Mormonism's accomodating nature

[_charity]

There were different ideas going around. If peopple are getting their ideas from others, it proves they are not studying on their own, getting their own spiritual confirmation of the truth. That is their fault.

Charity, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth here.

Either there is official policy, doctrine and practice, or there isn't. Either the church leaders speak on behalf of what is official, and correct, or they don't. Either truth is relative, or it isn't.

Saying it's an individual member's "fault" if they believe what they are taught from the pulpit, in official church publications, in religious instruction classes like Seminary, Sunday School, Relief Society, Priesthood, Young Women's, Young Men's, or Primary, or in the writings or speeches of church leadership, is borderline silly. "Faithful" members are expected to heed the counsel of their leaders.

What you're actually suggesting in terms of each member getting an individual witness is exactly what leads many out of the church. When they get that witness, it's that what they were being taught wasn't correct in the first place. So they act on it. And then what do you say?

They weren't following their leaders. They didn't have faith.

You're suggesting that each member approach the heavens individually for a spiritual confirmation of the truth. But when that truth differs from your version of it, it's apparently faulty.

If there aren't twelve million different realities for twelve million different members of your faith, then there is someone authorized to give the official version. If the members believe it, after being counseled to do so, that doesn't make it "their fault" if it is incorrect.

There is official doctrine. There are also ideas which are not doctrine. Exactly where the final battle in the Book of Mormon took place is not doctrine. Or where the Hill Cumorah is. Or a lot of opinions given, yes, by prophets.

Sometimes there are reasons given for doctrine which are not part of the doctrine itself. The prohibition on the priesthood to blacks, for instance. The doctrine that there should be a restriction is not the same as the reasons for it. We humans are funny creatures. We have an innate need to either be able to predict or to explain what we cannot predict. Sometimes in the attempt to explain we don't get it right. It is my opinion that some of the opinions expressed, even by prophets, on the reason for the restriction got it wrong. But that doesn't mean the doctrine was wrong.

Truth is not relative. Truth is truth. Each individual is supposed to govern his/her life by the Spirit. But you must discern which spirit. That is the hard part.

[_harmony]

There is official doctrine. There are also ideas which are not doctrine. Exactly where the final battle in the Book of Mormon took place is not doctrine. Or where the Hill Cumorah is. Or a lot of opinions given, yes, by prophets.

Sometimes there are reasons given for doctrine which are not part of the doctrine itself. The prohibition on the priesthood to blacks, for instance. The doctrine that there should be a restriction is not the same as the reasons for it. We humans are funny creatures. We have an innate need to either be able to predict or to explain what we cannot predict. Sometimes in the attempt to explain we don't get it right. It is my opinion that some of the opinions expressed, even by prophets, on the reason for the restriction got it wrong. But that doesn't mean the doctrine was wrong.

Truth is not relative. Truth is truth. Each individual is supposed to govern his/her life by the Spirit. But you must discern which spirit. That is the hard part.

I'm sure at some point you are going to tell us all, who have waited so patiently so long, exactly what is official doctrine. Because no one else seems to be able to do that. Start a new thread about it, please.

[_the road to hana]

There is official doctrine.

And where can that be found, exactly?

[_Runtu]

There is official doctrine.

Can you tell me how to determine whether something is official doctrine or not?

There are also ideas which are not doctrine. Exactly where the final battle in the Book of Mormon took place is not doctrine. Or where the Hill Cumorah is. Or a lot of opinions given, yes, by prophets.

Is the teaching about a mother in heaven doctrine? Is the teaching that God was once a mortal human doctrine? Why or why not?

Sometimes there are reasons given for doctrine which are not part of the doctrine itself. The prohibition on the priesthood to blacks, for instance. The doctrine that there should be a restriction is not the same as the reasons for it.

Was the 1949 First Presidency statement, which outlined the reasons for the ban, doctrine? Why or why not?

We humans are funny creatures. We have an innate need to either be able to predict or to explain what we cannot predict. Sometimes in the attempt to explain we don't get it right. It is my opinion that some of the opinions expressed, even by prophets, on the reason for the restriction got it wrong. But that doesn't mean the doctrine was wrong.

Again, you're making an artificial distinction between doctrine and opinion. Which is which?

Truth is not relative. Truth is truth.

Tell that to Juliann.

Each individual is supposed to govern his/her life by the Spirit. But you must discern which spirit. That is the hard part.

Each individual is also supposed to govern his or her life by conscience, reason, knowledge, and morality.

