The June 1

[creekster]

The June 2

Holy cow, I am certainly not arguing that something has to be historical to be valuable. But this entire argument started out as a discussion of the application of ancient scriptural stories to modern-day moral reasoning. I have simply argued that I don't believe some of these ancient stories should be used as a doctrinal/scriptural justification for things like discrimination or genocide.

BTW, I am puzzled why making judgments about my belief system is part of your argument.

I should have said "one" and not "you". have no idea about your belief system apart from what you choose to reveal here. But I can point out the logical consequence of your reasoning. Which I have attempted to do.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I should have said "one" and not "you". have no idea about your belief system apart from what you choose to reveal here. But I can point out the logical consequence of your reasoning. Which I have attempted to do.

So how about if you go ahead and attack my reasoning and logic without making judgments about the thinness of my belief system? TIA.

[creekster]

So how about if you go ahead and attack my reasoning and logic without making judgments about the thinness of my belief system? TIA.

How about you discuss the ideas stop looking to turn this I to something personal? Nothing personal was meant. As I said, I meant you as in one, not you as in JL. TIA.

[Pheidippides]

I've got to know someone that attended that meeting...I should do some digging.

It would be interesting to hear. I've been in a very few meetings like that and they can vary wildly based on the demeanor of the leaders involved - as well as that of the attendees.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How about you discuss the ideas stop looking to turn this I to something personal? Nothing personal was meant. As I said, I meant you as in one, not you as in JL. TIA.

A distinction without a difference.

Forget it. Your statement in question was based on a straw man anyway. As I said, I would never claim that historicity is the basis upon which one should choose to believe the scriptures or gospel principles. I think I have been quite consistent in arguing the opposite. In the absence of historicity and given the messiness of the manner in which the scriptures were recorded and passed down through history, how does one go about deciding how much moral weight to apply to a particular story? I don't feel compelled to believe that God condones genocide or slavery simply because it is part of an OT narrative that we (apparently) agree is probably not historical and/or is heavily influenced by ancient cultural tradition. Wouldn't it make more sense to analyze each story/principle to determine if it resonates with our sense of rightness? Or in the LDS vernacular, if we are moved by the spirit that the principle is "true"?

You keep arguing that the genocide is a key component of the concept of a covenant people. There are several different views of God and the relationship between God and man expressed in the OT. In the early part of the OT, God is a plural but in the latter part, God become singular. There is no such thing as heaven or hell or life after death for a huge part of the OT. The concept of the priesthood in the OT is vastly different than what we currently believe. To say that one cannot choose to reject something such as divinely sanctioned genocide without dumping everything else doesn't make any sense to me. The OT is chock full of contradictions. That is part of what makes it so darned interesting.

[SeattleUte]

Who was it that posited that Tex is simply a bot produced by the church with pre-programmed answers? Was that DDD?

I said that, on CG.

[wuapinmon]

My son turns eight tomorrow. His baptism is on Saturday. I hate how I feel.

[creekster]

A distinction without a difference.

Forget it. Your statement in question was based on a straw man anyway. As I said, I would never claim that historicity is the basis upon which one should choose to believe the scriptures or gospel principles. I think I have been quite consistent in arguing the opposite. In the absence of historicity and given the messiness of the manner in which the scriptures were recorded and passed down through history, how does one go about deciding how much moral weight to apply to a particular story? I don't feel compelled to believe that God condones genocide or slavery simply because it is part of an OT narrative that we (apparently) agree is probably not historical and/or is heavily influenced by ancient cultural tradition. Wouldn't it make more sense to analyze each story/principle to determine if it resonates with our sense of rightness? Or in the LDS vernacular, if we are moved by the spirit that the principle is "true"?

You keep arguing that the genocide is a key component of the concept of a covenant people. There are several different views of God and the relationship between God and man expressed in the OT. In the early part of the OT, God is a plural but in the latter part, God become singular. There is no such thing as heaven or hell or life after death for a huge part of the OT. The concept of the priesthood in the OT is vastly different than what we currently believe. To say that one cannot choose to reject something such as divinely sanctioned genocide without dumping everything else doesn't make any sense to me. The OT is chock full of contradictions. That is part of what makes it so darned interesting.

if you think it is a distinction without a difference then it is pointless to suggest i am free to discuss the consequence of your reasoning if you will then assert it is a personal attack, even if none is meant. You, or should I say one, can't have it both ways.

You now wish to talk about moral weight in an apparently personal context when before we were talking about weight given the scriptures in a gospel context. You, or one, can decide whatever one wants in a personal context, but once you try to put the scriptures in a gospel context, you, or one, can only take away so much before the remnants fall as inadequate support for the gospel approach.

Let me repeat something here: I have NEVER suggested that genocide is a component of the covenant. I have said that God's order to kill was integral to his fulfillment of the covenant promises. But it was done in his time, for his reasons and under his direction. In a gospel context, genocide is integral to God's fulfillment of the covenant, which premise you have not even attempted to refute, apart from saying you just don't believe it (an example of you stating your own belief). You then throw out the fact (which I consider to be irrelevant to this discussion) that God is described as plural in the beginning of the OT but singular in the latter parts. That's sort of true, but really it breaks down, as I recall, along the lines of the source material, with the E source (if my memory serves) referring to plural Elohim. The latter part of the OT, by which I assume you mean the prophets, is not from that source, or at least not much of it is. But what does that mean in this context? Indeed, this fact actually is very consistent with what JS taught about the OT in a gospel context.

Moreover, the LACK of something in the OT, such as a modern concept of the priesthood, or of notions of the after life, is also not relevant. Because what IS found in the OT is what is at issue. And what IS found is the covenant and the way in which it was presented, promised and fulfilled by God. The lack of some concepts may further undermine the OT and any claim to its utility as a gospel guide, but it certainly doesn't undermine my point.

