John Dehlin is thinking about bringing Mormon Stories back

[Maximus]

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?

IF we can just throw out something the church called doctrine to leaders make mistakes, how is that different from any other church? Basically anything about the church or its teachings can change at any moment then, and whatever it was before was a mistake.

basically, what other doctrine could just be a mistake?

[Pelado]

[QUOTE=Maximus;1381239

basically, what other doctrine could just be a mistake?[/QUOTE]

Adam-God.

[BlueK]

I really like this book. Takes a little work to read as it's very academic in style, but it does a great job in explaining the development of LDS doctrines over time with comparison to ancient versions of the same doctrines or ideas. It's referenced up the wazzo. Givens does a great job with it. I don't know if it's been discussed in any other thread here. There is a section on the priesthood and Adam-God.

https://www.amazon.com/Wrestling-Ang...e+angel+givens

[Jeff Lebowski]

IF we can just throw out something the church called doctrine to leaders make mistakes, how is that different from any other church? Basically anything about the church or its teachings can change at any moment then, and whatever it was before was a mistake.

basically, what other doctrine could just be a mistake?

I think there are countless things that make our church unique. But if you have believed that perfect, unchanging doctrine is what distinguishes us, then it is time for a recalibration. "Policy may change, but doctrine never changes" is a myth. In addition to the obvious (adam-god, polygamy, priesthood ban), lots of LDS doctrines have evolved over time, including things as fundamental as salvation for the dead, the requirements for salvation, and even the nature of the godhead**.

I think it is healthy to recognize that EVERYTHING we have - scriptures, revelations, inspirational writings, first presidency letters, etc. - is filtered through humans and is therefore subject to human influence (i.e., error). We have no choice but to humbly and earnestly filter it as best we can to sift out the human vs. the divine. You can choose to view that cynically or you can choose to view it with hope and faith as a journey of spiritual growth and exploration.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. - 1 Corinthians 13:12

** I highly recommend "This is My Doctrine" by Charles Harrell. It is a two-volume work systematically exploring how LDS doctrines have developed and changed. Fascinating book.

[old_gregg]

i suspect if you were to ask current church leadership whether disagreement with a letter specifically addressed to someone by that person, signed by the first presidency its capacity as such, the answer you would get would be different than “we’ll it’s your responsibility to filter our messages.” in fact, sam young is a pretty damn good test case.

[Jeff Lebowski]

i suspect if you were to ask current church leadership whether disagreement with a letter specifically addressed to someone by that person, signed by the first presidency its capacity as such, the answer you would get would be different than “we’ll it’s your responsibility to filter our messages.” in fact, sam young is a pretty damn good test case.

That doesn't change my point at all.

[old_gregg]

That doesn't change my point at all.

it makes it circular and basically means you’re denver snuffer

[Jeff Lebowski]

it makes it circular and basically means you’re denver snuffer

Or Brigham Young. Or Charles Penrose. Or J. Reuben Clark.

"We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost' only when we, ourselves are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.' In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak." -- J. Reuben Clark, 1954

"And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God... would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." -- Charles Penrose, 1852

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." -- BY (JD 9:150)

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." -- BY, JD 1:312

[old_gregg]

that doesn’t make it not circular because smart people also made a circular argument

[Jeff Lebowski]

that doesn’t make it not circular because smart people also made a circular argument

You have it backwards. Infallibility is a circular argument.

Sam Young is a terrible example. Totally different dynamic.

Ditto for Denver Snuffer. Also, he is a fundamentalist. He believes that JS was infallible.

[MartyFunkhouser]

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.

Where does discrimination against homosexuals rank on your toughest issues scale? Just curious.

For me, I could deal with racist leaders. It was obvious and never an issue. I could deal with polygamy and historical misogny. All of these were products of the time period.

The deal breaker for me was the current treatment of women and lgbtq. Can't find a justification for it in the framework of being God's church.

Also beer. That was a huge deal breaker.

[creekster]

Where does discrimination against homosexuals rank on your toughest issues scale? Just curious.

For me, I could deal with racist leaders. It was obvious and never an issue. I could deal with polygamy and historical misogny. All of these were products of the time period.

The deal breaker for me was the current treatment of women and lgbtq. Can't find a justification for it in the framework of being God's church.

Also beer. That was a huge deal breaker.

whats the difference between historical and current mis-treatment of women? Isnt it all a continuum?

[falafel]

whats the difference between historical and current mis-treatment of women? Isnt it all a continuum?

Yeah, what? Prior leaders were allowed to be a product of their time period, but current leaders have to at the vanguard?

[Northwestcoug]

IF we can just throw out something the church called doctrine to leaders make mistakes, how is that different from any other church? Basically anything about the church or its teachings can change at any moment then, and whatever it was before was a mistake.

basically, what other doctrine could just be a mistake?

Polygamy.

Repeal section 132.

[Pelado]

Or Brigham Young. Or Charles Penrose. Or J. Reuben Clark.

"We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost' only when we, ourselves are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.' In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak." -- J. Reuben Clark, 1954

"And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God... would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." -- Charles Penrose, 1852

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." -- BY (JD 9:150)

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." -- BY, JD 1:312

Those guys were obviously not moved upon by the Holy Ghost when they said those things.