Charity ever flaileth. ;)

[_truth dancer]

TD:

Why do you think I want anything from you or the church. I have never requested anything or suggesting I want anything whatsoever. (sigh)

We are talking about continuing revelation here. I'm wondering why, in a church that claims continuing revelation from Jesus Christ himself, there is no continuing revelation pertaining to our modern day challenges.

OK... I'll try again, I do not see continuing revelation of any import. All I see is a few little token inconsequential items like, how many earrings a woman can wear, what color shirt men must wear to church, a mall, and new buildings scattered across the world. I do not see any modern revelation that addresses any of the problems of our world.

Charity responds:

This is why I think you are asking/demanding something from the Church. Continuing revelation that solves the world's problems. Or else you think there is not such thing as continuing revelation.

I still have no idea where in the world you got the impression that I am asking or demanding anything from the church. I'm not. I do not know how to be more clear. I do not ask ANYTHING from the church. NOTHING at all. I do not ask and certainly do not demand ANTYING AT ALL.

I hope you are clear. There is a BIG difference between wondering why a church that claims to be directed by Jesus Christ himself, and who is receiving continual revelation doesn't seem to have any, AND, DEMANDING SOMETHING FROM THE CHURCH.
Charity, please reread if you do not understand what I just stated.

Having said this, no I do not believe the church is directed by Christ, receiving revelation, or under Divine influence.

TD:

You seem to agree. I believe you are asserting that there is no new revelation addressings our current problems because the information is already available in the church. Ok then we agree there is no new revelation addressing the world's problems. Continuing revelation, (with a few minor exceptions like those above), seems limited to changing the doctrine/teachings of previous prophets and leaders.

Charity responds:

Not at all. New revelation is given whenever there is a new need. It is true that the solution to most of the world's problems is already contained in revelations given. You can even go back as far as the Old Testament to see the solution to all the world's problems. In fact, Moses brought the revelation down from the mount. The Ten Commandments. If all men lived the 10 commandments, most of the world's problems would be solved.

When you criticize the Church or the prophets for not giving a solution to the world's problems, what are you asking for?

Wow... I'm NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING. Again, wondering why "continual revelation" is limited to malls and earrings is not asking for anything from the Chruch.

I'm trying to figure out why you keep going down this odd path.

I'm not criticizing the prophets or the Church or the Pope or the Dahli Lama or Warren Jeffs or my neighbor down the street for not providing answers to the worlds problems, nor am I asking them to do so.

I'm just finding it odd that in a church that claims to be run with Jesus Christ at the helm, continuing revelation is limited to earrings and malls. OK... NOT ASKING ANYTHING FROM THE CHURCH.

TD:

When have I EVER asked why the church doesn't solve all the world's problems? Come on Charity... (sigh) I have asked about revelation from God that may be valuable for our world, and YOU have actually said that we do not need any, that all the information to solve the world's problems is available, which I guess means, there is no continuing revelation because there is no need.

Charity responds:

You have to look at what the questions are. One of the most recent revelations was the proclamation on the familiy. It answered some questions. Gender is eternal, for one thing. Which answers the question of what to do about the disorder of transgenderism. You treat the mind, not the body. Just one example.

The PoF is a revelation? Do you have some sort of proof of this? I have never heard this is an actual revelation nor do I think it is something new but I am open if you have some sort of documentation that this is a revelation from God. (I'm not asking for proof that it is from God, just proof that the church CLAIMS it is a revelation). :-)

Not that I think the PoF addresses the big problems of our world. It is read by a virtual handful of folks who already know the church stance on homosexuality, familes, women, and men. Not quite sure how it is really addressing the serious issues of our planet.


TD:

Charity, I have politely asked you to stop with this nonsense of pretending people are stating what they are not! It is tiresome to have to address your nonsense rather than the topic. I'm not sure if you do this on purpose, if it is a tactic, or if you think you are responding appropriately but I am kindly and respectfully asking you to refrain from this practice at least when you respond to me.

Charity responds:

I can only go by what you say. I don't read mnds. I have provided your own quotes to show that you were asking why the Church cannot provide solutions to the world's problems.

You seem to be trying to read minds Charity. :-) My quotes had nothing to do with asking the Church for anything.

Again I have never asked the church for anything nor do I demand anything in any way whatsoever. Asking for an explanation from believers why, in their minds revelation doesn't address the challenges of our time is MUCH DIFFERENT THAN ASKING OR DEMANDING SOMETHING FROM THE CHURCH.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

Having said this... I think you did answer my question.... you seem to suggest there is no need for revelation hence no new revelation... (perhaps with the possible exception of the PoF).

I'll leave it at that!

