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.