things like "incubating" "murderers" is a pretty serious thing.

Ok. 

"Ok," but no retraction.

So the public accusation stands.

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

But you are not addressing my point (repeated several times over), which is that "most philosophical and belief systems are susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse."

I have to say @Analyticsjust addressed this far better and more eloquently than I am able to.  I appreciated his remarks and agree with them.  I would be interested to see your comments to his remarks.

Done.  See above.

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well see I am not accusing all Latter-day Saints.  I am calling out the awful parts of LDS doctrine. 

You previously: "Fine. I concede I am disparaging and indicting Mormonism.  And it deserves it."

"{C}alling out the awful parts of LDS doctrine" is, I think, a clarification that helps.  But you are still dodging my point.

I don't think you have addressed my point here:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

The Church believes in many literally miraculous things.  It has its proverbial head in the clouds, but its feet remain on the ground.  The "fruits" of the Restored Gospel are best observed by watching people who follow the tenets of the Restored Gospel, not by watching those to materially stray from it.

Ah you want credit for the good stuff but won't own the bad fruit.  Got it. So typical.

 

 

I reject the notion that the misconduct of zealots and extremists, borne of flagrant disobedience to central components of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, amounts to "bad fruit" of the Restored Gospel.

If a doctor recommends that an overweight patient adopt a reasonable and healthy weight loss regimen, and if the patient initially complies with that advice, but then turns to unhealthy and excessive measures (obsessive exercise, steroids, extreme dieting, anorexia, bulimia, etc.), I doubt you would say, speaking of the doctor: "Ah you want credit for the good stuff but won't own the bad fruit.  Got it. So typical."

Well?  

What "awful parts of LDS doctrine" are you referencing here?  To be sure, the Church has had some overtly "awful" things pronounced over the pulpit, disparagement of black folks being an obvious example.  But the Church has expressly disavowed such things.  Can you allow for the Church to correct itself?  Or do you indict it for all its flaws forever?

The same goes for some LGBT issues.  The Church has improved a lot.  A lot.  It will not, I think, change its doctrines as to homosexual behavior, but reasonable minds can disagree about the morality of such things.  

The Church has also improved its approach to the Law of Chastity.  And respect for other peoples and religious groups.

So what are these "awful parts of LDS doctrine?"  I suspect that the stuff you have in mind is reflected in, say, the events associated with "whackos" like Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow.  But can you differentiate between A) the cumulative teachings of the Church and B) the selective bits and pieces that folks like Daybell/Vallow decontextualize, distort, misuse, etc.?

By way of example, I have an interest in emergency preparedness.  The Church openly encourages this:

Quote

How can I prepare for an emergency?

Church members are encouraged to make an emergency plan and update it regularly.

Elder L. Tom Perry instructed, “Start now to create a plan if you don’t already have one, or update your present plan. … The instability in the world today makes it imperative that we take heed of the counsel and prepare for the future” (“If Ye Are Prepared Ye Shall Not Fear,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 37).

As you make an emergency plan, consider each of these elements.

Avoid Debt and Live within Your Means
...
Gain an Adequate Education
...

Keep a Reserve of Food and Other Supplies

Another way we can prepare for an emergency is by building up a store of needed supplies to help carry us through a crisis.

President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “We have built grain storage and storehouses and stocked them with the necessities of life in the event of a disaster.” But those goods cannot help us if we cannot reach them. He continued, “The best storehouse is the family storeroom” (“If Ye Are Prepared Ye Shall Not Fear,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2005, 62). It’s the most accessible reserve in times of need and the best suited to our individual needs.

As you build and maintain your emergency supply, include the following items:

• Clothing and bedding

• Drinking water

• Financial reserves

• Important documents

• Longer-term supply of basic food items

• Medication and first aid supplies

• Three-month supply of food that is part of your normal diet

• Ways to communicate with family following a disaster

Obtain First Aid Training

Another way to prepare for an emergency is to receive first aid, CPR, and AED training through a certified program.

