Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2024 at 1:02 PM, california boy said:

There are plenty of examples where prophets and apostles have been incorrect on their beliefs that supposably came from God but later retracted those beliefs.  I will let my answer stand.  

Mormonism is replete with such examples. I doubt Joseph Smith would recognize modern Mormonism. Brigham Young most certainly would not.

[MrShorty]

@Calm Yes, that appears to be the same document, or substantially similar. For whatever reason, at the time, my mind caught onto the word "promiscuous" and I forgot the emphasis on marriage of some kind.

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2024 at 1:08 PM, smac97 said:

This is an Infinite Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card.  If you dislike a commandment, you simply ignore it by claiming what you do above.  This is pat, ad hoc, unreasoned, untethered, and flawed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well your prophets and apostles do it all the time. Nov 2015 policy was revelation, then it was revoked a few short years later and that was revelation as well, Bruce McConkie's "forget everything we ever said" about the priesthood ban, Adam is god, then he isn't, plural marriage is celestial marriage and required for exaltation,then it isn't, the Father is a personage of spirit, then he is not and on and on. Consistency is not a hallmark of Mormonism.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well your prophets and apostles do it all the time. Nov 2015 policy was revelation, then it was revoked a few short years later and that was revelation as well, Bruce McConkie's "forget everything we ever said" about the priesthood ban, Adam is god, then he isn't, plural marriage is celestial marriage and required for exaltation,then it isn't, the Father is a personage of spirit, then he is not and on and on. Consistency is not a hallmark of Mormonism.

When is the last time we were told that hot soup was not advised by the Word of Wisdom?

I remember as a missionary teaching an investigator about the Word of Wisdom. The investigator was a guy who liked everything spelled out clearly and said he would read the section to make sure he got everything. Then we had an awkward conversation that some of the Word of Wisdom didn’t really apply anymore, some terms were interpreted in a specific way, some of it tells us to drink things we are forbidden to drink, and some parts of it aren’t in the section at all.

Seriously, can we put in an addendum or something to that section?

[LoudmouthMormon]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

I will have to consider whether or not it is worth my time to continue to discuss this with you.

I can help you with that. I have been arguing religion online with people for more than 20 years. You know that time, I can probably count the number of my sparring partners who have actually changed their position because of our interaction on one hand. That’s not the point. If you look at the view counter this thread, you will see the real point of arguing with each other here.

8.1k views on this thread. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people just silently watching the argument go by.  They’re interested if you have the faintest hint of a response to smac or not.

Before I ever posted on a discussion forum, I probably spent two years just lurking and watching. Seeing both sides, evaluating which one I thought was the better argument, and which one was the silly or elitist or emotional or stupid or invalid argument.

So please respond to smac. And make it a good response, or hundreds of people are going to get baptized because of your lack of response. 🙂

[MrShorty]

hello world

On 6/27/2024 at 6:14 PM, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  Specifically A) the Church teaching the Law of Chastity as something it "has decided" (as opposed to it being a revelation and commandment from God), and B) the "licentious" characterization ("licentious" seems to apply to all sorts of inappropriate behavior, not just the "same sex sexual" kind).

Okay, you've got me. The church never explicitly claims it has decided this, but always assumes that its claims are based in revelation. Are you bogged down in the word licentious? There have been lots of words used to declare some sexual behaviors inappropriate or disapproved by God. As I noted, Pres. Kimball used "unnatural" when he suggested that oral sex was disapproved by God. The church uses lots of different words to express its disapproval of behavior. As King Benjamin said, there are lots of different ways we can sin. The big question is how to know what is and is not sin.

On 6/27/2024 at 6:57 PM, smac97 said:

The strategy relies on endless regressions and questions, non-acceptance of authoritative laws or statements of law, persistent attempts to re-frame issues outside their requisite context, and so on.

On 6/27/2024 at 6:57 PM, smac97 said:

Here, MrShorty's approach seems to be an endlessly regressive critique not about "jurisdiction," but about "revelation."

Perhaps. If this is so, it will be because there is always uncertainty about claims to revelation. The church and it's leaders claim revelation, then we ask how they know it is revelation, then they may cite a different scripture/revelation, and we can ask how they know that is revelation, and on and on until we reach the point, as you told @Teancum, where everything must be accepted on faith. Perhaps at the end of the day, what I am asking is why should I accept on faith something like the LDS church's stance on how committed, monogamous same-sex sexual behavior fits into the law of chastity and not something like the ELCA's stance on how those same behaviors fit into the law of chastity. Somewhere in there might be a discussion of why the church chooses to accept on faith its stance and rejects the ELCA's.

