Mormonism's accomodating nature

[_Runtu]

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.

This is an explanation of convenience. We know Joseph couldn't translate Egyptian. We know he borrowed from the KJV (translation errors and all) for the Book of Mormon. The solution: he didn't really translate in any way that we recognize the word translate.

What's next? A prophet doesn't really mean a prophet in any generally accepted way?

[_truth dancer]

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.

Charity, you can fool yourself but you are not fooling others, at least not on this board. (sigh) To deny various teaching even existed is really either completely disengenuous or a powerful example of denial. ;-) To be clear with you I think it is the latter.

Here is the problem with "continuing revelation.

It basically means... "Our prophets have absolutely NO idea of what they speak and we will change teaching/doctrine/beliefs as we need to."

If anything a prophet speaks can be disgarded, refuted, ignored, changed, altered, and completely revised with the, "new light and revelation," excuse, then why bother with anything a "prophet" says at all.

Continuing revelation is not about bringing new insights, more enlightenment, or greater depth of understanding, no, it is about dismissing faulty teachings that are considered destructive, cruel, out of sync with humanity, or just really odd.

The "continuing revelation" excuse is silliness, unless one accepts it as a term used to get rid of the nonsense of earlier men who thought they were inspired but clearly weren't.

Regardless... to pretend the church did not teach various doctrine/truths is to live in a make-believe world.

~dancer~

[Guest]

double post. The board is sure acting up today. Twice I tried to post, and was given the "page cannot be displayed" notice, but evidently one did go through.

[_Blixa]

You are obviously either repeating what you were told, or what you have assumed. I had the personal experience.

Uh, how are what one was told or assumed not part of personal experience? I had personal experience of the church as well in the 60's and mine contradicts yours, charity. White and delightsome meant white people, Indians were Lamanites and pre 1967 Joseph Smith was thought to have translated the Book of Abraham in the conventional sense of the word, etc. etc. Everyone assumed this was fine and dandy, and if these were just "assumptions" and not doctrine, then that's the fault of leaders of the church from whom people got their ideas (as promulgated in magazines and publications and speeches of the time). Current efforts to claim that "nobody every thought x" are outrageously disingenuous.

[_dartagnan]

Kevin, I am not sure I agree with the shifting is not a strength.

Well, the main reason I think it is a weakness is because so much of it is ad hoc and created out of necessity. Apologists appeal to continuing revelation and speak of it in terms that sound appealing as a “concept,” but in practice one wouldn’t expect continuing revelation to involve contradictions.

Much is made of the fact that modern prophets really don’t “reveal” anything new in terms of revelation never before heard of. And this I believe is true. Someone asked me what prophets have revealed over the past century and I couldn’t name a single thing worth noting. All the unique LDS doctrines can be attributed to Mormonism’s first two prophets. Ever since then all the prophets seem shy about rocking the boat with new doctrines. But modern attempts prove that the “revelations” appear to be driven by society. For example, do any of us really believe it is just a coincidence that the “revelation” giving the priesthood to Negros, happened to be given during the civil rights movement? And when the Church was trying to expand in Brazil, where virtually everyone has someone in their family who is a negro? Brigham Young said they would never be given the priesthood but the Church knew that it had no future if it tried to implement this standard LDS doctrine at the end of the 20th century.

It seems to me that the real revelation in the LDS Church can be attributed to society, and not the people running the Church. I mean, really. Was it “revelation” that we really needed to hear about blacks being equal to whites in every sense? Wasn’t that already established by those wiser than LDS prophets? It is their influence that permeated the Church and its need to survive.

Same thing goes for polygamy, and the reason it had to be done away with. If we want to really say it was just God’s idea, then let’s apply some logic here. What purpose would polygamy serve when it was introduced for such a short period of time before it was removed? I mean didn’t God know the Church would be legally compelled to do away with it within the century?

I don’t see traditional Christianity back-pedaling like this in order to cover its tracks, especially on crucial themes that proved to be central to the faith. It has changed some doctrines, but not out of necessity. And the changes certainly don’t negate any of their truth claims.

Charity quips,

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.

Prophets speak for the Church don’t they?

Tell us charity, what unique truths have the “prophets” provided over the course of the last century?

I am right about the Church of the Devil. Not only is it the only logical interpretation of the verse, but McConkie’s view was hardly fringe. Even on my mission everyone knew these other Churches belong to the devil. You’re just blowing smoke.

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. We don't t hink Indians were the ancestors of Lamanites. Descendants is the correct word

My goof, and yes, that is how the Church generally understands them, even today. FARMS apologetics hasn’t taken hold of the Church like it wished it could have.

And did you deliberately use the word "principle" instead of "principal?"

No, I type in word and sometimes outlook and sometimes it corrects typos with the word it thinks I intended to use.

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.

Well golly gee, how charitable of you charity. Do you want an, “I gave a critic the benefit of the doubt” merit badge? You spent more time trying to dig up a possible case of duplicity, just so you could forgive and appear gracious. Get over yourself already. While you’re blathering away at the lip about a minor misstatement, you still haven’t addressed the issue. The fact is this understanding would have been foreign to most 19th century Mormons.

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.

This is not true, and yes, I believe you are deliberately lying – sorry, but track records mean something in this forum. This apologetic trip didn’t appear until it became obvious that he couldn’t translate Egyptian. The historical evidence makes it perfectly clear Joseph Smith believed he could. And he believed he could, even according to 19th century definitions, which don’t help you out here.

Joseph Smith produced these works by the gift and power of God. The manner is not important. It never has been.

We’re not talking about the manner. The manner in which someone builds a house is irrelevant to the fact that someone actually built it. If someone built it, then they were able to do it. Joseph Smith was not able to translate Egyptian by natural or revelatory means.

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.

