Special Report: Mormonism Besieged by the Modern Age

[Cow Poke]

Step 1: "Your church used to have ******* doctrine, which I believe to have been an incorrect doctrine."

Step 2.: "Therefore, " (nothing further)

Please show where you have seen "Step 1:" as you spelled it out, Jeff.
That's false and misleading.

It's not that your Church USED to have ******* doctrine, but that your Church CONTINUES to teach false doctrines (IMO). If your Church had false doctrines which it recognized, and REPENTED from, I'd shout hallelujah!

Step 2 isn't proposed because you're still tripping all over Step 1.

So I wanted to find out what the LDS were expected to DO, if the accuser(s) were successful in convincing the LDS that Step 1 was legitimate.

Is Dehlin a screwball?

[nrajeff]

The book seems to be real enough, and I found no reason to be suspicious of Smith.

Both Jeff Lindsay and the FAIR Blog have commented in the past few days on the issue of racism. Their thoughts might be worth checking out:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/

Three Mormon Myths About Blacks and the Priesthood
by Scott Gordon on February 25th, 2012 http://www.fairblog.org/2012/02/25/t...28FAIR+Blog%29

[nrajeff]

Please show where you have seen "Step 1:" as you spelled it out, Jeff.

OBP, post #4 qualified, I was thinking.

That's false and misleading.

You should try to substantiate such assertions with, at least, what you feel to be reasons you felt it was false, and was misleading. I didn't call you out the last time you did something similar, but I think I should now.

It's not that your Church USED to have ******* doctrine, but that your Church CONTINUES to teach false doctrines (IMO).

But we stopped simultaneous marrying of living spouses, and stopped withholding the priesthood from men who were shown to of a certain African lineage.. Hence the past tense as implied by OBP.

Is Dehlin a screwball?

I am not a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist.

[Adrift]

You can stop right there as you're a bit off the mark: When I asked what the detractors expect me to do, it was nothing more or less than a sincere question. In other words, if we stipulate, for the sake of continuing the "discussion," that the accusations are accurate, I was sincerely wondering what the next step in the plan was....if a next step had even been formulated. I am not seeing any evidence at all that a next step had been considered. All I've seen so far, is the following:

Step 1: "Your church used to have ******* doctrine, which I believe to have been an incorrect doctrine."

Step 2.: "Therefore, " (nothing further)

So I wanted to find out what the LDS were expected to DO, if the accuser(s) were successful in convincing the LDS that Step 1 was legitimate.

Fair enough. I think the answer is clear. I think the first step would be to separate yourself from false teachings and false teachers. And then, as Jesus suggested in Matthew 24:13 endure to the end. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Those who continue to put their trust in God, and continue to seek him will eventually be rewarded.

I sympathize, but can't empathize, with those people, nor with any group of disillusioned/disgruntled/ church members, because I have no experiential base that relates..

Maybe they were like the claimed majority of Evangelical clergy who either suffer from depression, would resign their job if they could, or both:

You think the laity who leave non-orthodox ministries are maybe something like the majority of Evangelical clergy? Sort of a non-sequitur, don't you think? I'm not really sure what your point is, or how the two compare.

Anyways, if you want to discuss this topic (which, again, I'm not sure how it follows), there are over 300,000 protestant congregations in the US alone. And its probably very hard to say how many pastors there are assuming each congregation has one or more. The statistics in your link surveyed 1050 pastors out of those 300,000 congregations. Even though they're not counting the Protestant growth in S. America, Africa, and SE Asia I'm assuming that's considered a decent sample size.. I don't know. Are the numbers surprising? Not really. The pastor of a church has an incredible responsibility, and anyone who takes it lightly isn't cut out for the job. As James, the brother of Jesus said, Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. Gulp! I'd be pretty stressed too.

Thousands of churches are started every year, and thousands are closed. No doubt, there are many churches that are currently open that should never have been open to begin with. But I'm sure, and maybe CP can attest, that there are great personal rewards (never mind spiritual rewards) for what good and faithful pastors do on a day to day basis. If you ask me the value of a good pastor is greater than that of good teacher, psychiatrist, policeman, firefighter, or doctors. They lead people in correct doctrine, exhort them, reprove them, love them, counsel them, pray for them, and lead many people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and to everlasting life.

On a side note. A little background on the link in your post. Its from Ken Pulliam. He was an anti-theist who debated theists on this forum for many years under the handle Former Fundy. Unfortunately he passed away about a year and a half ago.

That's great for them if that feeling lasts. Of course, no one can predict with anything like certainty that they will remain happy in whatever church they are currently in.

Well its been almost 20 years now. If it were not to last, then they would do what they always have, and that is endure and keep seeking Christ Jesus.

I join you in that hope. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

You're welcome.

[Cow Poke]

OBP, post #4 qualified, I was thinking.

Hmmm... ok... I'll have to let OBP address that --- I thought he was indicating ongoing trend, but we'll wait and see.

You should try to substantiate such assertions with, at least, what you feel to be reasons you felt it was false, and was misleading. I didn't call you out the last time you did something similar, but I think I should now.