 

On 6/27/2024 at 6:14 PM, smac97 said:

I don't understand what you are looking for here.

If I wrote it, it would look something like, "We know that prophets are fallible and that false or lesser revelations have been received in the past. [list of examples that might include genocide in the OT, Samuel principle, aspects of the history of the priesthood and temple ban, and others. Include an explanation of the principles of revelation that underlie these errors]. As we have sought and received what we believe is revelation on LGBTQ+ issues, we have taken these sources of revelatory error into account. [list of examples of steps we took to mitigate sources of revelatory error]. We have done our best to seek to understand God's will on this topic, and these stances are our best understanding of God's will.

As noted, this may not be adequate to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is God's will, because there is always some inherent uncertainty in the process of discernment. It would at least show that we have learned from our past mistakes and tried our best to avoid those same mistakes.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Samuel principle

?

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2024 at 2:06 PM, smac97 said:

In contrast, by CB's and your reasoning (such as it is), any and all prophetic guidance "is safe to reject," for any reason or no reason at all.  Just trot out a comparison to the priesthood ban, or else resort to some ad hominem-style attempt to discredit a prophet based on his flaws and mistakes, and poof!, no need to listen to or obey any principle you dislike or don't want to accept in the moment.

If you think "prophetic" guidance can be set aside at times but not at other times, how does one know when to set it aside?  I know you gave some examples but they seem inconsistent and I would think that they are rarely if ever applied to for individual members, or even a group of members, to set something aside. For example you used a quite by  Reuben Clark that said only the president of the church can issue directive and instruction to bind the entire church. Yet historically strong willed apostles have undermined church presidents. And what about the idea what all 15 of the prophet, seers and revelators have to be in unison.  What if that unison conflicts with the standard works?  Practically, it seems that most faithful members will follow the brethren in most whatever they say don't you think?

[MrShorty]

@Calm Samuel principle is what some people call it when someone is so stubborn about wanting their own way rather than God's will that God let's them do it. It's named after the prophet Samuel who tried to tell Israel they didn't want a king, but they insisted that they wanted a king. God acquiesced, has Samuel choose Saul, and the Israelite monarchy was born.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I can help you with that. I have been arguing religion online with people for more than 20 years. You know that time, I can probably count the number of my sparring partners who have actually changed their position because of our interaction on one hand. That’s not the point. If you look at the view counter this thread, you will see the real point of arguing with each other here.

8.1k views on this thread. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people just silently watching the argument go by.  They’re interested if you have the faintest hint of a response to smac or not.

Before I ever posted on a discussion forum, I probably spent two years just lurking and watching. Seeing both sides, evaluating which one I thought was the better argument, and which one was the silly or elitist or emotional or stupid or invalid argument.

So please respond to smac. And make it a good response, or hundreds of people are going to get baptized because of your lack of response. 🙂

I will consider it. But it is  hard to keep up with.  And really it is not my goal to prevent baptisms or take anyone out of the church.  But I think you were kidding, a bit.😁

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2024 at 2:34 PM, smac97 said:

"{E}very man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."

Scary stuff, this.

It is understandable that adherents of Korihor-style philosophies will generally refrain from saying the quiet part out loud.  Overt hedonism/licentiousness just does not hold up well.  So incrementalism is the order of the day.

I also note that broad disputations about obeying God frequently arise with or pertain to discussions about constraints on sexual behavior.  Again, we see this in the narrative about Korihor.  His "hey, toss out any commandments you don't like" worldview culminated in his "leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms."  I don't think this is a coincidence.  I think sexual desires are potent, so we are eager to look for justifications to act on them without regard to external constraints, with the ultimate externality being God.

Ah.  So there are parameters to prescribe and proscribe behaviors.  It's just a matter of who authors those parameters.

Judeo-Christian Ethic are what allows you to come to this board and denigrate our beliefs with absolute impunity, fabricate vague and infinitely malleable and ad hoc moral claims, and so on.  You live and breathe and act in reliance on the very precepts you disparage above.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Are you actually accusing @SeekingUnderstandingof advocating for a Korihor like morality and lifestyle?  And you comment about people advocating sexual behavior THAT YOU BELIEVE GOD is proscribing may not believe in a god that gives commands.  There are other ways to determine proper morals other than "God says so" and "God says so" certainly has not been consistent throughout human history nor is it currently. Just look at your comments that distinguish rules of sexual conduct in Mormonism to Islam.  Personally I find "God says so" a fairly weak and immature (as it pertains to human development) approach to determining morals and values.  And that approach creates a considerable amount of conflict and problems in a pluralistic society when one group thinks god says one thing and want to impose their morals on the rest of us, including those who believe their god says something else.  The recent  Louisiana Ten Commandment debacle is a fine example.  