Who is we? You think all Mormons think this way? FAIR addicts have this nonsense emblazed on their brains.

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.

David P Wright, myself, and quite a few others who have made this paradigm shift to accommodate inductive reasoning. Your follow-up question is irrelevant since no leader has ever said one my accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon. And even if he did, it could be blown aside as mere opinion. People are allowed to think right? The historicity of LDS scriptures has never been “official doctrine” according to modern apologetic standards, so this is why people are not booted from the Church or having their TR rejected because they reject Book of Mormon historicity. But in the 19th century the idea that the Book of Mormon wasn’t real history probably would have been considered blasphemy.

[_charity]

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.

I would refer you to Elder Holland's talk in October conference. Some on the MA&D board called this "Elder Holland Hts One out of the Park."

http://LDS.org/conference/talk/display/ ... 15,00.html

[_the road to hana]

Charity, if you please, how do you reconcile this statement:

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.

with this one?

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.

[_charity]

Charity, you can fool yourself but you are not fooling others, at least not on this board. (sigh) To deny various teaching even existed is really either completely disengenuous or a powerful example of denial. ;-) To be clear with you I think it is the latter.

Here is the problem with "continuing revelation.

It basically means... "Our prophets have absolutely NO idea of what they speak and we will change teaching/doctrine/beliefs as we need to."

If anything a prophet speaks can be disgarded, refuted, ignored, changed, altered, and completely revised with the, "new light and revelation," excuse, then why bother with anything a "prophet" says at all.

Continuing revelation is not about bringing new insights, more enlightenment, or greater depth of understanding, no, it is about dismissing faulty teachings that are considered destructive, cruel, out of sync with humanity, or just really odd.

The "continuing revelation" excuse is silliness, unless one accepts it as a term used to get rid of the nonsense of earlier men who thought they were inspired but clearly weren't.

Regardless... to pretend the church did not teach various doctrine/truths is to live in a make-believe world.

~dancer~

Continuing revelation means first, that we can only be given so much at a time. You can't teach a first grader calculus.
Second, it means that God loves His children in all ages. Which is why we driving aren't driving buggies and refusing to use electricity.

And your determination that some things might be destructive, cruel, out of sync, etc. is your idea. God is not bound by what you think. I assume you are thinking specifically about the restriction on blacks and the priesthood and polygamy. The blacks have the priesthood today and we don't have the law of plural marriage in effect at present. But the Church never said the Lord was wrong about either one. And I don't believe that either. And of course, your idea that both were only the product of men is well undesrtand. I reject it.

[_charity]

I had personal experience of the church as well in the 60's and mine contradicts yours, charity. White and delightsome meant white people, Indians were Lamanites and pre 1967 Joseph Smith was thought to have translated the Book of Abraham in the conventional sense of the word, etc. etc. Everyone assumed this was fine and dandy, and if these were just "assumptions" and not doctrine, then that's the fault of leaders of the church from whom people got their ideas (as promulgated in magazines and publications and speeches of the time). Current efforts to claim that "nobody every thought x" are outrageously disingenuous.

Then this proves that it was not a toe the line doctrine, doesn't it? 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. Last time I heard the General Authorities were too busy to go around to each individual member and ask them what they thought about different topics and then correct it.

We are required to listen to the general words of counsel given at General Conference , read in the Ensign. Study on your own. Get your own spiritual witness. Or admit you are too lazy to go through all that and take responsibility for your own misconceptions.

[_truth dancer]

Charity...

How about you step back and think about this a little. We have all heard this over and over and it means nothing. It is such nonsense. It is as if someone came up with this idea, people repeated it and no one has even considered its meaning.

Continuing revelation means first, that we can only be given so much at a time. You can't teach a first grader calculus.

What in the world does this have to do with anything? Are you saying humans, (or believing members), aren't ready to hear how to improve our world? How to feed the starving children? How to treat the Earth more respectfully? How to bring peace to our planet? How to cure HIV? What?

Are you suggesting that the earring limit, white shirts, no tatoos, a new SLC mall, etc. etc. etc. etc. are the only things members are ready to hear?

Are you suggesting that until EVERYONE passes kindergarden, NO one will be able to move up to first grade? ;-)

Are you suggesting until members have FHE, one billion of our Earth's population will just have to drink impure water? Or until people go to the temple more regularly, the wars of the earth will just have to continue?

I truly do not get this line of "reasoning," in any form whatsoever.

Second, it means that God loves His children in all ages. Which is why we driving aren't driving buggies and refusing to use electricity.

What?

Are you referring to the Amish? What does your statement have to do with anything we are discussing? There are those who would suggest the Amish are much more respectful of our planet, humble, Christlike, and free from the desire we see in many religions for power and wealth and prestige.

Are you suggesting God's inspiration is behind all inventions? I'm hoping you are not going down this line of thinking but nothing would surprise me. :-)

And your determination that some things might be destructive, cruel, out of sync, etc. is your idea.

You disagree? Are you seriously suggesting you do not see any harmful teachings in the Bible or in LDS theology?

God is not bound by what you think.

Who in the world ever said anything about God being bound by what anyone thinks. Seriously Charity, would you mind stopping this garbage. It really is getting so very old.

I assume you are thinking specifically about the restriction on blacks and the priesthood and polygamy.

Not really... I think there are many, many teachings that are unhealthy and harmful, of course racism and sexism are two that stand out in the LDS church.

The blacks have the priesthood today and we don't have the law of plural marriage in effect at present. But the Church never said the Lord was wrong about either one.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

Interesting that you admit this.

The church has never come out and admitted it made mistakes, that some of its teachings were harmful, or that it has ever been less than appropriate and right. It has never apologized for anything.

What strikes me is how some can justify, rationalize, and even celebrate that which is clearly harmful, hurtful, and cruel.

~dancer~