Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_charity]

Where do you get these ideas? "Generally, the standard response would be to walk away in disgust."

What planet are YOU living on? Seriously, do you imagine you've gotten these ideas from your psychological studies? If so, they are taking place in an ivory tower, far, far, far removed from real life.

Not psychology, but sociology. Psychology is the science of indivudal behavior and cognitive processes. Sociology goes more into the group interactin side.

I guess I have to agree that as our society has devolved into a culture where personal responsibility and personal control are less valued, then people are becoming more likely to be abusive, emotionally and physically. And those actions are more tolerated now. Maybe you are right. We should expect people to behave any old way their ugly little ids take them. The super ego is losing out, bigtime.

[_dartagnan]

So now there can be no question as to what the Church teaches and what indivdual opinions are.

Their so-called opinions are taught by the Church in conferences. These two issues are not mutually exclusive. They can be one in the same, and that is how it was understood by the early saints. When Joseph Smith or Brigham Young got up and gave a sermon, there was no question among the membership whether it was to be understood as doctrine. People would get in trouble for contradicting Brigham Young on things that were supposed to be just his opinion; things like the now rejected Adam-God theory. How could this be if we are not bound by their opinions?

Makes debating smoother and more accurate for both sides.

No, I think it essentially liberates the apologist from having to address uncomfortable issues. But nobody really buys this except the apologist. For the critic, and I would say most LDS, this distinction between official and regular doctrine is really a distinction without a difference since both categories are accepted as true among LDS.

Not really. The basics have been around since D&C 107.

This deals with Church organization, but I see nothing there to distinguish between regular doctrine and official doctrine.

Since I've been a missionary and afterwards in Teacher preparation classes and further preisthood callings, I've noticed a distinct line drawn between official doctrine and opinion. The span is at least 30 years.

Yes, around the time McConkie thought he could write, what is now regarded as an opinion piece, and call it “Mormon Doctrine.” Obviously this General Authority saw no problems with this. He saw no distinction and neither did any of his peers. Only after his comments created public outrage did the Church reprimand him and begin pushing this distinction between doctrine vs. official doctrine.

So?

Well, if it was created for apologetic purposes, then this makes it ad hoc. Just do a search in the LDS database for “official doctrine” and see how many hits you find. I found three, all of which come from the past thirty years.

I am not Allen Wyatt or FAIR.

And a good thing too, but Allen’s attitude was embraced by the majority, not rejected. I was slammed for questioning the Lord’s anointed. Even though I clearly stated we are not bound by their opinions; and I also pointed out it was hypocritical for them to criticize critics for not recognizing their words as opinion, while at the same time criticizing me for saying they were.

You're now speaking as if you believe the prophets mouths are controlled by God which is suprising since I normally consider you to be a well above average antiMormon.

No, obviously I don’t. But Brigham Young said his sermons were as good as scripture, and most Mormons thought that way then, and I believe they do today also. But no matter, the fact is these things are “taught” by the Church. The issue of official doctrine never comes up unless it causes a public stir. Otherwise, it is taken for granted that the Lord’s anointed were spot on in their “opinions.” After all, they pray and receive the spirit all day every day right? And in the LDS paradigm of spirituality, it is taken for granted that those in high positions are more in tune with the spirit.

If general conference speeches by the President of the Church cannot be considered “Church teachings,” then what pray tell, can be considered Church teachings? The membership anticipates hearing the Prophet only twice a year, and now we’re to understand he isn’t giving us anything but opinion that could very well be wrong? What good is there is having a Prophet run the Church then if it is just as prone to error as the next Church? The Church is supposed to be different in the sense that it always knows what God wants us to do because he sends his prophet to teach us. Was my missionary sale’s pitch just sales talk? Can the Prophet’s words be mitigated as something less than “from God,” simply because they haven’t been canonized? I know no Mormon who thinks like this.

[_Runtu]

Would you, for example, feel comfortable joining a group of women for lunch and "singing and speaking in tongues" followed by washing and anointing each other and laying hands on each other and giving blessings? If you would, I'd venture to say you're a rare woman indeed.

If I were going out for a "girls go out to lunch thing," I doubt it. But in a sacred circumstance I wouldn't be uncomfortable at all. Setting is everything.

But that's pretty much how it was described. People would get together for dinner or dancing, and then afterwards would sing and speak in tongues. One account I read had a group of sister-wives getting together for lunch, after which some spoke in tongues. Then they took a sleigh ride to another home, where the tongues were interpreted. It seems like a rather casual, commonplace kind of event for these women.

[_beastie]

Not psychology, but sociology. Psychology is the science of indivudal behavior and cognitive processes. Sociology goes more into the group interactin side.

I guess I have to agree that as our society has devolved into a culture where personal responsibility and personal control are less valued, then people are becoming more likely to be abusive, emotionally and physically. And those actions are more tolerated now. Maybe you are right. We should expect people to behave any old way their ugly little ids take them. The super ego is losing out, bigtime.