The Church also warns against extremism.  For example:

Quote

LDS apostle tells Mormons: Stock up on food, not ammo
Following Faith by Peggy Fletcher Stack

Published September 17, 2012 2:29 pm

LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks cautioned Mormons against joining or supporting "right-wing groups who mistakenly apply prophecies about the last days to promote efforts to form paramilitary or other organizations."

Such groups could "undermine the authority of public officials," Oaks said Sunday at a regional Mormon conference broadcast from the Marriott Center on Brigham Young University's Provo campus, "in the event of extraordinary emergencies or even in cases of simple disagreement with government policy."

Latter-day Saints should not "substitute [their] own organizations for the political and military authorities put in place by constitutional government and processes," the apostle said.

After all, the LDS Church's food-storage program is about amassing a year's supply of food and water, Oaks reminded the thousands watching in the giant arena, not "arms and ammunition."

See also this counsel from Elder Ballard:

Quote

We must be careful where our footsteps in life take us. We must be watchful and heed the counsel of Jesus to His disciples as He answered these questions: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

“And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man [and I add woman] deceive you.”

Today I repeat earlier counsel from Church leaders.

• Brothers and sisters, keep the doctrine of Christ pure and never be deceived by those who tamper with the doctrine. The gospel of the Father and the Son was restored through Joseph Smith, the prophet for this last dispensation.

• Do not listen to those who have not been ordained and/or set apart to their Church calling and are not acknowledged by common consent of the members of the Church.

• Be aware of organizations, groups, or individuals claiming secret answers to doctrinal questions that they say today’s apostles and prophets do not have or understand.

• Do not listen to those who entice you with get-rich schemes. Our members have lost far too much money, so be careful.

In some places, too many of our people are looking beyond the mark and seeking secret knowledge in expensive and questionable practices to provide healing and support.

An official Church statement, issued one year ago, states: “We urge Church members to be cautious about participating in any group that promises—in exchange for money—miraculous healings or that claims to have special methods for accessing healing power outside of properly ordained priesthood holders.”

The Church Handbook counsels: “Members should not use medical or health practices that are ethically or legally questionable. Local leaders should advise members who have health problems to consult with competent professional practitioners who are licensed in the countries where they practice.”

Brothers and sisters, be wise and aware that such practices may be emotionally appealing but may ultimately prove to be spiritually and physically harmful.

And this counsel from Elder Cook:

Quote

Today there is a tendency among some of us to “look beyond the mark” rather than to maintain a testimony of gospel basics. We do this when we substitute the philosophies of men for gospel truths, engage in gospel extremism, seek heroic gestures at the expense of daily consecration, or elevate rules over doctrine. Avoiding these behaviors will help us avoid the theological blindness and stumbling that Jacob described.  
...
Another sign of spiritual immaturity and sometimes apostasy is when one focuses on certain gospel principles or pursues “gospel hobbies” with excess zeal. Almost any virtue taken to excess can become a vice.

Certain members have wanted to add substantially to various doctrines. An example might be when one advocates additions to the Word of Wisdom that are not authorized by the Brethren and proselytes others to adopt these interpretations. If we turn a health law or any other principle into a form of religious fanaticism, we are looking beyond the mark.

My efforts at emergency preparedness have included the following:

• My wife and I are paying off debt as quickly as possible, and avoiding it as much as possible in the future;
• I have obtained a BA and a JD, and am presently able to provide for my family.  I am also evaluating a few "side hustles" to generate additional funds for emergencies, paying off debt, helping our kids, etc.
• Over a period of years, I have accumulated food storage and emergency preparedness supplies.  I have not gone into debt for any of this.  I bought a freeze dryer in 2016, and have since built up a substantial amount of freeze-dried food.  I also have biomass stoves, stored (biomass) fuel, limited "grid down" power options (lithium batteries and solar panels), water filtration, and other supplies.  I often use these materials for camping, road trips, or just doing stuff in our back yard (such as practicing baking bread in a "grid down" exercise).
• My stake has encouraged us to get certified on HAM radio, so I'm working on that.

My efforts at emergency preparedness have not included the following:

• I have not stockpiled guns and ammunition.
• I have not moved my family to some remote cabin or commune or "place of refuge" (a la Julie Rowe).
• I have not attended any "Preparing a People"-style conventions, or purchased any such materials.
• I do not listen to or support or sympathize with groups or individuals who have adopted extremist interpretations of the Church's counsel on emergency preparedness (tent cities, underground bunkers, weapons training, etc.).