How do we decide what to believe (FTR this is what you asked above, so I am not trying to delve into your personal feelings here)? In the gospel context we might look to the prophet or similar authoritative sources. Outside that context, there are a lot of ways, but not many of them are consistent with the gospel. If one eliminates those portions of the OT that one personally concludes are not historical, and then eliminates those portions that one finds do not resonates with one's one moral tuning fork, then one is left with not much at all in the OT to follow in the gospel context.

[Topper]

[quote name=&quot;Jeff Lebowski&quot; post=1103659]Of course, another approach is to recognize that the OT is a messy mixture of myth, culture, oral traditions, and divinely inspired narrative and maybe God doesn't really endorse horrible things like genocide and slavery and killing forty kids with a she-bear for teasing an old dude about his bald head.[/QUOTE]<br />
<br />
This explanation certainly works for stories like the talking ass or the child hating she bear, but it is very hard to write off the commandments to kill Canaanites and others without losing many of the central themes and the basic meanings of the OT. The privileged status of the covenant people is manifested nowhere more clearly than by the bestowal by Yahweh of the land of milk and honey on the band of wandering Hebrews. Sure, you can simply decide not to believe it because you don't like it, but apart from making you feel better about your religion, there isn't much doctrinal basis to pick the stories of Jesus in the NT over those of the Hebrews in the OT.<br/>

Or you can reject literalism altogether and accept the narratives are written by scribes to teach concepts rather specifics. We can be left to wonder what is myth and what is real relying upon moral teachings not literal events.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Clark Addison]

KUTV reporting that Whitney Clayton and M Russell Ballard appear to the driving forces behind this: http://m.kutv.com/article?id=5426596

Edit: Clayton is the guy who gave the "Watch and Learn" talk a few conferences back.

Two Utes. Figures.

[Moliere]

My son turns eight tomorrow. His baptism is on Saturday. I hate how I feel.

At least he's a son and not a daughter...

"Driving force" is a strange way to characterize this:

While I agree that "driving force" is a bit strong, the fact that Clayton visited the stakes of both Kelly and Dehlin within a short time frame and obviously called Kelly's group apostate, it certainly leads one to believe he has a hand in this. It's highly unlikely that he told the SP of each stake to hold a disciplinary hearing for Kelly and Dehlin. However, what is a local leader to do when a higher ranking leader says someone is apostate? Should the SP just ignore the comment and not hold a council? Once Clayton says the group is apostate the SP hands are tied at least in terms of holding a council.

And I'm not seeing why Clayton's talk "Watch and Learn" is even being mentioned. If anything it's evidence against his misogyny. Here's an excerpt:

Fourth, respect. I have observed that in wonderful, happy marriages, husbands and wives treat each other as equal partners. Practices from any place or any time in which husbands have dominated wives or treated them in any way as second-class partners in marriage are not in keeping with divine law and should be replaced by correct principles and patterns of behavior.

Husbands and wives in great marriages make decisions unanimously, with each of them acting as a full participant and entitled to an equal voice and vote. 5 They focus first on the home and on helping each other with their shared responsibilities. 6 Their marriages are based on cooperation, not negotiation. Their dinner hour and the family time that follows become the center of their day and the object of their best efforts. They turn off electronics and forgo personal entertainment in order to help with household duties. To the extent possible, they read with their children every night and both participate in putting the little ones to bed. They retire to their bed together. As their duties and circumstances permit, husbands and wives work side by side in doing the most important work there is—the work we do in our own homes.

[Tex]

My son turns eight tomorrow. His baptism is on Saturday. I hate how I feel.

Congratulations, wuapinmon! Honest advice: stop coming here.

[Tex]

How do we decide what to believe (FTR this is what you asked above, so I am not trying to delve into your personal feelings here)? In the gospel context we might look to the prophet or similar authoritative sources. Outside that context, there are a lot of ways, but not many of them are consistent with the gospel. If one eliminates those portions of the OT that one personally concludes are not historical, and then eliminates those portions that one finds do not resonates with one's one moral tuning fork, then one is left with not much at all in the OT to follow in the gospel context.

creekster, could you perhaps discuss the role faith has for you in this approach? (I'd ask Leb too, but I don't know if he can even seen this). I've read through this debate, and I see a lot of historical and cultural discussion, but what do you think God means for us to do with the more disturbing parts of OT with respect to faith?

While I agree that "driving force" is a bit strong, the fact that Clayton visited the stakes of both Kelly and Dehlin within a short time frame and obviously called Kelly's group apostate, it certainly leads one to believe he has a hand in this. It's highly unlikely that he told the SP of each stake to hold a disciplinary hearing for Kelly and Dehlin. However, what is a local leader to do when a higher ranking leader says someone is apostate? Should the SP just ignore the comment and not hold a council? Once Clayton says the group is apostate the SP hands are tied at least in terms of holding a council.

I think "hands are tied" is still a bit strong, but I agree with your sentiment. What's missing from the discussion is that the local leaders apparently asked them for counsel. Why would you do that unless you had an intention of following through?

[Commando]

Congratulations, wuapinmon! Honest advice: stop coming here.

What?? How can we ever know as much as Satan does unless we study his arguments??

[All-American]

My son turns eight tomorrow. His baptism is on Saturday. I hate how I feel.

You're a good man, wuap. I hope you believe you are better for being here, but I'm sure we are better for you being here.

The church isn't a perfect place, but it is a very good one. Collectively, we have things to work on, but I do believe we are better for being a part of it.