Oh and and I see you continue your whininess in the bolded item above. Pathetic.

How do Judeo Christian values allow any of us to come here and argue and debate things of Mormonism? 

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2024 at 2:35 PM, teddyaware said:

The cancel culture hivemind in action. On a discussion board dedicated to discussing the beliefs and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, one isn’t supposed to mention the downside of breaking one of the gospel’s most important covenants, the law of chastity, nor is it acceptable to discuss the upside of keeping the law of chastity. Makes a lot of sense. 

Oh cry me a river.  Another whiner. Cancel culture? Good lord this is a message board designed to discuss Mormonism that welcomes believers, critics and those who are curious.  And based on what I know about your political views I think anything out of your mouth about cancel culture is hypocrisy.

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2024 at 3:03 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

The crazy thing is... When we go as hard at the antis as they go at us here, we have members telling us to play nice with no such reprimand for the haters. It's super-bizarre to observe.

Bwaaaaahahahahaaaaa!

[Teancum]

On 6/6/2024 at 11:42 AM, smac97 said:

Again, I think there is far more danger is ignoring/disobeying prophets than in listening to them.

You would be right...if they were really prophets. That said, I am not to worried about ignoring much of what Mormonism's prophets  have to say. But I am open to changing my mind, or maybe finding another prophet or spiritual guide of some sort. Currently I find Sam Harris pretty good, though not perfect, in the latter camp.

[Teancum]

On 6/5/2024 at 9:27 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I actually enjoy Nehor's posts at times (he doesn't seem filled with intense bitterness that pour forth in every post) ... there are two other participants I have in mind.

Oh...am I one of those. I sure hope so.  😁😏🤪🤣😘

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Personally I find "God says so" a fairly weak and immature (as it pertains to human development) approach to determining morals and values. 

Unless of course someone saying that was in touch with God directly enough to commune with him on this level as that would likely indicate a relatively high spirituality.

Edited June 29, 2024 by Calm

[let’s roll]

On 6/29/2024 at 4:45 PM, Teancum said:

You would be right...if they were really prophets. That said, I am not to worried about ignoring much of what Mormonism's prophets  have to say. But I am open to changing my mind, or maybe finding another prophet or spiritual guide of some sort. Currently I find Sam Harris pretty good, though not perfect, in the latter camp.

I’m curious about your thought process.  Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that you’ve said you’re some flavor of agnostic.  If so, do you think that a prophet or spiritual guide can, in some way, move you toward a belief in Deity?  Or perhaps you are looking to them for a spiritual  framework that you can utilize without a specific reference to, or need for, Christian deity?

My frustration with the LDS follow the prophets mantra is that far too many members internalize and implement it in a way that results in them outsourcing to Church leaders Divine communion.  Church leaders are tasked with an exclusive duty and right to petition Deity with respect to direction of the Church as a whole as well as the responsibility to share that direction with Church membership.  The role of Church leaders with respect to individual discipleship is to point people to Deity and to remind all that Deity has promised Divine wisdom and guidance to every one of God’s children who asks with the requisite intent. 

My understanding and experience is that 1)God wants each of His children to have a direct, not a derivative, relationship with Deity; 2)derivative relationships are both incomplete and fragile; and 3) Church curriculum is susceptible to reinforcing impulses for pursuing a direct relationship with the Church, but settling for a derivative relationship with Deity.

 

 

Edited July 1, 2024 by let’s roll
Grammar

[Teancum]

On 6/29/2024 at 6:48 PM, Calm said:

Unless of course someone saying that was in touch with God directly enough to commune with him on this level as that would likely indicate a relatively high spirituality.

And how does one determine that?

[Teancum]

On 6/30/2024 at 12:05 AM, let’s roll said:

I’m curious about your thought process.  Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that you’ve said you’re some flavor of agnostic.

I think that is a fair understanding.

 

On 6/30/2024 at 12:05 AM, let’s roll said:

 

 If so, do you think that a prophet or spiritual guide can, in some way, move you toward a belief in Deity?  Or perhaps you are looking to them for a spiritual  framework that you can utilize without a specific reference to, or need for, Christian deity?

Because of a number of various experiences I have had my trust in a human to communicate to me something they claim a god or deity is telling them to tell me and other humans I think it not likely that I would seek this as a path to connect to such a being.  Further, I am skeptical that if there is such a being that it communicates with humans at all.  I do not totally dismiss such a phenomena but it would take something rather spectacular to convince my otherwise. 

