DiscussMormonism.com

Two years ago on the FAIR message board I posted the following:

We've come a long way in Mormon thought over the past century.

Who would have thought prior to the 70's that "white and delightsome" in the Book of Mormon had nothing to do with skin color?

Who would have thought prior to the 60's that the Catholic Church really wasn't the whore of babylon?

Who would have thought, prior to BH Roberts, that the "the Church of the devil" scriptures weren't really referring to a "Church" at all?

Who during the turn of the 20th century, would have guessed that the priesthood would be extended to African Americans?

The multiculturalism phenomenon has had a profound inpact on Mormon thought, in my opinion.

We're still experiencing a paradigm shift I think, and it seems to me that those who are pitching a fit and going against the tide of change, are not the "marginalized Mormons," but rather the conservative or traditionalists.

I guess we can add more to this list as well, such as:

Who in 20th century Mormonism would have thought indians weren't the principle ancestors of the Lamanites?

Who before 1967 would have thought the Book of Abraham wasn't really "translated" from Egyptian?

Who in the 19th century Church would have thought it was possible to reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon while remaining a faithful LDS?

The above excerpt came from a discussion about the ahistorical nature of the Book of Mormon. The conservative Mormons were attacking any liberal Mormon who was willing to "shift his paradigm" in a way that accepts the Book of Mormon as "true," yet fiction. I thought Bokovoy might get a kick out of this because at that time, when I was TBM, I was advocating paradigm shifts to accomodate revealed evidences, silimar to his recent suggestions, yet the difference was that I was marginalized while Bokovoy is embraced.

The dynamic nature of Mormonism used to be a plus for me, but now I see it as a weakness because it sets itself up as something that can never be proved or disproved. The earlier prophets said the Church can be disproved through empirical evidence. They often threw down the challenge for critics to disprove the Church. Yet, what we hear today is that one can never disprove it. The paradigm keeps shifting to accomodate new evidences that undermine LDS truth clams that are foundational to its purpose for ever existing.

Its purpose is that it is a "restoration" of the oler Church and that converts no longer have to wonder if they are following the proper interpretation of scripture set down by Protestant theologians or Catholic authorities. But when looking at the big picture, Mormon authorities have been equally, if not more dynamic and inconsistent in two centuries, than traditional Christianity has been in two millenia.

Whatever happened to that guarantee promised in the missionary discussions that this Church is the only one with a direct link to God (the prophet) whereby the people will never be led astray? No matter how you look at it, some LDS prophets have contradicted one another in the same way some Popes have contradicted. What makes Mormonism any more true than the others, when what Gordon B. Hinckley says today could very well be overturned by a future prophet who feels the need to make further accomodation to our changing culture and the demands and expectations it foists on the Church?

I only wonder why apologists don't cut to the chase and make "credo quia absurdum" their motto. After all, things that critics use to discredit the church are its best defense! One of the strongest points of criticism is that one's testimony is based on subjective feelings, yet it is always the last resort of apologists. God personally revealed to them the thuth, you see.

I suppose you could apply the same reasoning to other issues.

Interesting thoughts, Dartagnan.

However, I wonder if any people at MA&D would agree with that? Although what you write makes perfect sense to most people here, I wonder if, perhaps, the apologists would disagree with you, saying that the ecumenism of Mormonism was always the way it is now, but the earlier Mormons just misunderstood the doctrine, scriptures, and teachings.

Am I making any sense?

dartagnan wrote:The dynamic nature of Mormonism used to be a plus for me, but now I see it as a weakness because it sets itself up as something that can never be proved or disproved.

Its purpose is that it is a "restoration" of the oler Church and that converts no longer have to wonder if they are following the proper interpretation of scripture set down by Protestant theologians or Catholic authorities. But when looking at the big picture, Mormon authorities have been equally, if not more dynamic and inconsistent in two centuries, than traditional Christianity has been in two millenia.

Imagine what two millenia would do to Mormonism.

Dr. Shades wrote:Interesting thoughts, Dartagnan.

However, I wonder if any people at MA&D would agree with that? Although what you write makes perfect sense to most people here, I wonder if, perhaps, the apologists would disagree with you, saying that the ecumenism of Mormonism was always the way it is now, but the earlier Mormons just misunderstood the doctrine, scriptures, and teachings.

Am I making any sense?

Yes. I see apologists following a pattern: "the church was always this way...we always knew Joseph had 33 wives, that the Book of Abraham was a catalyst for the new scripture, and that "white and delightsome" was the correct phrase all along." If "you" didn't know these things, it was because you were lazy in seminary class and didn't listen.

I think the reality is that the surviving "Mormon" religion was the one that could, and did, change according to society's demands...end polygamy, equalize the races, and now, minimize the staunch teaching of who the Lamanites are. Oh, and make sure you call those faulty previous doctrines "man's opinions," rather than directly from God. After all, even the prophets are mere men with weaknesses and strong opinions -- even if incorrect.