I thought we've done that time and time again, Jeff. The whole "precept upon precept" thing... the man becomes God thing... the secret oaths thing... the Free Masonry thing... a whole range of "things".

But we stopped simultaneous marrying of living spouses, and stopped withholding the priesthood from men who were shown to of a certain African lineage.. Hence the past tense as implied by OBP.

Again, I'll have to leave that to him, but the mention of gays suggests, at least to me, that Mormonism is "adjusting" to whatevery is culturally acceptable.

I am not a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist.

Good point! And made me smile. I'm glad you don't claim to be a psychologist or psychiatrist or, referencing a previous conversation between you and I, I'd have to question your veracity. (this is a joke, Jeff --- we both agree, apparently, that these people tend to be .. um... nevermind)

So, do you believe John Dehlin is anti-Mormon?
Do you beleive he has presented any untruths, either accidentally or on purpose?

[Cow Poke]

But I'm sure, and maybe CP can attest, that there are great personal rewards (never mind spiritual rewards) for what good and faithful pastors do on a day to day basis. If you ask me the value of a good pastor is greater than that of good teacher, psychiatrist, policeman, firefighter, or doctors. They lead people in correct doctrine, exhort them, reprove them, love them, counsel them, pray for them, and lead many people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and to everlasting life.

I'm reminded of a story allegedly about Clara Barton, Civil War Nurse (among many other things) who used her own finances and supplies to doctor up wounded soldiers, Confederate OR Union, and dressing their wounds. She taught others to do the same, and was called "the lady in charge of the hospitals" by the commanders of both armies.

One day she was teaching a young nurse to dress the wounds of a soldier who had lost his leg, and had been "treated" for gangrene. The would, apparently, was quite gross, and the young nurse told Clara, "I just can't do that -- I would't do that for a MILLION DOLLARS!" Clara reportedly glanced at the young lady and said, "neither would I, darlin', neither would I", and continued cleaning and dressing the wound.

It's not just about the "rewards" in this life. (coming back to that in a second) But I think that's part of the problem -- and I'm speaking very IMO-ishly --- but I think a man becomes educated (sometimes far beyond his intelligence) to a point where he seeks positions in bigger churches that pay more money, and higher acclaim, and loses sight of the things Adrift is talking about.

Meanwhile, I have a whole drawer full of cards and letters (and even some Facebook posts) from people to whom I've ministered, and those are worth FAR more to me than any sheepskin I have hanging on my wall. And I didn't learn this in Seminary, but from a faithful pastor who beleived in 2 Tim 2:2, and practiced what he preached.

[One Bad Pig]

You can stop right there as you're a bit off the mark: When I asked what the detractors expect me to do, it was nothing more or less than a sincere question. In other words, if we stipulate, for the sake of continuing the "discussion," that the accusations are accurate, I was sincerely wondering what the next step in the plan was....if a next step had even been formulated. I am not seeing any evidence at all that a next step had been considered. All I've seen so far, is the following:

Step 1: "Your church used to have ******* doctrine, which I believe to have been an incorrect doctrine."

Step 2.: "Therefore, " (nothing further)

So I wanted to find out what the LDS were expected to DO, if the accuser(s) were successful in convincing the LDS that Step 1 was legitimate.

You've misapprehended the thrust of my post; step 1 is not the point I was trying to make. I am not an advocate of ordaining actively gay people to the priesthood of any sect, because they're living in unrepentant sin. As CP correctly noted, I was alluding to what I see as the capitulation of the LDS church to cultural pressure; without pressure from the surrounding community, I don't think those changes would have occurred. Similarly, the LDS church has a host of teachings made by prophets of the time that are now shunned; given that, there is not surety that the teachings of today will not be shunned later. As I see it, the LDS church does not have a firm foundation; but is tossed to and fro by varying winds of doctrine.

<goes back to lurk mode>

[nrajeff]

Again, I'll have to leave that to him, but the mention of gays suggests, at least to me, that Mormonism is "adjusting" to whatevery is culturally acceptable

Which to the average faithful LDS would constitute an attack on the LDS belief that our official doctrines are not merely uninspired reactions to social trends for the sake of political correctness.

Good point! And made me smile. I'm glad you don't claim to be a psychologist or psychiatrist or, referencing a previous conversation between you and I, I'd have to question your veracity. (this is a joke, Jeff --- we both agree, apparently, that these people tend to be .. um... nevermind)

Oh, yeah. I wasn't even thinking about that "observation" from before. LOL

So, do you believe John Dehlin is anti-Mormon?
Do you beleive he has presented any untruths, either accidentally or on purpose?

I won't / can't give honest opinions in answer until I have carefully studied what he said. It's the fair thing to do.

[Cow Poke]

Which to the average faithful LDS would constitute an attack on the LDS belief that our official doctrines are not merely uninspired reactions to social trends for the sake of political correctness.

And understandably so, but that doesn't mean that they're NOT (at least in some cases) uninspired reactions. I try, sometimes, to imagine having to defend Mormonism's positions on "blacks were less valiant in battle" vs. the current position, and polygamy vs what you believe NOW. You can understand that, to the average faithful NON-LDS, it sure looks suspicious.