 

On 6/30/2024 at 12:05 AM, let’s roll said:

My frustration with the LDS follow the prophets mantra is that far too many members internalize and implement it in a way that results in them outsourcing to Church leaders Divine communion.  Church leaders are tasked with an exclusive duty and right to petition Deity with respect to direction of the Church as a whole as well as the responsibility to share that direction with Church membership.  The role of Church leaders with respect to individual discipleship is to point people to Deity and to remind all that Deity has promised Divine wisdom and guidance to every one of God’s children who asks with the requisite intent. 

I understand your point. But I think the reason for this is primarily at the feet of the LDS prophets and apostles themselves.  They teach that they are the respeptical of truth and God's commands and that they need to be followed. And that is emphasized very early in the life of an LDS child and  continues their entire life. Oh sure they tell members to pray for their on testimony and even confirmation of anything  they say. But try publicly claiming that the Holy Ghost confirmed that confirmed something the brethren said or taught is wrong.

On 6/30/2024 at 12:05 AM, let’s roll said:

 

My understanding and experience is that 1)God wants each of His children to have a direct, not a derivative, relationship with Deity; 2)derivative relationships are both incomplete and fragile; and 3) Church curriculum is susceptible to reinforcing impulses for pursuing a direct relationship with the Church, but settling for a derivative relationship with Deity.

 

 

I think the church leadership emphasizes what you outline as far as it goes for a testimony of God, Christ, the restoration and so on.  But not on most other things.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

And how does one determine that?

I would say one would have to have one’s own spiritual confirmation for that.

Of course for those who don’t believe in such things, such ideas are pretty worthless.   
 

And there can be error along the way even if someone got much right for those who do believe.  Best to go straight to the source for personal stuff in detail imo, confirmation of leaders works if one is addressing church issues where it’s a community issue.

Edited July 1, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

On 6/28/2024 at 1:46 PM, Teancum said:

Mormonism is replete with such examples. I doubt Joseph Smith would recognize modern Mormonism. Brigham Young most certainly would not.

I think they would.  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9.)

Joseph and Brigham did not anticipate a static, unchanging Church, but rather one that would grow and attune itself to new circumstances.  The world has changed substantially since the early-to-late 19th century, and the Church has needed to change along with it.  

The Church still preaches the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, still espouses the central tenets of faith, repentance and baptism, still boldly declares the divinity of The Book of Mormon, still sends out missionaries, still performs family history and temple work, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 1, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

On 6/29/2024 at 4:45 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

Again, I think there is far more danger is ignoring/disobeying prophets than in listening to them.

You would be right...if they were really prophets.

Then discerning the truth of that issue becomes rather important.

On 6/29/2024 at 4:45 PM, Teancum said:

That said, I am not to worried about ignoring much of what Mormonism's prophets  have to say.

Okay.  I am not "worried," either.  Following the prophets is a more a matter of faith than of fear.

On 6/29/2024 at 4:45 PM, Teancum said:

But I am open to changing my mind, or maybe finding another prophet or spiritual guide of some sort. Currently I find Sam Harris pretty good, though not perfect, in the latter camp.

"Good, though not perfect."

Would that you could extend this measure of grace to the Brethren.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 6/29/2024 at 3:21 PM, Teancum said:

If you think "prophetic" guidance can be set aside at times but not at other times, how does one know when to set it aside? 

I have addressed this many, many times.

On 6/29/2024 at 3:21 PM, Teancum said:

I know you gave some examples but they seem inconsistent

It would be helpful for you to demonstrate, rather than assert, this supposed inconsistency.

On 6/29/2024 at 3:21 PM, Teancum said:

For example you used a quite by  Reuben Clark that said only the president of the church can issue directive and instruction to bind the entire church. Yet historically strong willed apostles have undermined church presidents.

You'll need to be more specific.

On 6/29/2024 at 3:21 PM, Teancum said:

And what about the idea what all 15 of the prophet, seers and revelators have to be in unison. 

What of it?

On 6/29/2024 at 3:21 PM, Teancum said:

What if that unison conflicts with the standard works? 

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, I suppose.

On 6/29/2024 at 3:21 PM, Teancum said:

Practically, it seems that most faithful members will follow the brethren in most whatever they say don't you think?

Mostly, yes.  The unified voice of the Brethren is quite reliable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 6/29/2024 at 11:49 AM, MrShorty said:

Okay, you've got me. The church never explicitly claims it has decided this, but always assumes that its claims are based in revelation.

Not really.  See, e.g., here.

On 6/29/2024 at 11:49 AM, MrShorty said:

Are you bogged down in the word licentious?

