I learned in church today

[jay santos]

Recently SU made a side comment about two of the Gospels having been copied from the same source, so he was the first who came to mind.

He probably got that from Wikipedia.

3. I fear our missionaries are spreading the story that Daniel was cast into the lions den because he wanted to keep the word of wisdom and avoid alcohol and coffee, rather than for refusing to eat non-kosher foods. Correlated=the church is the Only True and Living Church on the face of the earth; it is the same today as in Jesus' day as in Adam's day, despite being very easily disproven in our own very recent history. And this static argument is in opposition to the reason we claim to have a living prophet.

Perhaps it is the hubris of the parallel that worries me most, because we are throwing our kids to the wolves, perhaps unprepared. Anything beyond that is a subject for a different thread.

We got thrown to the wolves and survived. Our kids can also.

The doctrinal principle that the church is the same yesterday, today, and forever, that's actually a good example of how correlation could improve. That's an easy one. But I don't think that's going to make much difference and doesn't do a lot to alter the comparison between missionaries and Plato's allegory of man in cave.

A missionary going out to preach correlated doctrine of faith, repentance, baptism, Fall, Atonement, restoration, priesthood, etc, is a good comparison to Plato's allegory, if you believe in the basic doctrines of the church.

The lack of teaching uncorrelated doctrine or difficult aspects like Kolob, deification, Joseph Smith's translation methods, Adam-God, polygamy, etc. Who cares?

[NorthwestUteFan]

I think you are mixing up OT stories, which is funny given your point.

I realize he was thrown in the lions den for continuing to pray after King Darius commanded everybody to stop praying to anybody but him for a period of time. But I recall being taught (incorrectly) the WoW/lions den parallel in sunday school and seminary. That was probably a bad example to use, as it was rooted more in my primary/sunday school and seminary teachers being incorrect than the church twisting a story to back a current doctrine.

[jay santos]

I realize he was thrown in the lions den for continuing to pray after King Darius commanded everybody to stop praying to anybody but him for a period of time. But I recall being taught (incorrectly) the WoW/lions den parallel in sunday school and seminary. That was probably a bad example to use, as it was rooted more in my primary/sunday school and seminary teachers being incorrect than the church twisting a story to back a current doctrine.

Still missed it. You're thinking of the other Daniel story (high potential youth being identified and required to eat the King's diet), not the lion's den.

[NorthwestUteFan]

It was not a typical talk on faith, that's for sure. And I was nervous about being as honest as I was about my own struggles. Yet I wanted to subtly say to the others in my ward who struggle that they are not alone.

Thanks for sharing. I often find these depictions of struggles to be the most positive and uplifting of sacrament meeting talks. Most of us in the audience are struggling in one way or another and hearing Rah! Rah! Everything is Great! cheerleading from the pulpit doesn't necessarily feed my spiritual needs. I prefer to hear of peoples' triumph over struggles as they affirm my own belief in the healing power of the gospel.

Still missed it. You're thinking of the other Daniel story (high potential youth being identified and required to eat the King's diet), not the lion's den.

I didn't miss it, I just didn't mention it in my last post. I only described the circumstances under which he was thrown into the den, and not the whole 'pulse and water made me healthier' story from when he was a youth. I even had to pull up the primary manual to be sure they don't link the food with the lions den. I swear I was taught a link between the food and the lions den when I was growing up, hence using it (badly) as an example.

Perhaps a better example would be the belief in the LDS church that the early church was wholly the same as today as a top-down patriarchical order, as fully in harmony with itself, when it was very obviously fractured and disjointed. The churches under Peter were greatly different than the churches established by Paul in terms of doctrine, to the point that later scribes wrote letters (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thess, Timothy, Titus, Hebrews) under the pseudonym 'Paul' in an attempt to bring his teachings more in line with the teachings of the other writers. For example, in the original writings Paul taught that Jesus' return was imminent and, to bring this back on topic to where I jumped in, that women can be prophets and he mentions several. But the Deutero-Pauline writings have him speaking down to women in many cases.