So here's my question: Is the Church's counsel on emergency preparedness one of the "awful parts of LDS doctrine" which you care "calling out"?  

My understanding is that Chad Daybell was neck-deep in all sorts of "whacko" stuff, including excesses associated with emergency preparedness (he was a regular speaker with "Preparing a People," which was big on this).  Do you, therefore, condemn the Church's teachings about emergency preparedness?  Are those teachings "awful?" 

In my view, I think the Church's teachings on this issue generally quite sound and good, but can become harmful if distorted and taken to extremes, and/or decontextualized.

I think the same can be said for most or all of the Church's teachings on other issues.  So if there are intrinsically and unalterably "awful parts of LDS doctrine," I would like to understand what you mean.  

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

But see I honestly do not think my comments are indicting an "entire community."  

This comes across as a variation on the "Some of my best friends are X!" trope:

Quote

• Gentleman's Agreement:

Bert McAnny: What? Now, Green, don't get me wrong. Why, some of my best friends are Jews.
Anne Dettrey: And some of your other best friends are Methodists, but you never bother to say that.

• In the 1945 film Blood On The Sun:

Nick Condon (James Cagney): I lived [in China] 6 years myself.
Journalist colleague: Four was enough for me... Uh, not that I haven't tremendous admiration for the Chinese people.
Nick Condon: [mockingly] I see; some of my best friends are Chinese, huh? [laughs]

So when you are publicly "disparaging and indicting Mormonism" (by, for example, existing accuse "Mormonism" of incubating murderers) you are referencing . . . what?

Is Chad Daybell's "Mormonism" numerically distinct from mine?

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

Like it or not there is a lot of abhorrent doctrine in Mormonism.

You wouldn't expect that from a philosophical/religious belief system awash in "abhorrent" teachings.

Awash?  I guess you could extrapolate that if you really work at it. 

Feel free to explain how you feel that "Mormonism" has "a lot of abhorrent doctrine," but then find "awash in 'abhorrent' teachings" to be inapt.

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Look, I have friends that are big MAGA groupies.  A number still think that the election was stolen from Trump.  I think there are core tenants that MAGA political views can lead to dangerous behavior, like we saw on January 6.

I suppose "core tenets" of liberalism could be characterized as "lead{ing} to dangerous behavior, like we saw" during the BLM and Antifa riots, which over some months months causing dozens of deaths, hundreds of injuries, and billions in property damage.

But this is rather apples and oranges.  The discussion here is about the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which teachings can - like those of pretty much every ideological / philosophical / belief system - be distorted and misused.   Again, if there are intrinsically and unalterably "awful parts of LDS doctrine," I would like to understand what you mean.

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think Trump is a danger to our  democracy.  But my MAGA friends are pretty decent folks.  And I just watched the documentary The Insurrectionist Next Door.  Seems most of these on the show were decent and got caught up in some bad ideas. See there is a difference between what I am saying and how you are portraying it.

Well, no.  We have not been discussing Trump and MAGA.

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Might it be that life is short, and time is to precious to spend on venting anger and venom and condemnation against entire populations of communities because some of their members engage in misconduct?  That such ugly habits might, in the end, become an exhausting and embittering and soul-destroying enterprise?

Smac, I spend little time doing such things.

You have 8,400+ posts on this message board.

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

And I do not think I am doing anything  you describe. Your casting such a disparaging view of me or other critics is quite humorous really. I spend a little time here.  I don't think I put near the time into my posts here as you do. You lengthy and cumbersome posts must take a significant amount of time.  I spend no time outside of this board on these type of things.

So your public accusation of "Mormonism" incubating murderers is limited to this board, and this suppose to ameliorate the accusation.

And my objection to your accusation is "quite humorous."

Okay.