I didn't introduce the word into the discussion, nor did I define it in such a way as to make its parameters co-equal with the parameters of behaviors proscribed by the Law of Chastity.  To the contrary, I challenged this usage.

On 6/29/2024 at 11:49 AM, MrShorty said:

There have been lots of words used to declare some sexual behaviors inappropriate or disapproved by God.

Some of which comport with "licentious," and some which do not.

On 6/29/2024 at 11:49 AM, MrShorty said:

Quote

Here, MrShorty's approach seems to be an endlessly regressive critique not about "jurisdiction," but about "revelation."

Perhaps. If this is so, it will be because there is always uncertainty about claims to revelation.

Virtually everything we experience can be reduced to this sentiment, that is, that "there is always uncertainty" about them.

I assume you are familiar with the Simulation Hypothesis?  The notion that "what humans experience as the world is actually a simulated reality, such as a computer simulation in which humans themselves are constructs"?  I assume you are not certain about whether we are living in such a simulated reality, is that correct?  And yet you continue to eat, drink, breath, sleep, work, interact, and so on.  But why?  Why do you, though lacking certainty, nevertheless take what might be a simulated reality and treat it like an actual one?  Why do you not insist on definitive certainty before proceeding to breath, eat, sleep, etc.?

Whatever your answer to that last question is, I suspect you can probably adapt it to address the erstwhile conundrum about us lacking "certainty about claims to revelation."  We proceed on faith, on personal revelation, on reasoning, on experience, on scriptural and prophetic guidance.  The lack of certainty is part of the deal.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (2 Cor. 5:7.)

On 6/29/2024 at 11:49 AM, MrShorty said:

The church and it's leaders claim revelation, then we ask how they know it is revelation, then they may cite a different scripture/revelation, and we can ask how they know that is revelation, and on and on until we reach the point, as you told @Teancum, where everything must be accepted on faith.

More or less.  I have laid out my approach in further detail here.

On 6/29/2024 at 11:49 AM, MrShorty said:

Perhaps at the end of the day, what I am asking is why should I accept on faith something like the LDS church's stance on how committed, monogamous same-sex sexual behavior fits into the law of chastity and not something like the ELCA's stance on how those same behaviors fit into the law of chastity.

In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and are themselves revelatory.

Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to inspired/revelatory counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when doing so is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

On 6/29/2024 at 11:49 AM, MrShorty said:

Somewhere in there might be a discussion of why the church chooses to accept on faith its stance and rejects the ELCA's.

First, I think the former is rooted in revelation, and the latter (or, more accurately, your description of the latter) is more heavily influenced by the prevailing winds of sociopolitical trends and philosophies.

Second, per Calm's post, I question whether you are accurately stating ELCA's position.  ELCA's position seems to be fairly muddled, as it "acknowledges that consensus does not exist concerning how to regard same-gender committed relationships."

Third, for myself, the parameters of the Law of Chastity make a lot of sense.  Sexual behavior, being one of the most potent powers given to man, must be constrained (or else we end up with the above-referenced "licentiousness" and associated issues).  Consequently, sex is limited to being between a husband and wife, and for the purposes of procreation and/or the strengthening of their union.  

Fourth, the foregoing approach to sexuality makes quite a bit of sense, particularly when it is derived from prophetic counsel, and when that prophetic counsel is substantively uniform and consistent (in contrast to our Lutheran friends, who lack a "consensus" about some fundamental matters), and when the divinity of generalized prophetic counsel can be ascertained through faith, study, prayer, personal revelation, and so on.

On 6/29/2024 at 11:49 AM, MrShorty said:

If I wrote it, it would look something like, "We know that prophets are fallible and that false or lesser revelations have been received in the past. [list of examples that might include genocide in the OT, Samuel principle, aspects of the history of the priesthood and temple ban, and others. Include an explanation of the principles of revelation that underlie these errors]. As we have sought and received what we believe is revelation on LGBTQ+ issues, we have taken these sources of revelatory error into account. [list of examples of steps we took to mitigate sources of revelatory error]. We have done our best to seek to understand God's will on this topic, and these stances are our best understanding of God's will.

As noted, this may not be adequate to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is God's will, because there is always some inherent uncertainty in the process of discernment. It would at least show that we have learned from our past mistakes and tried our best to avoid those same mistakes.

Pres. Uchtdorf in 2013: 

Quote

Mistakes of Imperfect People

And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth.

It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished, or destroyed.

As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.

And Elder Uchtdorf in 2021:

Quote

 

Because of Jesus Christ, our failures do not have to define us. They can refine us. Our mistakes do not disqualify us; they are part of our progress.

