John Dehlin is thinking about bringing Mormon Stories back

[smokymountainrain]

So did God tell them to not have the ban and they continued having it? Or did god just let them figure t out on their own without telling them? Or maybe God gave them scriptures that tell them not to have the ban (Peters dream), and instead they interpreted those scriptures to mean they should have the ban (curse of Cain, book of Abraham, white and delight some, etc.) because prophets aren’t very good at interpreting scriptures.

I’m with SMR on this one in that this is a huge doctrinal issue that I’d expect a God with a living mouthpiece on the earth to correct sooner than later...but maybe it happened sooner when looking at gods timeline. But it does allow me to mentally ignore a lot of the dumb stuff taught at church and in general conference since we all know at some point that dumb stuff will be not considered inspired or doctrine anyway.

Of course, I’m also a Mormon deist that thinks god started it all in motion and allows us to figure it out.

i think we're both with lebowski, cowboy and others - we are all just expressing our opinions differently. it's clear prophets are fallible, that is not up for debate. that extends to policy issues. i think where my disagreement comes is that i'm fine to admit God isn't always directing his church. that in some cases, fallible men, who are prone to mistakes, are directing his church. i'm fine with that. i'm a fully participating member - i think these men are doing a good job. not sure Pres Nelson has a bigger fan outside of perhaps a grandson or two. let's just not pretend God is always in control. or make blanket statements like "God directs His church".

[Jeff Lebowski]

i think we're both with lebowski, cowboy and others - we are all just expressing our opinions differently. it's clear prophets are fallible, that is not up for debate. that extends to policy issues. i think where my disagreement comes is that i'm fine to admit God isn't always directing his church. that in some cases, fallible men, who are prone to mistakes, are directing his church. i'm fine with that. i'm a fully participating member - i think these men are doing a good job. not sure Pres Nelson has a bigger fan outside of perhaps a grandson or two. let's just not pretend God is always in control. or make blanket statements like "God directs His church".

Come on. First of all, nobody has claimed that God is always in control in the sense that you are implying.

Second, I have provided lots of context for the statement "God directs his church". Let me quote it again in case you missed it.

Clearly "God directs the church" does NOT mean that leaders are robots or avatars for God and everything they do and every policy/doctrine they promote will be objectively viewed as correct by all future generations. It means that God inspires and motivates the church leaders and they do wonderful things and provide wonderful service and generally do the best they can but revelation is a messy and imperfect process and for reasons that are sometimes hard to understand, they sometimes screw up. And we should love them and forgive them just like we are commanded to love and forgive anyone else.

Why on earth would you call that a "blanket statement"? That is a highly nuanced statement that is compatible with what you said right above the bolded part. Honestly, I am not sure what you are arguing at this point.

[Moliere]

I am not sure you are really a deist, given your first two paragraphs. I think the punctuated equilibrium overlay on a type of deism really fits what we see very well.

No, I’m a deist. Those paragraphs were written from the ortho mo perspective (if one exists) and I don’t believe them. I don’t believe in supernatural healing and tongues and all that. I think god rarely intervenes in church matters or in world matters.

However, if we go two hour church, I’m open to considering that one of the few times that god does intervene.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So did God tell them to not have the ban and they continued having it? Or did god just let them figure t out on their own without telling them? Or maybe God gave them scriptures that tell them not to have the ban (Peters dream), and instead they interpreted those scriptures to mean they should have the ban (curse of Cain, book of Abraham, white and delight some, etc.) because prophets aren’t very good at interpreting scriptures.

I’m with SMR on this one in that this is a huge doctrinal issue that I’d expect a God with a living mouthpiece on the earth to correct sooner than later...but maybe it happened sooner when looking at gods timeline. But it does allow me to mentally ignore a lot of the dumb stuff taught at church and in general conference since we all know at some point that dumb stuff will be not considered inspired or doctrine anyway.

Of course, I’m also a Mormon deist that thinks god started it all in motion and allows us to figure it out.

I have no idea what the dynamics were. I am guessing they were racist (typical for the times) and doubled down on a racist doctrine and for whatever reason god didn't intervene. Does it need to be more complicated than that?

[Northwestcoug]

No, I’m a deist. Those paragraphs were written from the ortho mo perspective (if one exists) and I don’t believe them. I don’t believe in supernatural healing and tongues and all that. I think god rarely intervenes in church matters or in world matters.

However, if we go two hour church, I’m open to considering that one of the few times that god does intervene.

Careful!

[Jeff Lebowski]

i think we're both with lebowski, cowboy and others - we are all just expressing our opinions differently. it's clear prophets are fallible, that is not up for debate. that extends to policy issues. i think where my disagreement comes is that i'm fine to admit God isn't always directing his church. that in some cases, fallible men, who are prone to mistakes, are directing his church. i'm fine with that. i'm a fully participating member - i think these men are doing a good job. not sure Pres Nelson has a bigger fan outside of perhaps a grandson or two. let's just not pretend God is always in control. or make blanket statements like "God directs His church".

Just one more thought in response to this. I made these two statements:

I believe in the following:

1) God directs the church
2) God allows leaders to be human and make mistakes. Sometimes big mistakes.