It's a system that keeps them safe. Modern revelation allows change...and they can always blame human weakness for bad doctrine! Brilliant!

dartagnan wrote:The dynamic nature of Mormonism used to be a plus for me, but now I see it as a weakness because it sets itself up as something that can never be proved or disproved.

It seems to me that the church is in retreat in that it is relentlessly backing off its truth claims so as to make them unfalsifiable. It won't be that long until there's nothing left.

Runtu wrote:

dartagnan wrote:The dynamic nature of Mormonism used to be a plus for me, but now I see it as a weakness because it sets itself up as something that can never be proved or disproved.

It seems to me that the church is in retreat in that it is relentlessly backing off its truth claims so as to make them unfalsifiable. It won't be that long until there's nothing left.

This is not only true for the Mormon Church but for all of Christianity. It has been on a 2000 year retreat since it first encountered Greek ideas that were more enlightened than the Christian base teaching. It all accelerated at the renaissance and continues to accelerate following the enlightenment. All progress in Christianity comes from adaptation to reason and science and not from internal mechanisms.

John

dartagnan wrote:
Who would have thought prior to the 70's that "white and delightsome" in the Book of Mormon had nothing to do with skin color?

Who would have thought prior to the 60's that the Catholic Church really wasn't the whore of babylon?

Who would have thought, prior to BH Roberts, that the "the Church of the devil" scriptures weren't really referring to a "Church" at all?

Who during the turn of the 20th century, would have guessed that the priesthood would be extended to African Americans?

Who in 20th century Mormonism would have thought indians weren't the principle ancestors of the Lamanites?

Who before 1967 would have thought the Book of Abraham wasn't really "translated" from Egyptian?

Who in the 19th century Church would have thought it was possible to reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon while remaining a faithful LDS?

Who before 1880 would have thought that Jesus would not return in 1885?

Who before 1888 would have conceived that polygamy would not exist in the church in 2007?

Who before 1888 would have thought that in 2007 a man practicing the teachings of 18th century prophets and the original church would be a direct contradiction to church's current teachings (Jeffs).

Who before 1999 would have thought that building a simple monument in Mountain Meadows would unearth the remains of the slaughtered?

Who before 2005 would have thought I would apostatize from the church - not due to Satanic deception but entirely the opposite - out of personal integrity and conviction and the wickedness of those I thought were legal administrators.

Runtu wrote:

dartagnan wrote:The dynamic nature of Mormonism used to be a plus for me, but now I see it as a weakness because it sets itself up as something that can never be proved or disproved.

It seems to me that the church is in retreat in that it is relentlessly backing off its truth claims so as to make them unfalsifiable. It won't be that long until there's nothing left.

The thing is the Church is not really backing down, but the defenders are shifting all sort of things.

Kevin, I am not sure I agree with the shifting is not a strength. Of course, the shifts happen while maintaining that the Church is still the ONE true Church and all is well in Zion anyway. So there is a disconnect here. I like seeing change for the good, but the Church also does it really "kicking and screaming." Perhaps if we could become more "liberal" on these things in an open and public way it would be a strength. But there would be a lot of casualites in the process. And could the Church ever really say that Joseph was not a prophet like we once thought. He had a lot of good ideas but got a lot wrong too. Can they say the Book of Mormon is not a factual history but more pseudopigrapha in nature or midrash... inspired fiction?????? Not sure it would survive this.

dartagnan wrote:Two years ago on the FAIR message board I posted the following:

We've come a long way in Mormon thought over the past century.

Who would have thought prior to the 70's that "white and delightsome" in the Book of Mormon had nothing to do with skin color?

Who would have thought prior to the 60's that the Catholic Church really wasn't the whore of babylon?

Who would have thought, prior to BH Roberts, that the "the Church of the devil" scriptures weren't really referring to a "Church" at all?

Who during the turn of the 20th century, would have guessed that the priesthood would be extended to African Americans?

The multiculturalism phenomenon has had a profound inpact on Mormon thought, in my opinion.

We're still experiencing a paradigm shift I think, and it seems to me that those who are pitching a fit and going against the tide of change, are not the "marginalized Mormons," but rather the conservative or traditionalists.

I guess we can add more to this list as well, such as:

Who in 20th century Mormonism would have thought indians weren't the principle ancestors of the Lamanites?

Who before 1967 would have thought the Book of Abraham wasn't really "translated" from Egyptian?

Who in the 19th century Church would have thought it was possible to reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon while remaining a faithful LDS?