Let's imagine I have a friend who tells me he is an atheist, and I respond as follows: "Atheism incubates rapists and child molesters.  Oh, I'm not saying you are a rapist or child molester.  Some of my best friends are atheists!  It's just that your worldview and your community are, well, incubating rapists and child molesters.  That you take umbrage with me saying this is quite humorous really."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 3, 2023 by smac97

[Analytics]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church is, and must be, the ultimate and only authoritative source and arbiter of its own doctrines, and of the parameters and interpretation and application thereof.…

You are allowed to believe anything you want, and the Church is allowed to teach anything it wants. You are even allowed to obnoxiously use the term “thereof.” I acknowledge that.

However, it is an empirical reality that if somebody seeks further light and knowledge through Mormon sources such as the teachings of past prophets, the scriptures, and personal revelation, they could and too-often do embrace wacky beliefs.

You’ve found a few quotes that warn against extremism, but they aren’t unequivocal repudiations of the teachings of past prophets, the scriptures, and of personal revelation. Those sources of “truth” can and do lead to wacky beliefs. That is an empirical reality and it’s weird you would argue otherwise.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

To focus on bin Laden and ignore Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. is also to evade our responsibility.

Those guys aren’t humanists, and they didn’t claim to be. Saying Stalin “misused” humanism is like saying Hitler misused Mormonism.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Most philosophical/ideological and belief systems are susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse.

You are completely ignoring the issue. Bin Ladin didn’t “misuse” his beliefs; he embraced them. And who gets to decide what it means to properly use or misuse one’s religious convictions?

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Including, notably, your preferred source of moral guidance: secular humanism. 

The irony here is palpable. You haven’t provided any examples, notable or otherwise, of a humanist who “misused” humanism. Rather, you have relied on humanist values to define what moral goodness means so that you can claim religion (that, according to you, isn’t extreme or misused) leads to goodness.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

My understanding was that he was re-baptized in February 1996, not "a few days later" (see, e.g., here).

Thanks,

-Smac

Opps!  Yes a few years later.  

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

You have 8,400+ posts on this message board.

Well yea but half of them at least was in favor of the church. I have been here since the board started and I was an hobby apologist at the time. And I have no doubt the time I put into my posts are nowhere near the time you put into yours.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well yea but half of them at least was in favor of the church. I have been here since the board started and I was an hobby apologist at the time. And I have no doubt the time I put into my posts are nowhere near the time you put into yours.

Yes, but you and I both did spend a lot of time defending the faith before we went over to the dark side. My interest in Mormonism waxes and wanes, but every so often something interesting pops up. 

Edited November 3, 2023 by jkwilliams

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Humanists, of course, can also "come to different conclusions" about "values."  If anything, i think they are even more susceptible to that than the Latter-day Saints, as humanists are untethered from any authoritative voice of authority or moral code.  

I’ve been on the fence about whether I should respond to this point, because I try to ignore points that are are so fundamentally unserious that there is no reason to say anything. Against my better judgment, allow me to say this: 

Peter Singer is an ethicist at Princeton University, and as far as I can tell, his textbook Practical Ethics, which has been in print for over 40 years, is the most popular introduction to ethics in the history of college courses on the topic.

Singer arrived at the opposite conclusion as you regarding the relationship of ethics and religion, and here is how he tersely refuted your position in the introduction of his text:

The third thing ethics is not is something intelligible only in the context of religion. I shall treat ethics as entirely independent of religion.

Some theists say that ethics cannot do without religion because the very meaning of ‘good’ is nothing other than ‘what God approves’. Plato refuted a similar claim more than two thousand years ago by arguing that if the gods approve of some actions it must be because those actions are good, in which case it cannot be the gods’ approval that makes them good. The alternative view makes divine approval entirely arbitrary: if the gods had happened to approve of torture and disapprove of helping our neighbours, torture would have been good and helping our neighbours bad. Some theists have attempted to extricate themselves from this dilemma by maintaining that God is good and so could not possibly approve of torture; but if these theists want to maintain that good means what God approves, they are caught in a trap of their own making, for what can they possibly mean by the assertion that God is good – that God is approved of by God?

 

[ttribe]

So, this email from Glenn Beck to Tim Ballard was recently disclosed and there are a number of questions which come from this -

- Why does Glenn Beck have the direct line to Elder Andersen?

- Why is Elder Andersen seemingly at Glenn Becks beck (ahem) and call?

