MishMagnet wrote:I don't believe in the Catholic church but I have no doubt that the Pope does.
An interesting analogy, M&M. (The "&" is gratuitous, I know.)
I remember my dad, who grew up Catholic and later became LDS, assuring me that the Pope couldn't really believe he held the keys of Peter--I mean, how could you not hold those keys and really believe you did? Wouldn't it be self-evident to you that you didn't really have that kind of divine power?
This is the same sort of reasoning routinely used to show that LDS leaders must be lying or bluffing--how could they not know...? Do those who argue that the LDS leaders must 'know' also hold that the Pope 'knows'? If not, why not?
DonBradley wrote:My LDS past is similar to yours, Inconceivable.
If the Universe had given me a vote, I would have voted that Mormonism be true, and joined the campaign. In fact, my life was my vote. I lived as though it were not only true, but all-important. But, of course, the Universe didn't give me a vote, as it doesn't give it to any of us. Wanting it to be true, having it be so central to my life, didn't change the faith-unfriendly reality that the evidence gradually revealed.
Who wouldn't to live forever? And with their family? And join in God's creative work?
But a wish is not a fact. And learning that is just part of growing up.
Don
Then you are right about at least two things. I certainly have no idea what you were arguing about.
Hey Inc,
I think we agree on much--probably more, and more significant things, than what we disagree on. My area of disagreement with you on this thread has just been on whether the LDS GAs are sincere. This question is only peripherally related to that of the truth of Mormonism, since one can believe in something (obviously) without it being true. In my own experience, I've found that a number of former LDS appear to have somehow forgotten what it's like to believe, and therefore consider current believers either dunderheaded or disingenuous. More charitable and accurate interpretations are readily available, whether applied to believing family members or the top leaders of the church.
Don Bradley wrote:This is the same sort of reasoning routinely used to show that LDS leaders must be lying or bluffing--how could they not know...? Do those who argue that the LDS leaders must 'know' also hold that the Pope 'knows'? If not, why not?
When I was a believing Elder in the church, I believed that when I gave priesthood blessings, I had been given the authority to do so directly from God. I truly believed that.
...even though priesthood blessings are seen even by many of the most faithful as simply 'letting God do whatever he wants to do...' Even though I personally saw no empirical evidence that I could meaningfully point to that my belief was correct...
To clarify - I'm pretty sure I agree with Don
EDIT: And I posted the above before I saw this...
"In my own experience, I've found that a number of former LDS appear to have somehow forgotten what it's like to believe, and therefore consider current believers either dunderheaded or disingenuous."
...cool ;)
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some Schmo wrote:Yeah, I went through a period where I thought the GA's were in on the scam, but for many of the reasons expressed here, I don't really think so any more. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a couple doubters who are keeping their mouth shut because they like there position, want to keep harmony with their family and friends, etc etc (all the reason people go NOM) but I'm pretty confident they are the exception rather than the rule.
It also wouldn't surprise me if there were occasionally doubts or doubters among members of the hierarchy, probably more likely among the 70 (who are greater in number and probably tend to be a bit lower in demonstrations of absolute commitment) than among the 12 or 1st Presidency. I think the question of whether a particular General Authority might doubt or disbelieve is a legitimate one, though perhaps impossible to answer for the foreseeable future. What I have a beef with is the knee-jerk assumption that the tope leaders as a whole are insincere, as though this legitimate question regarding individuals had been magically and certainly answered regarding them as a group.
If there are any closet doubters among the General Authorities, I suspect that they quietly stay in their positions not merely because of family and friends or liking the position, but primarily because they see the church as a good institution whether or not it is everything it purports to be. If a doubter arose among the 70, he could be quietly released for "health" reasons, and who would be the wiser for it? Perhaps this has already happened.
RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:[EDIT: And I posted the above before I saw this...
"In my own experience, I've found that a number of former LDS appear to have somehow forgotten what it's like to believe, and therefore consider current believers either dunderheaded or disingenuous."
...cool ;)
Thanks, Phunk. :-)
Some former LDS are sympathetic to current believers, but others, who may frequently be found on RfM, fulminate against the members about as much as against the authorities and the beliefs. They paint believing LDS as idiots, goose-stepping acolytes, and the like, which always leaves me wondering what they think this says about them! Are they admitting to having been cretins of the same stripe? How is they've been so completely redeemed from idiocy and immorality? And why don't they seem to hold out the same hope for redemption for the myriad "MorgBots" they execrate?
RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:[EDIT: And I posted the above before I saw this...
"In my own experience, I've found that a number of former LDS appear to have somehow forgotten what it's like to believe, and therefore consider current believers either dunderheaded or disingenuous."
...cool ;)
Thanks, Phunk. :-)
Some former LDS are sympathetic to current believers, but others, who may frequently be found on RfM, fulminate against the members about as much as against the authorities and the beliefs. They paint believing LDS as idiots, goose-stepping acolytes, and the like, which always leaves me wondering what they think this says about them! Are they admitting to having been cretins of the same stripe? How is they've been so completely redeemed from idiocy and immorality? And why don't they seem to hold out the same hope for redemption for the myriad "MorgBots" they execrate?
Don
I totally agree.
...it almost borders on self-hatred sometimes. And can be uncomfortable to watch...
BishopRic wrote:Exactly! Of course each GA is different, and I do know of one Emeritus that has transitioned to a different belief, but I think another factor is the second anointing I'm sure they've all had.
Interesting. What exactly are you talking about? What "different belief"?
He's an interesting guy. He wants to remain anonymous since he's still on the payroll, but is quite open to some who know him. His belief is a sort of New Age approach. He's a "Course in Miracles" follower, and believes that all religions have some truth to them.
Dr. Shades wrote:In short, was that his way of telling everyone that the church isn't true?
Shades, you don't have to bore yourself to tears by viewing this entire clip, but if you want to make a visual judgment of Pres. Hinckley's testimony listen to the last 60 seconds. I don't think there's any hint that he's trying to convey the idea the Church isn't true.
BishopRic wrote:Exactly! Of course each GA is different, and I do know of one Emeritus that has transitioned to a different belief, but I think another factor is the second anointing I'm sure they've all had.
Interesting. What exactly are you talking about? What "different belief"?
He's an interesting guy. He wants to remain anonymous since he's still on the payroll, but is quite open to some who know him. His belief is a sort of New Age approach. He's a "Course in Miracles" follower, and believes that all religions have some truth to them.
"Payroll"? That's another can of worms. Emeritus gets paid?
Emeritus is "old", with health issues that make it impossible for them to serve, at least as far as I understand it. Unless it's also a place to put old guys who no longer toe the party line out to pasture.