But again that is topic for another thread.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The lack of teaching uncorrelated doctrine or difficult aspects like Kolob, deification, Joseph Smith's translation methods, Adam-God, polygamy, etc. Who cares?

I agree, those are completely unnecessary and irrelevant (and in many cases are not considered to be doctrine at all, but are instead 'opinion of the prophet', eg Adam-God).

[Moliere]

I didn't miss it, I just didn't mention it in my last post. I only described the circumstances under which he was thrown into the den, and not the whole 'pulse and water made me healthier' story from when he was a youth. I even had to pull up the primary manual to be sure they don't link the food with the lions den. I swear I was taught a link between the food and the lions den when I was growing up, hence using it (badly) as an example.

Perhaps a better example would be the belief in the LDS church that the early church was wholly the same as today as a top-down patriarchical order, as fully in harmony with itself, when it was very obviously fractured and disjointed. The churches under Peter were greatly different than the churches established by Paul in terms of doctrine, to the point that later scribes wrote letters (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thess, Timothy, Titus, Hebrews) under the pseudonym 'Paul' in an attempt to bring his teachings more in line with the teachings of the other writers. For example, in the original writings Paul taught that Jesus' return was imminent and, to bring this back on topic to where I jumped in, that women can be prophets and he mentions several. But the Deutero-Pauline writings have him speaking down to women in many cases.

But again that is topic for another thread.

it has been another thread but it I think it's an incredibly interesting topic so I like when it's brought up. This is quite possibly the best thread on the subject:

http://cougaruteforum.com/showthread...ghlight=Daymon

And

http://cougaruteforum.com/showthread...ortance&page=5

[NorthwestUteFan]

it has been another thread but it I think it's an incredibly interesting topic so I like when it's brought up. This is quite possibly the best thread on the subject:

http://cougaruteforum.com/showthread...ghlight=Daymon

And

http://cougaruteforum.com/showthread...ortance&page=5

I love how very highly educated people who study these topics and can point out the irregularities continue on a faithful members of the church. (Jared Anderson, D. Michael Quinn, Richard Bushman, Daymon Smith, etc). It helps motivate me to look for ways to get through my own issues and problems with the church.

Yes I agree, really interesting stuff. Thanks for posting.

**edit** And since you mention Daymon Smith's work and his podcast, I found the Jared Smith 'Academic Approach to the New Testament' to be highly informative as well. I can't recommend it high enough.

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1476

Also it gives me motivation to know that very smart, highly educated people who study the inconsistencies in Christian doctrine and in the church are still able to remain faithful members. (D. Michael Quinn, Jared Anderson, Richard Bushman, Daymon Smith come to mind).

[Northwestcoug]

3. I fear our missionaries are spreading the story that Daniel was cast into the lions den because he wanted to keep the word of wisdom and avoid alcohol and coffee, rather than for refusing to eat non-kosher foods. Correlated=the church is the Only True and Living Church on the face of the earth; it is the same today as in Jesus' day as in Adam's day, despite being very easily disproven in our own very recent history. And this static argument is in opposition to the reason we claim to have a living prophet.

Perhaps it is the hubris of the parallel that worries me most, because we are throwing our kids to the wolves, perhaps unprepared. Anything beyond that is a subject for a different thread.

Here's an example that is becoming more common in my house. This is from the current Old Testament seminary manual, describing (apparently with a straight face) the story of Noah getting drunk:

"We likely do not have all the details of this story of Noah’s drunkenness. We do know that the Lord never condemned Noah for this incident even though He condemned drunkenness elsewhere in scripture. In Old Testament times, when juice of the grape (called wine) was stored, it would naturally ferment over time and could cause intoxication. But fermented grape juice is very different from what the Bible calls “strong drink.” Strong drink was made from various fruits and grains and was intentionally intoxicating. Noah’s drunkenness after drinking “wine” was likely unintentional."

