Deciphering "LDS claims"

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by All-American

If it is odd, at least it is consistant. Even in Jesus' day, he would deliberately withhold information from the rest of the world when they were not ready to receive it. He taught in "deliberately and institutionally opaque" parables, insisted on lessons punctuated by the "he who has ears to hear, let him hear" statement, and left his disciples in confusion time and time again. If you're worried that the Latter Day Saint church doesn't give you all of the answers at once, you can at least take comfort in the fact that you're in good company.

Interesting you bring up parables, Jesus' words:

10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Interesting you bring up parables, Jesus' words:

10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

So, in other words, Jesus did not make the answers univerally available at once.

If you're making a different point, you may want to state it.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why is it so important to answer so many questions?

Isn't the struggle the point?

Struggle is a huge part of our mortal experience, so in part it is the point, but IMO, it is important to answer certain questions that arrise because of the teachings of the church.

Why were the seers, prophets, apostles, of 100 years ago able to say that literal death existed not before the fall, only to say today that the church has no official stance on evolution?

Why were the seers, prophets, apostles of 100 years ago able to say that Adam was God, and the only one we dealt with in this probation, only to say today that that doctrine is of the devil?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by All-American

So, in other words, Jesus did not make the answers univerally available at once.

If you're making a different point, you may want to state it.

Today much of us in the church are the ones who are to be confounded.

To my point, those that should be in the 'know' aren't really in the know, should we as members of His church not be in the know?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Struggle is a huge part of our mortal experience, so in part it is the point, but IMO, it is important to answer certain questions that arrise because of the teachings of the church.

Why were the seers, prophets, apostles, of 100 years ago able to say that literal death existed not before the fall, only to say today that the church has no official stance on evolution?

Why were the seers, prophets, apostles of 100 years ago able to say that Adam was God, and the only one we dealt with in this probation, only to say today that that doctrine is of the devil?

Would you rather have the church insist on its infallibility in the face of the evidence?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The Mormon and Catholic churches bear the common characteristic that they are monolithic, insular, highly organized and hierarchical institutions. This sets them apart from the crazy quilt of myriad Protestant sects. However, one respect in which they differ is that the Catholic Church takes great pains to clarify doctrinal points, many arcane and obscure, often through encyclicals issued by the Pope to the Bishops. Such communications have covered myriad subjects, everything from de-Latinizing the mass, to abortion, to evolution, to nuclear weapons, to sexual preference, to the shroud of Turin, to Catholic complicty in the Holocaust. The list is endless. These enclyclicals are invariably clear and incisive. I don't believe anyone ever accused the Catholic Church of lack of clarity with respect to its position on any subject.

MikeWaters made an interesting point yesterday when he said the General Authorities never comment on subjects such as Joseph Smith's method in generating the Book of Abraham. I could show you some General Conference talks from the '70's in which apostles claimed that all American aborigines were descendants of Book of Mormon peoples. Some of us remember missionary materials that made that claim. What is the Church's current position on that issue? Who knows? Was the priesthood ban doctrine or policy? What was its purpose? This is precisely the kind of thing a papal encyclical would address firmly, and in detail. What exactly is the Church's position on "grace"? Does it resemble Martin Luther's rigid predestination construct, Catholic self-determination, or something in between? How DID the Book of Abraham come to be?

From what I've seen the Church only clarifies a doctrinal point when it is dealing with a PR disaster, as with Blood Atonement, and then only insofar as it has to. As a result, "Mormon Doctrine" is this pastiche of vague scriptural references, folk lore, Deseret Book published works by General Authorities, FARMS monographs, and Internet traffic. Clearly this opacity is deliberate and institutionalized.

I don't have a problem with it. The church is guided by inspiration (assuming one accepts their claim). In that case, the only individuals authorized to speak on behalf of the entire church are the president of the church and the 12 apostles when acting as a group.

It is entirely unrealistic to expect that those individuals have the time or inclination to pray and receive an answer on thousands, even millions, of mundane issues that, in the grand scheme of things, aren't entirely relevant to our salvation, though they may be relevant to satisfying curiousity.

As the church has seen in the past, a general authority's statements on any given topic are frequently interpreted as being church doctrine, even though they aren't actually given authority to pronounce church doctrine. To avoid any potential confusion, the church of late has begun instructing general authorities to refrain from speaking on issues that haven't been accepted as doctrine.

Seems like a good policy to me. If the church doesn't have a position on an issue, they shouldn't pretend that they do.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

How ironic given the Church's claim to "modern revelation."

I actually don't find it all that ironic. The church does claim it receives "modern revelation." Revelation appears, however, frequently to be a process and not a lightning-strike of understanding (though presumably it can occur like that too). Given that in general, church leaders must ponder, pray and listen to receive revelation, and that all of this takes time, they have no option BUT to tread softly on issues that haven't yet been revealed. To do otherwise would be foolhardy. In fact, many of the mistakes of the past I imagine are somewhat attributable to an individual speaking out on an issue before he had received the entire answer.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Today much of us in the church are the ones who are to be confounded.

To my point, those that should be in the 'know' aren't really in the know, should we as members of His church not be in the know?

If you read further into the gospels, you will notice that the only ones Christ let "in the know" were his apostles, and much of the time, they were just as confused as anybody else. Simply being a member of the church is insufficient.

[nuclearunderpants]

I don't expect clarification or revelation on things that haven't been revealed---like evolution. I would like to see an explanation for things that were taught as doctrine and later retracted.

1. Book Of Abraham not being what Joseph said it was, including the text in the book "by his own hand upon papyrus"
2. Adam God Theory
3. Book of Mormon translation not being a translation in any accepted sense of the word.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by nuclearunderpants

3. Book of Mormon translation not being a translation in any accepted sense of the word.

I am not quite sure I understand the angst on this one. If Joseph doesn't understand the "characters" and the "translation" is done by miraculous means, what does it matter if he is staring directly at the plates or not? What difference does it make? Other than a symbolic meaning, why is possession of the plates even necessary? Are there some rules on miraculous translation that were somehow violated here?