First, psychology also deals with an individual's pattern of interacting with other human beings, which is what we are discussing, rather than larger scale interactions.

Second, I know it is commonly thought that today's society is ruder than in the past, but I am unconvinced. I think human beings have always tended to behave rudely at times, but increased technology simply makes those behaviors more publicized.

You seem to be suggesting that more intelligent, educated people also tend to behave more politely. In my experience, intelligence and willingness to behave politely have no causal relationship.

[_charity]

If I were going out for a "girls go out to lunch thing," I doubt it. But in a sacred circumstance I wouldn't be uncomfortable at all. Setting is everything.

Do you imagine you are representative of the feelings of most church members?

I can't think of a single member I knew who would be comfortable speaking in tongues. In fact, I knew several who mocked the pentecostals for it.

This, again, is a major misunderstand of what speaking in tongues is. Occasionally, I suppose someone would "speak in the Adamic language" or whatever they call it.

But the gift of tongues most often occurs in the following settings:

1. A person is able to speak in a langauge (German, Spanish, Dutch,etc.) which he was not previously fluent in, to a specific person or persons for a specific purpose. Ex. an Egnlish speaker can suddenly deliver a sermon in Spanish to a group of Spanish speaking people.

2. A person is able to understand things said in a language they do not know. Ex. an English speaker is in a Spanish speaking congregation, and can undestand the proceedings in Spanish.

Both these circumstances are transitory. Situation specific.

3. Missionaries who are learning a foreign language learn it more easily and more quickly than if they did not have the gift.

Any time a person speaks in a different language than their own in a Church meeting, there should be a translator availalbe. It would not be seen as a gift from God if a person were to speak some unknonw tongue and no one know what he/she was saying. It would not edify anyone.

[_Runtu]

This, again, is a major misunderstand of what speaking in tongues is. Occasionally, I suppose someone would "speak in the Adamic language" or whatever they call it.

But the gift of tongues most often occurs in the following settings:

1. A person is able to speak in a langauge (German, Spanish, Dutch,etc.) which he was not previously fluent in, to a specific person or persons for a specific purpose. Ex. an Egnlish speaker can suddenly deliver a sermon in Spanish to a group of Spanish speaking people.

2. A person is able to understand things said in a language they do not know. Ex. an English speaker is in a Spanish speaking congregation, and can undestand the proceedings in Spanish.

Both these circumstances are transitory. Situation specific.

3. Missionaries who are learning a foreign language learn it more easily and more quickly than if they did not have the gift.

Any time a person speaks in a different language than their own in a Church meeting, there should be a translator availalbe. It would not be seen as a gift from God if a person were to speak some unknonw tongue and no one know what he/she was saying. It would not edify anyone.

This is purely modern spin that reflects the very embarrassment I cited. Read the journals and letters of the people who engaged in glossolalia in the early church. It was speaking in an "unknown tongue" and then having someone translate it by the gift of the spirit. People describe it as gibberish unless one has the gift. Early Mormons, including Brigham Young, I might add, engaged in this practice. It wasn't just being able to understand Spanish.

[_charity]

First, psychology also deals with an individual's pattern of interacting with other human beings, which is what we are discussing, rather than larger scale interactions.

Second, I know it is commonly thought that today's society is ruder than in the past, but I am unconvinced. I think human beings have always tended to behave rudely at times, but increased technology simply makes those behaviors more publicized.

You seem to be suggesting that more intelligent, educated people also tend to behave more politely. In my experience, intelligence and willingness to behave politely have no causal relationship.

I have found that the truly intelligent and educated people tend to behave better than those who only assume they are the most intelligent and educated people around. The most intelligent and educated tend to undestand just how much they don't know, notwishtanding what they know. The smaller minds tend to get puffed up thinking they know it all. Like I said, arrogance and price come into it.

[_Runtu]

I have found that the truly intelligent and educated people tend to behave better than those who only assume they are the most intelligent and educated people around. The most intelligent and educated tend to undestand just how much they don't know, notwishtanding what they know. The smaller minds tend to get puffed up thinking they know it all. Like I said, arrogance and price come into it.

Of course I am the exception because I am quite simply the most intelligent and well-educated (well, as far as BYU could educate me) person here. There isn't a whole lot I don't already know.

Oh, and I'm really humble and modest, too. ;)

[_Yoda]

Oh, and I'm really humble and modest, too. ;)

Yes, we all need to follow your example. You were the first God here, after all. ;)

[_beastie]

I have found that the truly intelligent and educated people tend to behave better than those who only assume they are the most intelligent and educated people around. The most intelligent and educated tend to undestand just how much they don't know, notwishtanding what they know. The smaller minds tend to get puffed up thinking they know it all. Like I said, arrogance and price come into it.

So how would you "label" someone who perceives him or herself as qualified to determine the "truly intelligent and educated" from those who "only assume" they are?

Would the words arrogance and pride be appropriate, as well?

And what label could be ascribed to someone who was even willing to associate his/her challengers or critics with satan?