January 2024:

Quote

SL Tribune:

Quote

LDS leaders sin and policies change — and that’s OK, church says in new guides

Online resources are designed to help Latter-day Saints get answers on touchy topics such as polygamy, race, Heavenly Mother, Book of Mormon translation and more.

Cool.

Quote

The term “faith crisis” doesn’t show up anywhere in two brand-new resources on the official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But that appears to be precisely what the guides hope to address.

Nestled under “Topics and Questions,” the material consists of two guides — one for those seeking answers and one to help others with their questions. The advice found within mixes the practical (“Examine your source’s motives and background”) with the abstract (“Be a Christlike example”). And while some suggestions deal explicitly with testimony and questions of faith (“Trust that God is aware”), others are more widely applicable (“Corroborate what you learn”).

Here are the topics in the "Seeking Answers to Questions" resource:

Quote

Introduction

Center Your Life on Jesus Christ

Be Patient with Yourself and with Others

Recognize That Revelation Is a Process

Consult Reliable Sources

Work to Understand the Past

There is some really good counsel in these materials.  A sampling:

• "Center Your Life on Jesus Christ" is really important.  We ought not live by, and - when needed - defend the Restored Gospel out of a sense of mere tribalism or conforming to familial/social expectations, but rather because "{f}aith in Jesus Christ is vital to our pursuit of answers to life’s most challenging questions."
• "We often think of faith as a strong belief. But faith is more than belief. It involves trust, confidence, and loyalty. When we have challenging questions or concerns, we can always turn to Jesus Christ."  "{T}rust, confidence and loyalty."  Yep.  
• "Jesus Christ is the sure foundation for our faith. In our daily lives, we place our faith in many people and institutions. These include family members, friends, governments, and employers. But Jesus Christ is the only person we can fully trust with our hope for peace and salvation."  The mistakes and flaws of Latter-day Saints and their leaders are sometimes given too much weight in deliberating the divinity of the Restored Gospel.  
• "God’s plan of salvation provides perspective. Many of our questions look different when we keep Heavenly Father’s plan in view. 'Because of our knowledge of this plan,' taught President Dallin H. Oaks, 'we start with different assumptions than those who do not share our knowledge. As a result, we reach different conclusions on many important subjects.'  Examining our questions with the plan of salvation in view can help us see our concerns with an eternal perspective."  I have discovered this in greater measures as I get older.  The presuppositions we bring to the table often end up heavily influencing the conclusions we take away.
• "There are primary and secondary questions. Sometimes we have questions or concerns related to historical events, Church teachings and policies, or human failures. Finding peace with such questions deserves our honest effort. But it’s important to distinguish core gospel truths from things that aren’t as essential.  Joseph Smith taught that 'all other things are only appendages' to the truths surrounding the Savior’s saving mission."  This is an important one for me.  I think too many of us are focusing on tangential "secondary" questions and then "working back" from them to reach conclusions of doubt and a loss of faith.  
• The entire "Be Patient with Yourself and with Others" section is worth a read, and several others beyond it.  It summarizes how we need to be "patient with yourself," "with Church members," "with those who want to help," "with Church leaders," and "with the Lord's timing."
• The "Recognize That Revelation is a Process" section is excellent.  "Remember that revelation usually starts with questions." "Recognize that revelation comes line upon line." "Remember that God speaks to us according to our understanding." "Be faithful and believe."  "Remember that all good comes from God." "Know that obtaining revelation can be a struggle." "Continue to seek revelation."
• I am very happy with the "Consult Reliable Sources" section.  "Evaluate the reliability of sources." "Learn to recognize bias."  "Corroborate what you learn." "Distinguish facts from interpretation." "Become familiar with Church resources."  "Seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost."
• The "Work to Understand the Past" section is great.  "Recognize the limits of our knowledge." "Expect change." "Place things in context." "Remember that humans make mistakes." "Watch for suspect interpretations."