This one paragraph is a beautiful example of how we tie ourselves into knots trying to square our belief that the church or gospel is the same forever with the crazy-ass stories of the Old Testament. How do we know God never condemned Noah for getting drunk? How do we know wine is not the same as strong drink in the bible? And how in the holy hell do we know Noah's drunkeness was 'likely unintentional'???

I'm doing damage control with my oldest child in seminary now. She can't believe many of the stories as literal, and neither can I. I keep telling her that there is power in the Old Testament as literature, but as a historical document it kind of goes off the rails. I'm concerned about her faith, but I can't let things like what I said above slide. This would not be a problem, were it not for our organizational requirement to frame all of human history in a never-changing gospel. Other than evangelicals, do other Christian sects have this problem?

Sorry, should have been another thread, but NWUF got me started...

[Pheidippides]

Here's an example that is becoming more common in my house. This is from the current Old Testament seminary manual, describing (apparently with a straight face) the story of Noah getting drunk:

"We likely do not have all the details of this story of Noah’s drunkenness. We do know that the Lord never condemned Noah for this incident even though He condemned drunkenness elsewhere in scripture. In Old Testament times, when juice of the grape (called wine) was stored, it would naturally ferment over time and could cause intoxication. But fermented grape juice is very different from what the Bible calls “strong drink.” Strong drink was made from various fruits and grains and was intentionally intoxicating. Noah’s drunkenness after drinking “wine” was likely unintentional."

This one paragraph is a beautiful example of how we tie ourselves into knots trying to square our belief that the church or gospel is the same forever with the crazy-ass stories of the Old Testament. How do we know God never condemned Noah for getting drunk? How do we know wine is not the same as strong drink in the bible? And how in the holy hell do we know Noah's drunkeness was 'likely unintentional'???

I'm doing damage control with my oldest child in seminary now. She can't believe many of the stories as literal, and neither can I. I keep telling her that there is power in the Old Testament as literature, but as a historical document it kind of goes off the rails. I'm concerned about her faith, but I can't let things like what I said above slide. This would not be a problem, were it not for our organizational requirement to frame all of human history in a never-changing gospel. Other than evangelicals, do other Christian sects have this problem?

Sorry, should have been another thread, but NWUF got me started...

It's a classic problem of starting from a premise and then distorting facts to prove the premise from which you started. As opposed to doing it the other way round: let's read the scriptures and see what they say instead of trying to shoehorn what they say into what we already think.

On the OT specifically, I made a point of showing that many beliefs re evolution and origin of man/the universe are compatible with Genesis 1 and 2 when I taught that lesson in my class. I also contrasted the origin stories of other religions to show that it's not as crazy of a story as it could be (not in those words of course).

Afterwards one of the attendees asked me what I thought privately. I told him I thought it was a nice origin myth but I was not sure how literally I took it.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

I relearned that the gentleman that says, "We're short on time, so I'll be brief." Lies.

[pellegrino]

He probably got that from Wikipedia.




We got thrown to the wolves and survived. Our kids can also.

The doctrinal principle that the church is the same yesterday, today, and forever, that's actually a good example of how correlation could improve. That's an easy one. But I don't think that's going to make much difference and doesn't do a lot to alter the comparison between missionaries and Plato's allegory of man in cave.

A missionary going out to preach correlated doctrine of faith, repentance, baptism, Fall, Atonement, restoration, priesthood, etc, is a good comparison to Plato's allegory, if you believe in the basic doctrines of the church.

The lack of teaching uncorrelated doctrine or difficult aspects like Kolob, deification, Joseph Smith's translation methods, Adam-God, polygamy, etc. Who cares?

I didn't think I'd have to spell this out, but here we are.

The talk that was given was geared towards members doing missionary work. The irony of using Plato's allegory is that the fully correlated member, who has never strayed from correlated materials, and uses them as the "script" to teach the gospel is working from perceptions that in many cases are really a distortion of reality, much like the shadows that the prisoners in the cave see.