- Why is there any coordination amongst: 1) a firebrand political commentator (Beck); 2) a General Authority (Andersen); 3) a Senator from Utah (Mike Lee); and 4), the Attorney General of Utah (Reyes) to do damage control on Tim Ballard's reputation?

[2BizE]

It looks like according to the updated lawsuit against Tim Ballard it states:

"The Davis County Investigation, according to OUR’s own internal documents, revealed that Elder M. Russell Ballard and other authorities from the Mormon Church, provided Mormon tithing records to OUR to help OUR target wealthy donors and wealthy Mormon Church Wards. Id. at p. 7, ¶ 58 (f)."

https://www.scribd.com/document/681863389/Amended-Complaint-in-Tim-Ballard-Case

This is disgusting that our church apostles would provide records on tithing from wealthy members and wealthy wards so OUR could target them for donations. SMAC97 can you please explain what these actions breach? Certainly a breach of confidence at a minimum.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Why does Glenn Beck have the direct line to Elder Andersen?

My guess is they met at some function and became friends.

If it is for real (since it is in a legal complaint assuming it is, but how did they get it as not part of the original investigation, right?), it is concerning, but not surprising. If it isn’t, then my guess is the forger? faker? (what would be the term)used the typical language of unrighteous in leadership, etc. to make it look controversial.

Quote

Why is there any coordination amongst: 1) a firebrand political commentator (Beck); 2) a General Authority (Andersen); 3) a Senator from Utah (Mike Lee); and 4), the Attorney General of Utah (Reyes) to do damage control on Tim Ballard's reputation?

Because people make friends and/or networks when they meet at events and then they support each other, wisely or unwisely.

Serious question…

Would you be upset if Tim Ballard was what he said he was publicly plus a moderate who never wrote ridiculous books, OUR was successful in fighting human trafficking and the controversy really was a set up from a real child trafficking cartel (and not the qanon versions)?  Iow, if someone is legit and innocent, would you be okay with powerful people coming together to help them, even if done behind the scenes?

Edited November 3, 2023 by Calm

[CA Steve]

43 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, this email from Glenn Beck to Tim Ballard was recently disclosed and there are a number of questions which come from this -

- Why does Glenn Beck have the direct line to Elder Andersen?

- Why is Elder Andersen seemingly at Glenn Becks beck (ahem) and call?

- Why is there any coordination amongst: 1) a firebrand political commentator (Beck); 2) a General Authority (Andersen); 3) a Senator from Utah (Mike Lee); and 4), the Attorney General of Utah (Reyes) to do damage control on Tim Ballard's reputation?

 

If that email is legitimate, the most disturbing thing to me is that an email with this level of paranoia and narcissism is considered appropriate to send to all three of those people, as if its contents are normal to each of them.

Edited November 3, 2023 by CA Steve

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

It looks like according to the updated lawsuit against Tim Ballard it states:

"The Davis County Investigation, according to OUR’s own internal documents, revealed that Elder M. Russell Ballard and other authorities from the Mormon Church, provided Mormon tithing records to OUR to help OUR target wealthy donors and wealthy Mormon Church Wards. Id. at p. 7, ¶ 58 (f)."

https://www.scribd.com/document/681863389/Amended-Complaint-in-Tim-Ballard-Case

This is disgusting that our church apostles would provide records on tithing from wealthy members and wealthy wards so OUR could target them for donations. SMAC97 can you please explain what these actions breach? Certainly a breach of confidence at a minimum.

I would be sure and look at the investigation to confirm this is true before getting disgusted at it.  It wouldn’t be the first complaint to state things inaccurately.  I was rather shocked when I first started reading complaints and comparing them to the source info of how far off they could be.  I thought complaints had to be proven facts…apparently not, that is for the trial to determine.  I can see how providing names could morph into providing tithing records.

It is extremely concerning if the Church provided anything outside a church leader sharing some personal knowledge of donors who might be interested.  Donors might have even asked for suggestions on who to help out (I know I would if I was friends/acquaintances with those who were heavily involved in charities if I trusted them).  I would also hope no pressure was applied to donate to a particular cause.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Calm