Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brother Brigham was one interesting cat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
    people are talking past each other here (). the issue is not that prophets are fallible when acting as men. duh--that should be noncontroversial even for the most ardent and orthodox. the problem is that doctrinal concepts (preached and declared as such) are arguably the result of man's fallibility rather than divine revelation. i don't think there's any other way to square 132 or material sections of the journal of discourses, for example. at the point where people are expected to ferret out truth from stuff that's purportedly doctrine, what's the whole point of having prophetic revelation on behalf of the church? sure, the church needs some chief officer by virtue of its hierarchy, but if members have to parse through stuff that's already purportedly the word of god to find what's actually the word of god, i'm not sure that makes sense. the sentiment that we should accept decidedly racist, sexist or other -ist statements because we are also sinners is intellectually lazy and a bunch of hogwash. a racist statement by an 1840s layman is different than a racist statement by a prophet given under the color of revelation.
    I think we are all under the obligation to sort through what is presented to us and determine what we think is the word of God. I am surprised you would think it should be any other way. In my view, as I have said many other times here and so I won't go into detail, its all part of God leaving us a lot more on our own than we like to admit and requiring us to sort through all of our own difficulties. The prophets have the lead; and I think they do get inspiration, but I think God shows up and says how it is supposed to be, word for word, very, very rarely. So we are left with a lot of chaff to deal with, including chaff from leaders. We would like to stamp our feet and insist God give it to us all, right now, with no peas touching the potatoes or meat, but thats just not how it is. We are on our own, with only occasional glimpses of divinity and foundational inspiration to guide us.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
      people are talking past each other here (). the issue is not that prophets are fallible when acting as men. duh--that should be noncontroversial even for the most ardent and orthodox. the problem is that doctrinal concepts (preached and declared as such) are arguably the result of man's fallibility rather than divine revelation. i don't think there's any other way to square 132 or material sections of the journal of discourses, for example. at the point where people are expected to ferret out truth from stuff that's purportedly doctrine, what's the whole point of having prophetic revelation on behalf of the church? sure, the church needs some chief officer by virtue of its hierarchy, but if members have to parse through stuff that's already purportedly the word of god to find what's actually the word of god, i'm not sure that makes sense. the sentiment that we should accept decidedly racist, sexist or other -ist statements because we are also sinners is intellectually lazy and a bunch of hogwash. a racist statement by an 1840s layman is different than a racist statement by a prophet given under the color of revelation.
      Valid observations.
      "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

      Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
        hebrews 13:8
        We dont even know who werote Hebrews.

        Besides, no one here is saying Christ isn't constant. We are saying WE are not constant. We will be judged but what we knew, understood and did in that context, not against the perfection of Christ.
        PLesa excuse the tpyos.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
          people are talking past each other here (). the issue is not that prophets are fallible when acting as men. duh--that should be noncontroversial even for the most ardent and orthodox. the problem is that doctrinal concepts (preached and declared as such) are arguably the result of man's fallibility rather than divine revelation. i don't think there's any other way to square 132 or material sections of the journal of discourses, for example. at the point where people are expected to ferret out truth from stuff that's purportedly doctrine, what's the whole point of having prophetic revelation on behalf of the church? sure, the church needs some chief officer by virtue of its hierarchy, but if members have to parse through stuff that's already purportedly the word of god to find what's actually the word of god, i'm not sure that makes sense. the sentiment that we should accept decidedly racist, sexist or other -ist statements because we are also sinners is intellectually lazy and a bunch of hogwash. a racist statement by an 1840s layman is different than a racist statement by a prophet given under the color of revelation.
          As far as I can read, no one is advocating accepting "decidedly racist, sexist or other -ist statements because we are also sinners." What's at issue is the reality that the decidedness you site is coloured by modern views, and it is wise to understand that those modern views do not in fact make us morally superior.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by creekster View Post
            We dont even know who werote Hebrews.

            Besides, no one here is saying Christ isn't constant. We are saying WE are not constant. We will be judged but what we knew, understood and did in that context, not against the perfection of Christ.
            As will all children of God who came before us, regardless of whether or not they were a layman or a prophet.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by creekster View Post
              We dont even know who werote Hebrews.

              Besides, no one here is saying Christ isn't constant. We are saying WE are not constant. We will be judged but what we knew, understood and did in that context, not against the perfection of Christ.
              the implicit observation by the dude is whether morality is constant. i think the church's position (or at least the position advanced in a not so subtle way by folks like dallin oaks) is that it is constant, and that's probably supported by doctrine. if morality is constant, then doctrine should be constant except to do away with things that weren't actually doctrine (itself a problematic concept, see my other post). the church obviously does this to some extent, but the proposition that it happens because god changes his mind seems silly to me. note that this is a matter of official church response, not the way the average member balances these scales in their head. d&c 132 is repugnant and should be stricken from the record, and reasonable explanations for much of the church's problematic history should be offered.
              Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by tooblue View Post
                those modern views do not in fact make us morally superior.
                what a patently absurd and stupid statement
                Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                  what a patently absurd and stupid statement
                  It is delusional to believe you are morally superior simply because you are modern.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                    what a patently absurd and stupid statement
                    Huh? Is he saying that it is not a moral improvement to cease racist or sexist policies?
                    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

                    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tooblue View Post
                      It is delusional to believe you are morally superior simply because you are modern.
                      right, we are morally superior because we are morally superior.
                      Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                        right, we are morally superior because we are morally superior.
                        Interesting presentism