At face value this seems contradictory but I don't think it is. Religious belief sometimes requires effort and wrestling with ideas. Some may see that as a weakness or a reason for doubt, but I think it makes it interesting. There is great value in that effort.

On that topic, this is one of my favorite quotes:

“Contradictions are an inseparable part of every human culture. In fact they are culture’s engines, responsible for the creativity and dynamism of our species. Just as when two crashing musical notes played together force a piece of music forward, so discord in our thoughts, ideas, and values compel us to think, reevaluate, and criticize. Consistency is the playground of dull minds. If tensions, conflicts, and irresolvable dilemmas are the spice of every culture, a human being who belongs to any particular culture must hold contradictory beliefs and be riven by incompatible values. It's such an essential feature of any culture that it even has a name: “cognitive dissonance”. Cognitive dissonance is often considered a failure of the human psyche. In fact it is a vital asset. Had people been unable to hold contradictory beliefs and values it would probably have been impossible to establish and maintain any human culture. If say, a Christian really wants to understand the Muslims who attend that mosque down the street, he shouldn't look for a pristine set of values that every Muslim holds dear. Rather, he should inquire into the catch-22’s of Muslim culture; those places where rules are at war and standards scuffle. It's at the very spot where the Muslims teeter between two imperatives that you'll understand them best.” -- Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari

[Moliere]

Just one more thought in response to this. I made these two statements:



At face value this seems contradictory but I don't think it is. Religious belief sometimes requires effort and wrestling with ideas. Some may see that as a weakness or a reason for doubt, but I think it makes it interesting. There is great value in that effort.

On that topic, this is one of my favorite quotes:

The elephant in the room is the Mormon teaching (I won’t say doctrine because some would disagree with that) that god won’t allow his church to be led astray, that he will remove the prophet (in seminary I was taught this meant kill the prophet) if the prophet goes against the will of god. I think most people are staring to disbelieve that teaching, at least in regards.

I also think you and I are not too far different on this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The elephant in the room is the Mormon teaching (I won’t say doctrine because some would disagree with that) that god won’t allow his church to be led astray, that he will remove the prophet (in seminary I was taught this meant kill the prophet) if the prophet goes against the will of god. I think most people are staring to disbelieve that teaching, at least in regards.

I think that notion is nonsense. Whenever that is mentioned in church I challenge it and say it is one of the worst things we can teach our youth because it sets up an a crazy, non-sustainable standard that contradicts scriptures and history and doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny.

[old_gregg]

I'm starting to think that you might be joining the Apostate ranks at some point. I urge you not to. I'd prefer you to be on the other side. Please doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith.

funk i would never leave the church, it is an amazing professional network.

[SteelBlue]

Just one more thought in response to this. I made these two statements:



At face value this seems contradictory but I don't think it is. Religious belief sometimes requires effort and wrestling with ideas. Some may see that as a weakness or a reason for doubt, but I think it makes it interesting. There is great value in that effort.

I don't think they seem contradictory but they do seem circular. When applied, there is almost nothing that could happen that would move one from their current way of thinking.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't think they seem contradictory but they do seem circular. When applied, there is almost nothing that could happen that would move one from their current way of thinking.

Circular? I don't think so. Pragmatic. Realistic.

For the record, what anchors me to my "current way of thinking" is a lifetime of experiences, not a rational analysis of prophetic fallibility. I hope that is clear.

[Northwestcoug]

I think that notion is nonsense. Whenever that is mentioned in church I challenge it and say it is one of the worst things we can teach our youth because it sets up an a crazy, non-sustainable standard that contradicts scriptures and history and doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny.

Add Woodruff’s commentary of the Official Declaration to the list of teachings to get officially axed. Right after section 132.

[SteelBlue]

Circular? I don't think so. Pragmatic. Realistic.

For the record, what anchors me to my "current way of thinking" is a lifetime of experiences, not a rational analysis of prophetic fallibility. I hope that is clear.

Of course that's clear. I've known you for too long to believe otherwise. But I don't think it's fair to reduce the upset and the questioning that others express to lack of nuance and/or binary thinking. I mean, you've got a FP backing a MP who uses the term "pure blooded" (in 1947!!!!) over what, let's face it, was obviously a time traveling sociologist. People need to be allowed to put that in the "evidence against" column. It belongs there.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Of course that's clear. I've known you for too long to believe otherwise. But I don't think it's fair to reduce the upset and the questioning that others express to lack of nuance and/or binary thinking. I mean, you've got a FP backing a MP who uses the term "pure blooded" (in 1947!!!!) over what, let's face it, was obviously a time traveling sociologist. People need to be allowed to put that in the "evidence against" column. It belongs there.

Of course. I totally understand putting this in the evidence against column. If I didn't think it was a difficult item, why would I argue that it is a contradiction that requires struggle and dealing with cognitive dissonance?

Polygamy and the priesthood ban have always been the two toughest issues for me.

[Sullyute]

I mean, you've got a FP backing a MP who uses the term "pure blooded" (in 1947!!!!) over what, let's face it, was obviously a time traveling sociologist.

I was thinking these letters were Hoffman fakes because the professor’s response was just too perfect for the time.