So to make the comparison that Mormons are the ones who leave the cave and experience reality for what it is, is both a compelling interpretation of the Mormon narrative (truth/reality restored) and ironic for the modern correlated member because the facts that correlation presents are incomplete, specifically chosen for the purpose of arriving at one conclusion only, or in some cases gross distortions of historical reality, hence the irony.

[pellegrino]

Clark, if you don't mind, please privately let me know who he is. I may know him.

I learned in church yesterday that I judge too quickly. I was asked to speak in sacrament meeting on building a foundation of faith. For obvious reasons this is a difficult topic for me - I find myself feeling quite faithless and skeptical, although as a rule the more negative side of my faith gets presented here. I decided from the start that I was going to be honest about things and not speak as one who has a firm conviction in everything.

So that's what I did. I admitted I have a hard time with faith. I talked a bit about gifts of the spirit and how not everybody has every one, and while I may do well with languages/tongues, faith is not my strong point. I talked about how the prerequisite for church attendance and membership is the earnest seeking, not faith or even belief, and how Alma talks about desire and hope as the starting point. And I talked about how the more I study the less I know, but that I do have faith in Jesus and that is enough because Joseph Smith himself said that everything else is ancillary to that.

It was not a typical talk on faith, that's for sure. And I was nervous about being as honest as I was about my own struggles. Yet I wanted to subtly say to the others in my ward who struggle that they are not alone.

I was much more nervous when I found out who the other speakers would be. I was speaking with the Stake President, a man I previous viewed as being kind of hard-core. And he is hard-core. I think he was uncomfortable during parts of my talk (the bit where I said James was being sarcastic in James 2 jumps to mind). I am sure that my viewpoint is not something he has personal experience with. But afterwards he emailed my wife (he doesn't have my email; few people do) and told her that he appreciated my viewpoint and was touched by my struggle. This was not the response I was expecting, and I am glad to be wrong.

Proof again that speaking honestly from the heart is the way to go. And that I judge people far too quickly.

This was a nice story, niku. Regarding faith, I recently saw (on one of those crazy Mormon Stories facebook groups nonetheless) a comment about the metaphor of faith growing as a tree used in Alma 32.

Most of us, when we envision this metaphor, see a beautifully shaped shade tree whose roots go deep and whose strong branches extend up and out to protect the ground below from the elements. We have this idealized image of the tree that is then projected onto our faith and what it should be.

However, this idealized image is rarely an accurate representation of reality. But that doesn't mean the metaphor can't be accurate. If we look at actual the actual life span of a tree we see that some are planted in good ground, others rocky. Some suffer rot, others suffer insect infestations. Some suffer lightening strikes or droughts, and yet others suffer strong winds or floods that threaten to destroy them. Regardless, all of these setbacks do not change the fact that the tree is indeed a tree, and so long as it has a viable root system, growth will continue to be its primary purpose.

[wuapinmon]

Proof again that speaking honestly from the heart is the way to go. And that I judge people far too quickly.

Too many times in life I've believed that I had someone all figured out, only to be humbled by an unexpected conversation that made me realize that I can be a judgmental ass sometimes.

[Devildog]

I relearned that the gentleman that says, "We're short on time, so I'll be brief." Lies.

This is funny... and it is also consistently true.

[jay santos]

I didn't think I'd have to spell this out, but here we are.

The talk that was given was geared towards members doing missionary work. The irony of using Plato's allegory is that the fully correlated member, who has never strayed from correlated materials, and uses them as the "script" to teach the gospel is working from perceptions that in many cases are really a distortion of reality, much like the shadows that the prisoners in the cave see.

So to make the comparison that Mormons are the ones who leave the cave and experience reality for what it is, is both a compelling interpretation of the Mormon narrative (truth/reality restored) and ironic for the modern correlated member because the facts that correlation presents are incomplete, specifically chosen for the purpose of arriving at one conclusion only, or in some cases gross distortions of historical reality, hence the irony.

Gotcha. I see that angle now.

This correlation mantra is becoming one of my pet peeves.

It seems to me that it is used increasingly by apostate Mormons that bemoan the fact that other Mormons still believe the basics of the gospel.