just me wrote:Why do they claim to speak for god if they don't? Does God speak to them or not?
It seems to me that there has been some errors in claiming it comes from God. But, some errors is to be expected in some sense. there is nothing to indicate to me that we should expect inerrancy from errant beings.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
just me wrote:Why do they claim to speak for god if they don't? Does God speak to them or not?
It seems to me that there has been some errors in claiming it comes from God. But, some errors is to be expected in some sense. there is nothing to indicate to me that we should expect inerrancy from errant beings.
Falsely keeping an entire race out of the priesthood and out of the temple for over a century is a pretty big error.
Consistently coming down on the wrong side of civil rights issues (slavery, 60s equal rights movement, ERA, gay marriage) is another.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
stemelbow wrote:It seems to me that there has been some errors in claiming it comes from God. But, some errors is to be expected in some sense. there is nothing to indicate to me that we should expect inerrancy from errant beings.
Falsely keeping an entire race out of the priesthood and out of the temple for over a century is a pretty big error.
Consistently coming down on the wrong side of civil rights issues (slavery, 60s equal rights movement, ERA, gay marriage) is another.
Those are your big issues. Those weren't big issues to even a majority of the members of the church. And we know this because if those had been big issues, the leaders would have made sure the church was on the right/publially acceptable path. When those issues became big issues to the majority of members of the church (or when California universities publically refused to step foot in the same stadium/gym as BYU... you choose), the leaders made sure the church was on the right path.
It's all in how you frame it, Buff.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
stemelbow wrote:It seems to me that there has been some errors in claiming it comes from God. But, some errors is to be expected in some sense. there is nothing to indicate to me that we should expect inerrancy from errant beings.
Falsely keeping an entire race out of the priesthood and out of the temple for over a century is a pretty big error.
Consistently coming down on the wrong side of civil rights issues (slavery, 60s equal rights movement, ERA, gay marriage) is another.
Those are your big issues. Those weren't big issues to even a majority of the members of the church. And we know this because if those had been big issues, the leaders would have made sure the church was on the right/publically acceptable path. When those issues became big issues to the majority of members of the church (or when California universities publically refused to step foot in the same stadium/gym as BYU... you choose), the leaders made sure the church was on the right path.
It's all in how you frame it, Buff.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Buffalo wrote:Falsely keeping an entire race out of the priesthood and out of the temple for over a century is a pretty big error.
Consistently coming down on the wrong side of civil rights issues (slavery, 60s equal rights movement, ERA, gay marriage) is another.
Those are your big issues. Those weren't big issues to even a majority of the members of the church. And we know this because if those had been big issues, the leaders would have made sure the church was on the right/publically acceptable path. When those issues became big issues to the majority of members of the church (or when California universities publically refused to step foot in the same stadium/gym as BYU... you choose), the leaders made sure the church was on the right path. It's all in how you frame it, Buff.
What a shame it wasn't because the Prophet/God foresaw that they would become big issues, he had to wait until the members pointed it out (long after society had moved on)...
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
stemelbow wrote:I must have misunderstood. Then we should expect errors from leaders of the Church, even if errors have to deal with "important" stuff, right? It seems we're in agreement.
You are dodging the issue again. We were never in disagreement that leaders make mistakes on important issues. The issue is trusting them to be correct on the other important issues.
harmony wrote:Those are your big issues. Those weren't big issues to even a majority of the members of the church. And we know this because if those had been big issues, the leaders would have made sure the church was on the right/publically acceptable path. When those issues became big issues to the majority of members of the church (or when California universities publically refused to step foot in the same stadium/gym as BYU... you choose), the leaders made sure the church was on the right path.
It's all in how you frame it, Buff.
It seems clear that God isn't guiding them. God didn't whisper in their ear to tell them that those things were wrong. It's also clear that they weren't being guided by good moral principles either - it took social pressure to get them to enact change. So what are they being guided by?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Themis wrote:You are dodging the issue again. We were never in disagreement that leaders make mistakes on important issues. The issue is trusting them to be correct on the other important issues.
What "other important issues"? Themis, I'm not sure what you are referring to.
This thread was about teachings or ideas being "officially" accepted teachings or ideas. I interjected my appreciation for the seemingly fluid and freeing notion in the church that some ideas/teachings are essential to the faith and some are not--we have room to believe different things to some extent. For that some challenge came at me saying, essentially, as memory has it, if the leaders can't get it right the first time, then there's no reason to trust them. I say, well why? Not one person ever, with the possible presumed exception of Jesus for believers, ever got everything right. Why should we expect leaders of the Church to have fully got things right? I simply can't see it all as a all or nothing thing, as it seems to be to many here. I also can't see the Church as infallible or its method for deriving truth as an infallible thing. In my mind, error should be expected.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:It seems clear that God isn't guiding them.
But you say there is no God at all, right? In your mind God isn't guiding anyone.
God didn't whisper in their ear to tell them that those things were wrong.
How do you know? Maybe they just didn't listen?
It's also clear that they weren't being guided by good moral principles either - it took social pressure to get them to enact change. So what are they being guided by?
Its quite clear that a good moral principle was part of at least some of their lives--love one another.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.