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                          the implicit observation by the dude is whether morality is constant. i think the church's position (or at least the position advanced in a not so subtle way by folks like dallin oaks) is that it is constant, and that's probably supported by doctrine. if morality is constant, then doctrine should be constant except to do away with things that weren't actually doctrine (itself a problematic concept, see my other post). the church obviously does this to some extent, but the proposition that it happens because god changes his mind seems silly to me. note that this is a matter of official church response, not the way the average member balances these scales in their head. d&c 132 is repugnant and should be stricken from the record, and reasonable explanations for much of the church's problematic history should be offered.
                          If my posts implied or stated that God changes his mind, then I erred. I do not believe in moral relativity. That said, I also believe in the fallibility of people. Maybe sec 132 will, eventually, be withdrawn or revised. I know no one in current leadership shows any willingness to reinstate it. I also know that I do not personally connect with the doctrine there. But I think that we are looking at this from our own perspectives and not from the perspective of someone who is attempting to safeguard and increase the Kingdom of God on the Earth. Perspective does matter.

                          I am curious, though: why do you believe that section 132 is repugnant? ON what moral scheme do you reach that conclusion?

                          BTW, This is a narrower thought than the original scope of this topic, in my mind, but I can see why you went there to explain your position.
                          PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                            people are talking past each other here (). the issue is not that prophets are fallible when acting as men. duh--that should be noncontroversial even for the most ardent and orthodox. the problem is that doctrinal concepts (preached and declared as such) are arguably the result of man's fallibility rather than divine revelation. i don't think there's any other way to square 132 or material sections of the journal of discourses, for example. at the point where people are expected to ferret out truth from stuff that's purportedly doctrine, what's the whole point of having prophetic revelation on behalf of the church? sure, the church needs some chief officer by virtue of its hierarchy, but if members have to parse through stuff that's already purportedly the word of god to find what's actually the word of god, i'm not sure that makes sense. the sentiment that we should accept decidedly racist, sexist or other -ist statements because we are also sinners is intellectually lazy and a bunch of hogwash. a racist statement by an 1840s layman is different than a racist statement by a prophet given under the color of revelation.
                            Yes, revelation is not perfect. I discarded that simplistic model a long time ago. It is filtered through and colored by the person receiving it and we have to parse it. Some revelations might be hogwash. Some may contain beautiful and eternal truths. Most are probably a combination of the two. Parsing "through stuff that's already purportedly the word of god to find what's actually the word of god" is part of what makes it interesting and worthy of our best thought and consideration.

                            A few related quotes:

                            "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 since this is a thread dedicated to Brigham Young!:

                            BY in Journal of Discourses:

                            "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." (JD 9:150)
                            and Brigham again in JD 4:36

                            "How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves."
                            and Brigham again in JD 3:45

                            "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."
                            I think I stole those quotes from SiEQ a few years back.
                            "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                            "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                            "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by creekster View Post
                              If my posts implied or stated that God changes his mind, then I erred. I do not believe in moral relativity. That said, I also believe in the fallibility of people. Maybe sec 132 will, eventually, be withdrawn or revised. I know no one in current leadership shows any willingness to reinstate it. I also know that I do not personally connect with the doctrine there. But I think that we are looking at this from our own perspectives and not from the perspective of someone who is attempting to safeguard and increase the Kingdom of God on the Earth. Perspective does matter.

                              I am curious, though: why do you believe that section 132 is repugnant? ON what moral scheme do you reach that conclusion?

                              BTW, This is a narrower thought than the original scope of this topic, in my mind, but I can see why you went there to explain your position.
                              Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                              Yes, revelation is not perfect. I discarded that simplistic model a long time ago. It is filtered through and colored by the person receiving it and we have to parse it. Some revelations might be hogwash. Some may contain beautiful and eternal truths. Most are probably a combination of the two. Parsing "through stuff that's already purportedly the word of god to find what's actually the word of god" is part of what makes it interesting and worthy of our best thought and consideration.

                              A few related quotes:



                              And since this is a thread dedicated to Brigham Young!:

                              BY in Journal of Discourses:



                              and Brigham again in JD 4:36



                              and Brigham again in JD 3:45



                              I think I stole those quotes from SiEQ a few years back.
                              don’t have time to thoughtfully respond at the moment, other than to say 1. thanks and 2. i think everybody agrees in substance, the only disagreement is about whether the outcome is qualitatively valuable enough to overcome the costs of getting there. i think it might not be, but will likely have a different opinion in a few hours or days.

                              re 132, the basis of my moral judgment is my experience in relationships (marital and otherwise), which is obviously substantially different than everybody else’s experience. people are generally equals and their judgment should be afforded deference and respect, especially in the case of spouses (who should have the benefit of absolute veto power over any important decision). i don’t think 132 comports with this idea (which is basically the only thing i actually believe (other than the university of utah being a trash institution full of bottom feeding losers))
                              Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                                don’t have time to thoughtfully respond at the moment, other than to say 1. thanks and 2. i think everybody agrees in substance, the only disagreement is about whether the outcome is qualitatively valuable enough to overcome the costs of getting there. i think it might not be, but will likely have a different opinion in a few hours or days.
                                That is a fair response.

                                Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                                re 132, the basis of my moral judgment is my experience in relationships (marital and otherwise), which is obviously substantially different than everybody else’s experience. people are generally equals and their judgment should be afforded deference and respect, especially in the case of spouses (who should have the benefit of absolute veto power over any important decision). i don’t think 132 comports with this idea (which is basically the only thing i actually believe (other than the university of utah being a trash institution full of bottom feeding losers))
                                Section 132 is my least favorite section of scripture.
                                "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                                "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                                "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X