:-)

~dancer~

[_the road to hana]

You have to look at what the questions are. One of the most recent revelations was the proclamation on the familiy. It answered some questions. Gender is eternal, for one thing. Which answers the question of what to do about the disorder of transgenderism. You treat the mind, not the body. Just one example.

The PoF is a revelation? Do you have some sort of proof of this? I have never heard this is an actual revelation nor do I think it is something new but I am open if you have some sort of documentation that this is a revelation from God. (I'm not asking for proof that it is from God, just proof that the church CLAIMS it is a revelation). :-)

What many LDS call "revelation" is really no more than what non-LDS would call "inspiration." When members claim "personal revelation," they're generally not claiming supernatural encounters with deity. Unfortunately, they use the same term to imply that leaders of the church are having said supernatural encounters, when the leaders themselves would generally concede that they're soliciting spiritual guidance in directing church affairs, but not necessarily having what the general membership might assume would be a personal encounter with deity.

This is why I would like Charity to answer my question regarding whether or not personal revelation has always been available to mankind throughout history. She seems to imply that it has. That would also suggest that one need not be LDS to have access to it.

[_Yoda]

Truth is not relative. Truth is truth.

Tell that to Juliann.

LOL! Just choked on my Pepsi when I read this! Warn me next time, Runtu!

;)

[_Yong Xi]

Obviously, you don't. There is no reason for wars, starvation, racism, genocide, bad water, or smog. And everything to solve all those problems is contained in the gospel. So why do we still see all of it? Because people are choosing between good and evil. And too many of them are chosing evil.

Take starvation, for example. There is enough food to feed eveyrone on the planet. But a lot of available grain goes to make alcoholic beverages, which don't nourish anyone. And people still eat too much meat, which produces less nourishment than grain it takes to produce all those steaks. Anyone who drinks alcholic beverages and eats meat mroe than "sparingly" is contributing to world hunger. If just half the population went without two meals a month and gave those resources to those who need it, no one would starve.

So what do you want dancer? What about a law that eliminates all booze, and rationing for meat? And the World Health Organization taxes the richer half of the world for the cost of those two meals?

Of course, if the Church were to try to enforce any of those with a Danite band you would be screaming bloody murder. So, until people start to chose unselfishly, we are stuck with wars, starvation, etd. . . .

Why don't you think the Churchis helping and not hindering?

I don't understand your reasoning at all.

Charity, maybe the gospel can solve all the world's problems as you suggest. Let's suppose that is true. Let's further suppose that we want to solve just one of the above mentioned problems, smog. Let's further suppose that we isolate one very polluted country, China. Furthermore, let's us pretend that everyone in China is active, temple recommend holding LDS. Tell me how you get rid of smog in China. Specifically, I would be interested in knowing what political and economic system the Church would setup to accomplish this.

Keep in mind, that everyone in China is LDS. Also, remember that the birth rates for LDS are higher than the Chinese.

Yong Xi

[_charity]

Charity, maybe the gospel can solve all the world's problems as you suggest. Let's suppose that is true. Let's further suppose that we want to solve just one of the above mentioned problems, smog. Let's further suppose that we isolate one very polluted country, China. Furthermore, let's us pretend that everyone in China is active, temple recommend holding LDS. Tell me how you get rid of smog in China. Specifically, I would be interested in knowing what political and economic system the Church would setup to accomplish this.

Keep in mind, that everyone in China is LDS. Also, remember that the birth rates for LDS are higher than the Chinese.

Yong Xi

The Church teaches and advocates personal responsibility. It does not mandate or enforce it. The Church would have no ability or inclination to run the government. But the Church would be teaching and advocating personal responsiblity and the members would be voting for civil laws which would support good stewardship.

But no, the Church would not set up a political or economic system. The gospel has to be lived by each individual.

[_Yong Xi]

Charity, maybe the gospel can solve all the world's problems as you suggest. Let's suppose that is true. Let's further suppose that we want to solve just one of the above mentioned problems, smog. Let's further suppose that we isolate one very polluted country, China. Furthermore, let's us pretend that everyone in China is active, temple recommend holding LDS. Tell me how you get rid of smog in China. Specifically, I would be interested in knowing what political and economic system the Church would setup to accomplish this.

Keep in mind, that everyone in China is LDS. Also, remember that the birth rates for LDS are higher than the Chinese.

Yong Xi

The Church teaches and advocates personal responsibility. It does not mandate or enforce it. The Church would have no ability or inclination to run the government. But the Church would be teaching and advocating personal responsiblity and the members would be voting for civil laws which would support good stewardship.

But no, the Church would not set up a political or economic system. The gospel has to be lived by each individual.

Ok. How does this solve the smog problem in China?