The Church

[Pheidippides]

Let me add my two cents to this discussion, albeit late.

1. I believe (and I am supported in my believe by two prominent BYU religion professors, whose names I will not public disclose but will consider giving privately) that the "Restoration", as we call it, was not a past event but an ongoing process. In other words, when you try to download an entire theology through a guy who has a penchant for treasure hunting with magic stick and looking at rocks in his hat, there are bound to be more than a few speed bumps along the way.

(Same religion professors, by the way, or at least one of them, explicitly do not believe in the Celestial/Terrestial/Telestial division).

2. We do not (or at least I do not) believe in the doctrine of infallibility. Therefore, I have absolutely no problem stating that I think that the blacks-and-the-priesthood issue, for example, is the result of a racist Brigham Young, largely, and that the institutional mechanisms of the Church are such that the policy would not be changed until a consensus was reached - despite the efforts of David O. McKay. That is my honest belief.

3. I believe that true religion is about taking care of widows and orphans and such, so I really don't care what you believe as long as you serve in such a manner. Landpoke can come to EQ and spout off all he wants about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I don't care if his actions are good.

In like manner, I think the only requirement to come to church is that you don't smoke inside the building.

[byu71]

The one idea I can credit this thread for having provoked is that a lot of the creative explanations that are developed to make things "fit together" make God seem very strange and arbitrary if you focus on them long.

Would you agree with me that we often hear faith promoting experiences in chruch that does the same thing. Creative explanations that are developed to make things "fit together".

[FMCoug]

In my opinion, the Gospel and the Church are VASTLY different entities. This is why you will never hear me claim that I know the church is true. In fact, I cringe just a bit whenever I hear members say it while sharing their testimonies. Personally, I know the gospel of Jesus Christ is true, and I also know that the church is God's vehicle for spreading and administering the gospel on the earth, but the church is not the gospel, and it certainly has some issues that are difficult for me to accept and/or understand.

A+++++! (apologies to wuap for the hack)

[JohnnyLingo]

Good thread Johnny. I would have never thought you could start a thread that would last more than 1 page. I helped because of all of my posts, but hopefully that doesn't lessen your accomplishment. Not only that, but it is two pages long and no one has referred to you yet as a dumb ass.

Bravo my man, bravo.

Thank you, thank you. As you mentioned, I never could have done it without you.

2. We do not (or at least I do not) believe in the doctrine of infallibility. Therefore, I have absolutely no problem stating that I think that the blacks-and-the-priesthood issue, for example, is the result of a racist Brigham Young, largely, and that the institutional mechanisms of the Church are such that the policy would not be changed until a consensus was reached - despite the efforts of David O. McKay. That is my honest belief.

Does this then extend to "it doesn't matter what the Church's leaders do, I will stay a member forever"?

[wuapinmon]

Not only that, but it is two pages long and no one has referred to you yet as a dumb ass.

I've been at the jicking pool all day.

[JohnnyLingo]

I've been at the jicking pool all day.

You kidder, you. I can't stay mad at you as long as you have the Lego avatar. I loved Legos when I was a kid... space ones, especially.

[byu71]

Let me add my two cents to this discussion, albeit late.

1. I believe (and I am supported in my believe by two prominent BYU religion professors, whose names I will not public disclose but will consider giving privately) that the "Restoration", as we call it, was not a past event but an ongoing process. In other words, when you try to download an entire theology through a guy who has a penchant for treasure hunting with magic stick and looking at rocks in his hat, there are bound to be more than a few speed bumps along the way.

(Same religion professors, by the way, or at least one of them, explicitly do not believe in the Celestial/Terrestial/Telestial division).

2. We do not (or at least I do not) believe in the doctrine of infallibility. Therefore, I have absolutely no problem stating that I think that the blacks-and-the-priesthood issue, for example, is the result of a racist Brigham Young, largely, and that the institutional mechanisms of the Church are such that the policy would not be changed until a consensus was reached - despite the efforts of David O. McKay. That is my honest belief.

3. I believe that true religion is about taking care of widows and orphans and such, so I really don't care what you believe as long as you serve in such a manner. Landpoke can come to EQ and spout off all he wants about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I don't care if his actions are good.

In like manner, I think the only requirement to come to church is that you don't smoke inside the building.

Let me ask you this and it may help me with the problem I have with calling Brigham Young and other leaders racists.

For instance, do you consider George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et. al. racists.

[KillerDog]

I got it from the thread starter:



Unlike you (apparently) I have stuck to the call of the question. All my posts in this thread have addressed Lingo's premise (unlike some here, I don't just say, "I reject your premise so I won't respond"; if I reject the premise I do the thread starter the courtesy of addressing it). If you would discipline your argument we wouldn't talk past one another.

So we agree? One true church is archaic, a form of tribalism and a type of bigotry?

Fair enough, it seems to be the core concept of the thread so I will go with you.

I think the concept of "one true church" is definitely a type of bigotry and tribalism but I don't think that necessarily precludes it from being the truth. I also think defining something as archaic is pointless. Just because something is old does not make it bad.

[UtahDan]

Would you agree with me that we often hear faith promoting experiences in chruch that does the same thing. Creative explanations that are developed to make things "fit together".

Yeah and I don't fault people for doing it. I've just stopped trying to make certain things fit together. I'm comfortable with ambiguity given the alternatives.

[TripletDaddy]

Let me ask you this and it may help me with the problem I have with calling Brigham Young and other leaders racists.

For instance, do you consider George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et. al. racists.

is this a serious question? they owned slaves.

[UtahDan]

Fair enough, it seems to be the core concept of the thread so I will go with you.

I think the concept of "one true church" is definitely a type of bigotry and tribalism but I don't think that necessarily precludes it from being the truth. I also think defining something as archaic is pointless. Just because something is old does not make it bad.

Woo hoo! Hear that '71?

[byu71]

Yeah and I don't fault people for doing it. I've just stopped trying to make certain things fit together. I'm comfortable with ambiguity given the alternatives.

Me too. I don't feel the need to explain everything.

[FMCoug]

Let me ask you this and it may help me with the problem I have with calling Brigham Young and other leaders racists.

For instance, do you consider George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et. al. racists.

By modern definitions I'd say you have to. But isn't this true of all history? Civilization is a process. I'm sure there are things we do now that are considered the norm that our descendants will look back on in disgust.

[byu71]

is this a serious question? they owned slaves.

I don't need your opinion if you don't want to give it.

[TripletDaddy]

I don't need your opinion if you don't want to give it.

well, it is fair to say that anyone that owned slaves and had alleged forced conjugal visits with them are probably tinged a bit by racism, yes.

I will go all in and say "yes." Slave owners are de facto racists.