ajax18 wrote:Does your bishop know you think Joseph made it all up? Is he fine with you having a temple recommend and all in this state of unbelief? I'd be interested to know how many temple attending Mormons privately confide to their bishop that they believe it was all made up.
My bishop knows exactly what I think. Why is it a concern to you?
The Nehor wrote:The purpose of Gospel Doctrine class is NOT to dispense facts, it is to teach the Gospel in a way that the Spirit can move the students to make changes in their own lives.
Then is it not more of a "revival meeting" than a class where one studies a text?
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Harmony wrote:What are you going to do when you realize Joseph made it all up?
Harmony, what are your thoughts on the Book of Mormon?
I'm right there with you on Joseph having "made up" or, at the very least, misinterpreting a lot of things. But I do believe that Joseph Smith was inspired to bring the Book of Mormon to us.
Similar of my view of the Bible, I think a lot of what is in the Book of Mormon is allegory rather than actual history, but the principles are sound. I thought this was pretty close to your view as well. Am I in the ball park or "out in left field"? LOL
Harmony wrote:What are you going to do when you realize Joseph made it all up?
Harmony, what are your thoughts on the Book of Mormon?
I'm right there with you on Joseph having "made up" or, at the very least, misinterpreting a lot of things. But I do believe that Joseph Smith was inspired to bring the Book of Mormon to us.
Similar of my view of the Bible, I think a lot of what is in the Book of Mormon is allegory rather than actual history, but the principles are sound. I thought this was pretty close to your view as well. Am I in the ball park or "out in left field"? LOL
For what it's worth Liz. I think much the same about the Book of Mormon as you do. My theory is that Smith stole the record from a righteous man and threw him under a bus.
mentalgymnast wrote: First off, it's not very often that any of these things you mention are brought up in Gospel Doctrine class. Second, the truth is, is that there is a flip side or at least an alternate or reasonable way of approaching any of the so-called issues/controversies that come up. Lastly, I'm willing to concede that I have not yet become an expert on each and every possible roadblock to belief/faith...to the extent that I can defer making a final judgment concerning those things that are bothersome at first glance. As I have done so, I have bit by bit, here and there, been able to resolve or at least find good reason(s) to put some of the "hard things" aside and remain a practicing member of the church...and do so in good faith and with my integrity intact.
Regards, MG
I'm not talking about issues or controversies that come up during sunday meetings, I agree that the controversies rarely, if ever, are discussed in church. I'm talking about the "Chapel Mormon" doctrine such as the literal global flood, the literal garden of Eden with a literal Adam and Eve as the first humans about 6000 years ago, a hemispheric reading of the Book of Mormon, you know the regular correlated lesson material. "Internet Mormon" theories are not part of the correlated curriculum so I'm curious how Internet Mormons deal with it.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
Inconceivable wrote:For what it's worth Liz. I think much the same about the Book of Mormon as you do. My theory is that Smith stole the record from a righteous man and threw him under a bus.
There weren't any buses then....but then I'm sure somewhere in that travelling library Joseph had access to there was a book that had early undeveloped plans for one and he was able to build one to push the guy under........I think I've been neglecting my library if this is the kind of thing you can find though :)
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
ajax18 wrote:Does your bishop know you think Joseph made it all up? Is he fine with you having a temple recommend and all in this state of unbelief? I'd be interested to know how many temple attending Mormons privately confide to their bishop that they believe it was all made up.
My bishop knows exactly what I think. Why is it a concern to you?
It's just interesting to me that you can still be a TR holding Mormon and believe that. I am pretty surprised that they would allow that.
Granted I don't agree with a lot of things that could get me into major trouble with the Church fathers, but obviously I simply don't tell them. I admire your honesty. I just thought that being a TR holder and believing Jospeph Smith made it all up were mutually exclusive things in a person. Apparently it isn't in your stake. Does your SP have to tell the Brethren about these decisions they've made? Something tells me Elder Packer would not allow it.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
mentalgymnast wrote: First off, it's not very often that any of these things you mention are brought up in Gospel Doctrine class. Second, the truth is, is that there is a flip side or at least an alternate or reasonable way of approaching any of the so-called issues/controversies that come up. Lastly, I'm willing to concede that I have not yet become an expert on each and every possible roadblock to belief/faith...to the extent that I can defer making a final judgment concerning those things that are bothersome at first glance. As I have done so, I have bit by bit, here and there, been able to resolve or at least find good reason(s) to put some of the "hard things" aside and remain a practicing member of the church...and do so in good faith and with my integrity intact.
Regards, MG
I'm not talking about issues or controversies that come up during sunday meetings, I agree that the controversies rarely, if ever, are discussed in church. I'm talking about the "Chapel Mormon" doctrine such as the literal global flood, the literal garden of Eden with a literal Adam and Eve as the first humans about 6000 years ago, a hemispheric reading of the Book of Mormon, you know the regular correlated lesson material. "Internet Mormon" theories are not part of the correlated curriculum so I'm curious how Internet Mormons deal with it.
The only tools that we have at our disposal to come to any resolution on these specific matters are science and scripture. We also have speculative hypotheses from religious leaders and others. in my opinion, science comes out on top in regards to global flood, the human ancestral record, and to some extent the hemispheric reading of the Book of Mormon. The scientific evidence is not available for where the garden of Eden may have been and the evidence is not all in, and is somewhat fuzzy, in important areas dealing with Book of Mormon archeology.
Is there conclusive evidence that a garden of Eden couldn't have been located in Missouri besides references in the Bible?
What individual members may or may not believe in connection with these four issues doesn't have any bearing on the core values/teachings of the gospel. As such, when these areas are broached in a gospel doctrine class and fuzzy or possibly incorrect opinions are stated...even as doctrine...it provides interesting fodder for thought, but not "deal breaking" reasons for bailing out of GD class and disregarding the core teachings of the gospel that are more often than not the main thrust/emphasis of the lessons.