Here are the topics in the "Helping Others with Questions" resource: 

Quote

Introduction

Respond with Love

Listen with Humility

Trust in the Lord

Nourish Your Own Faith

Assist Them throughout Their Journey

Again, some really useful stuff here.  Some excerpts:

• "When someone close to you shares their questions or concerns about the Church, it’s normal to feel anxious or worried. Try to set aside these emotions and respond with kindness and compassion. You may not fully understand the other person’s experience, but you can follow Jesus Christ’s example and always show love."
• "Sometimes people hesitate to share their struggles because they fear they might lose their relationships with those who are close to them. If someone reaches out to you, they’re looking for support. Respond with love, even if you don’t know what to do or say. Look for ways to show compassion and kindness, even when they make choices you do not agree with."
• "Preserve your relationship. It is more important to cultivate a relationship of love and trust than to provide quick answers. A good goal may be just to keep the conversation going. Maintaining your relationship while keeping your covenants is the best way to continue having a positive influence."
• "Love them without compromise. When someone we love decides to believe differently than we do or makes decisions we don’t understand, we should respect their agency and continue to love them. We can do this without abandoning our own deeply held beliefs. President M. Russell Ballard taught: 'We can love one another without compromising personal divine ideals. And we can speak of those ideals without marginalizing others.'"
• "Seek first to understand. We often think we know how to resolve others’ concerns. We want to just answer their questions and tell them to stop worrying. This impulse is often centered on us rather than on their needs. Spend time listening to the story of how they arrived where they are today."
• "Acknowledge their experience. Even though we may not understand or agree with another’s concerns, we can acknowledge their sincerity and the pain they might be feeling. In an effort to show empathy, we sometimes draw comparisons between their experiences and our own. It’s important to remember that everyone’s experience is different."
• "Avoid being dismissive or judgmental. By the time a friend or loved one has decided to talk to you about their questions, they have most likely spent time privately researching and thinking. Be careful not to shut down the conversation by dismissing their questions or making judgments."
• "Keep your emotions in check. It’s normal to feel anxious or concerned when a loved one approaches you with questions about their faith. Try not to let these emotions get in the way of a productive conversation. If you feel angry, it’s probably better to ask if you can take a break and continue the conversation a little later."
• "Ask open-ended questions. Open-ended questions encourage others to share their thoughts, feelings, and experiences. They don’t necessarily have a right or wrong answer. For example: 'Can you tell me more?' 'How do you feel about that?' 'Can you help me understand?' 'What can I do to help?' Asking good questions shows that you care and will help you avoid misunderstanding."
• "Continue cultivating your testimony. It’s important to keep doing the things that helped you build your testimony of the gospel. These could include reading the scriptures, praying, partaking of the sacrament, worshipping in the temple, and serving others."
• "Become better informed. You don’t need to be an expert on an issue to be a good supporter. But it can be very positive to learn about a topic you don’t have context for. Pursue a thoughtful study of the Church’s doctrine and history."
• "Be a safe source for discussion. When a friend or family member brings their questions to you, they probably aren’t looking for someone to fix a problem but rather a loved one who is willing to walk beside them on their journey."

Back to the article:

Quote

More than a mere collection of suggestions, these resources — which went live Dec. 13 and avoid offering answers for specific questions members might have — embody a seismic shift in the church’s approach to handling sticky conversations about its history, theology and policies, according to Latter-day Saints who have committed themselves to making space in the faith community for thorny questions.

Among them is author and scholar Terryl Givens, who described the effort as part of the global church’s ongoing work aimed at the “decriminalization of doubt.”

The guide directed at those grappling with concerns opens with a simple yet meaningful acknowledgment: There are episodes in the church’s past that “may raise difficult questions.”

Quoting apostle Dieter F. Uchtdorf, it explains that “some might feel embarrassed or unworthy because they have searching questions regarding the gospel, but they needn’t feel that way.” Rather, “Asking questions isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s a precursor of growth.”

Further to the comment from Elder Uchtdorf, there are some "difficult questions" that may create anger, a sense of betrayal, etc.  We need to address these responses as well.

Quote

Times change. Cultures and languages evolve. Don’t be surprised, then, when even “core principles” are “understood and expressed” in new ways, the section titled “Work to Understand the Past” reads.

For Givens, this section constitutes “one of the most remarkable acknowledgments we’ve ever had on the official church site about the role of culture and language in shaping our understandings and in limiting our ability to hear God.”

It’s a recognition, he said, that Protestants and Catholics came to in the early 20th century in what Givens refers to as the “Crisis of Modernism,” a period in which Western Christianity grappled with academic research on topics ranging from the historicity of the Bible to the theory of evolution.

“Our crisis was delayed about a hundred years for all kinds of interesting reasons,” he explained, among them the “insularity of our culture and reliance upon prophets rather than scholars.”

So what has changed?

For one, “wildly optimistic” forecasts made decades ago regarding church growth have “fallen flat.” Meanwhile, Givens said, more and more Latter-day Saints have seen loved ones disappear from the pews due to disaffection. As a result, the church has been forced to grapple with “the fact that God’s language is going to shift, or our understanding of his voice is going to shift with time and culture and context.”

Good stuff.  We need to be clear-eyed about what is going on today.

Quote

Tied to this realization is the recognition that church leaders make errors.