Oh, yeah. I wasn't even thinking about that "observation" from before. LOL

I'm not feeling the love.

I won't / can't give honest opinions in answer until I have carefully studied what he said. It's the fair thing to do.

In light of JB's post on this in another thread, I'm rethinking this. I DO WONDER, however, how a once-faithful Mormon can become so disenchanted with the actual teachings of Mormonism.

[nrajeff]

You've misapprehended the thrust of my post; step 1 is not the point I was trying to make.

Okay, sorry. And thanks for clarifying.

I am not an advocate of ordaining actively gay people to the priesthood of any sect, because they're living in unrepentant sin. As CP correctly noted, I was alluding to what I see as the capitulation of the LDS church to cultural pressure; without pressure from the surrounding community, I don't think those changes would have occurred.

Then if I understand correctly, your opinion is that a given LDS doctrine might not be a false one, but it's not a divinely inspired one.

Similarly, the LDS church has a host of teachings made by prophets of the time that are now shunned; given that, there is not surety that the teachings of today will not be shunned later.

I think that is a fair statement.

As I see it, the LDS church does not have a firm foundation; but is tossed to and fro by varying winds of doctrine.

To the LDS, such an attitude is similar to one a skeptic of Judeo-Christianity in general might have: "Currently has some doctrines that were once NOT held, and used to have doctrines that are no longer held." There is no shortage of examples such a skeptic could adduce:

How many modern Christians celebrate/observe all the feasts, holy days, and rituals that their God once upon a time commanded to be celebrated/observed ? "It's the same God, right?"

<goes back to lurk mode>

Thanks for your comments.

[nrajeff]

And understandably so, but that doesn't mean that they're NOT (at least in some cases) uninspired reactions.

OK, duly noted.

I try, sometimes, to imagine having to defend Mormonism's positions on "blacks were less valiant in battle" vs. the current position

The old "Less valiant" theory was never official doctrine, at least not in my 4 decades of experience as an active Utah LDS. Members are allowed to have heterodox and/or unofficial opinions on a variety of issues, and the church is quite lenient about allowing that. If it punished every member who believed junk that wasn't official doctrines, well...our enemies (right on cue) and even some of our friends would be calling us a controlling CULT. Wouldn't want that.

and polygamy vs what you believe NOW. You can understand that, to the average faithful NON-LDS, it sure looks suspicious.

I can understand a lot of things. I think I can even understand why some people accuse pro-2nd-Amendment people of being crazy, ignorant, misguided fanatics. I just happen to disagree with their opinion.

In light of JB's post on this in another thread, I'm rethinking this. I DO WONDER, however, how a once-faithful Mormon can become so disenchanted with the actual teachings of Mormonism.

Maybe in a way similar to how a once-faithful Evangelical named Bart Ehman can become so disenchanted with the actual teachings of Evangelicalism?

[Cow Poke]

The old "Less valiant" theory was never official doctrine, at least not in my 4 decades of experience as an active Utah LDS.

Using your definition of "official, Jeff, the LDS Church has precious FEW doctrines.

Maybe in a way similar to how a once-faithful Evangelical named Bart Ehman can become so disenchanted with the actual teachings of Evangelicalism?

Is he your "fallen Evangelical" poster boy like Roger Williams was your Baptist Pastor Apostasy Authority?

And I believe it's Ehrman.

[Cow Poke]

The old "Less valiant" theory was never official doctrine

Ummmm... according to Bruce McConkie, it was more than just a theory, Jeff. And I think you know that.

SUBSEQUENTLY, he said...

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

Why would this change be necessary if it was only a "theory"?

ETA: Post 45 also discusses this, Jeff, and Mormon Professor Dr. Smith doesn't seem to think it's a "theory" THERE, either.

[Sparko]

Ummmm... according to Bruce McConkie, it was more than just a theory, Jeff. And I think you know that.

SUBSEQUENTLY, he said...

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

Why would this change be necessary if it was only a "theory"?

ETA: Post 45 also discusses this, Jeff, and Mormon Professor Dr. Smith doesn't seem to think it's a "theory" THERE, either.

and what makes the current position "offcial?" what is to stop some future prophet from claiming that God told him to go back to treating blacks like second class citizens? Nothing. That is the problem with a "living prophet" and totally ignoring anything that came before. It means you cant even trust what they say TODAY

[nrajeff]

Using your definition of "official, Jeff, the LDS Church has precious FEW doctrines.

That assertion is false and misleading. We have lots of scriptures. They contain lots of our doctrines. When you have found the 'all blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence" "doctrine" in our scriptures, feel free to come back and cite said scriptures and I will be ready, willing, and able to "recant" and give your the "confession" you seek, namely:

"You are right and I was wrong about what is doctrine in the church I have actively been a member of for more than 40 years."

Until that day arrives, you will have to accept that I at least THINK and BELIEVE that I am more familiar with my church's doctrines that you are.

Is he your "fallen Evangelical" poster boy like Roger Williams was your Baptist Pastor Apostasy Authority?

If you don't know who Ehrman is or anything about him, I can show you some places to start learning.