The above excerpt came from a discussion about the ahistorical nature of the Book of Mormon. The conservative Mormons were attacking any liberal Mormon who was willing to "shift his paradigm" in a way that accepts the Book of Mormon as "true," yet fiction. I thought Bokovoy might get a kick out of this because at that time, when I was TBM, I was advocating paradigm shifts to accomodate revealed evidences, silimar to his recent suggestions, yet the difference was that I was marginalized while Bokovoy is embraced.

The dynamic nature of Mormonism used to be a plus for me, but now I see it as a weakness because it sets itself up as something that can never be proved or disproved. The earlier prophets said the Church can be disproved through empirical evidence. They often threw down the challenge for critics to disprove the Church. Yet, what we hear today is that one can never disprove it. The paradigm keeps shifting to accomodate new evidences that undermine LDS truth clams that are foundational to its purpose for ever existing.

Its purpose is that it is a "restoration" of the oler Church and that converts no longer have to wonder if they are following the proper interpretation of scripture set down by Protestant theologians or Catholic authorities. But when looking at the big picture, Mormon authorities have been equally, if not more dynamic and inconsistent in two centuries, than traditional Christianity has been in two millenia.

Whatever happened to that guarantee promised in the missionary discussions that this Church is the only one with a direct link to God (the prophet) whereby the people will never be led astray? No matter how you look at it, some LDS prophets have contradicted one another in the same way some Popes have contradicted. What makes Mormonism any more true than the others, when what Gordon B. Hinckley says today could very well be overturned by a future prophet who feels the need to make further accomodation to our changing culture and the demands and expectations it foists on the Church?

Sorry, Kevin, you have got it pretty much all wrong. You write about what people thought. Of course, people can think things. But you can't speak for the Church. I can't speak for the Church. And individual members can have ideas which are not correct. Why do you think we have the General Conference, the Ensign magazine, talks in sacrament meeting, and Gospel Doctrine. To INSTRUCT the Saints.

Let me take some of your points and demonstrate your error.

"White and delightsome" and "the whore of Babylon" and "the Church of the Devil" and "who would have thought."

I joined the Church in 1960. White and delightsome were considered circumstances of knowledge and enlightenment.

In 1961 someone tried to buy my huband's copy of Mormon Doctrine, because that passage was so generaly disparaged that this man knew the new edition would not carry it , and he thought it would be fun to have it.

The Church of Devil was being taught in classes to be a "church" only in the sense that there are two sides in the battle, God's and Satan's.

Whatever the expectations of members are about any future event does not have any bearing on the situation. At the turn of the century (the previous one, not this one) who would have anticpated TV to the extent that the whole world can hear the Prophet's voice at the same time.

You are obviously either repeating what you were told, or what you have assumed. I had the personal experience. And you may question my experience. My early years in the Church were in Utah. I joined in southern Oregon and then 3 m onths later went to BYU. After my husband finished his schooling we moved away from Utah and have lived in the Pacific Northwest since then. Not exaclty Happy Valley.

Now let's look at the additions to your list. You asked, Who in 20th century Mormonism would have thought indians weren't the principle ancestors of the Lamanites?

The answer to this is nobody. Your statement is riddled with errors. We don't t hink Indians were the ancestors of Lamanites. Descendants is the correct word. And did you deliberately use the word "principle" instead of "principal?" Those are not the same thing. Do you want us to give you a little leeway, that you misspoke instead of deliberately tried to mislead? Okay. You are let off the hook on this one.

Nest issue: You asked, "Who before 1967 would have thought the Book of Abraham wasn't really "translated" from Egyptian?

(charity reaises her hand.) In 1960 I knew that we can't use 20th century definitions of "translate" when referring to the Book of Mormon, the JST, the Book of Moses or the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith produced these works by the gift and power of God. The manner is not important. It never has been. That is why we don't care if Joseph had the plates in front of him, or if he was reading words off a seerstone or if he was physically looking at the papryi or not. That is something that critics don't seem to understand.

Next: "Who in the 19th century Church would have thought it was possible to reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon while remaining a faithful LDS?

The answer is who does now? There has been no leader who has ever suggested that the Book of Mormon is not exactly what it says it was. But as the FAIR wiki article says on the subject, "we cast a wide net." Not everyone is on the same page. I would take it a little further and say that eventually those who hold that belief right now, will change their minds. I don't t hink the Church wants to exclude anyone who is willing to come and learn. But you will find that those who hold that belief are counseled that they are not to teach it. Doesn't that tell you something?

Kevin your problem with the dynamic nature of the Church is that you have left the concept of continuing revelation. The purpose of the Church and the prophets is not to interpret scripture. We are supposed to do that for ourselves with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Liken all scripture to ourselves, I am sure you have heard of that. One of the major features of the Restoration is that we can all approach God. We don't have to go through ministers, preaches, popes, etc. to tell us what to think about the scriptures.