Uchtdorf conceded as much in a 2013 General Conference sermon. “To be perfectly frank,” he said, “there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.”

The new online resource builds upon that theme: “When we tell stories from church history, we tend to focus on heroic actions and happy endings,” it states. “It is good to remember people when they were at their best. But we sometimes forget that Latter-day Saints of the past, including early church leaders, were human beings. Human beings have weaknesses. They make mistakes. They sin.”

This has long seemed axiomatic to me, but I guess it's not that way for everyone.

Quote

Givens likewise applauded this counsel, which he said reinforced a “landmark address” apostle M. Russell Ballard gave to Church Educational System instructors across the globe in 2016.

In it, Ballard, who died last month, informed teachers that they could no longer dismiss or sidestep difficult inquiries from students but instead were responsible for seeking out “the best answers,” whether about Heavenly Mother, race and the priesthood or polygamy.

“Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, ‘Don’t worry about it!,’” the apostle said. “Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue.”

He urged seminary and institute instructors to study the church’s Gospel Topics essays, which tackle prickly subjects such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Book of Mormon translation and the former priesthood/temple ban on Black members.

“It is important that you know the content in these essays,” Ballard said, “like you know the back of your hand.”

That message, Givens said, “was a tidal shift.”

Yep.

Quote

Six years after Ballard’s exhortation, the church added a new institute class for young adults titled “Answering My Gospel Questions.” Like the new guides, the class is designed to help members learn how to find answers from reliable sources.

“This course is part of a larger effort to meet the needs of young adults in inviting and relevant ways,” Chad Webb, administrator of seminaries and institutes, said in a news release at the time. “It will allow them to faithfully address current questions and issues.”

Cool!  I did not know about this class.

Quote

As needed as the guides are, Jones worries that they fall short of providing those with difficult questions what they really want: answers.

“The church is clearly making this in response to concerns with history and policy, which are commonly cited reasons people step away from the church,” he said. “Yet this is still not a direct engagement of those concerns.”

For those wondering where their gay sibling fits into the plan of salvation or if polygamy exists in heaven, giving them “generic counsel about centering your life on Christ or ‘being patient with the Lord’s timing’” probably won’t, he said, resolve anything.

Fair enough.

Nephi acknowledged his own weaknesses. 

The author of the Title Page to the Book of Mormon (presumably Moroni) acknowledged "faults" and "mistakes."

Joseph Smith repeatedly acknowledged his own flaws.

The Gospel Topics essays about "Race and the Priesthood" and the "Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints" acknowledge errors by members and leaders.

As noted above, Pres. Uchtdorf acknowledged mistakes made by members and leaders in an October 2013 General Conference address.

God Himself appears to have acknowledged the flaws and mistakes of His people in D&C 1:31.

Latter-day Saints are frequently reminded that they and their leaders are not infallible (that is, that they make mistakes).

And on and on and on.

It seems like the Church has done quite a bit of acknowledgment of its errors and mistakes.  And yet, in some quarters, this will never be enough.  Some will just shift the goalposts and demand more, ad infinitum.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 6/28/2024 at 1:50 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

This is an Infinite Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card.  If you dislike a commandment, you simply ignore it by claiming what you do above.  This is pat, ad hoc, unreasoned, untethered, and flawed.

Well your prophets and apostles do it all the time.

They do not.

On 6/28/2024 at 1:50 PM, Teancum said:

Nov 2015 policy was revelation, then it was revoked a few short years later and that was revelation as well,

I'm happy to discuss this in another thread.  As for whether it an instance of the Brethren ignoring a commandment, I respectfully disagree.

On 6/28/2024 at 1:50 PM, Teancum said:

Bruce McConkie's "forget everything we ever said" about the priesthood ban,

Same here.

On 6/28/2024 at 1:50 PM, Teancum said:

Adam is god, then he isn't,

Never canonized.

On 6/28/2024 at 1:50 PM, Teancum said:

plural marriage is celestial marriage and required for exaltation,then it isn't,

Well, no.

On 6/28/2024 at 1:50 PM, Teancum said:

the Father is a personage of spirit, then he is not

See Millet's comments here.  And FAIR's treatment here.

On 6/28/2024 at 1:50 PM, Teancum said:

and on and on. Consistency is not a hallmark of Mormonism.

Which is why we previously espoused, and then stepped away from, The Book of Mormon, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, living prophets and apostles, an open canon, missionary work, temples, and so on.

 

Continuing revelation will bring us new light and knowledge, and changes to how we do some things.  What you here disparage as a bug I praise as a feature of the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it.

Thanks,

-Smac