01-03-2006, 01:24 AM | #51 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Not having studied him I can't really say
In your study of him for your profession is that what you learned?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
01-03-2006, 01:32 AM | #52 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
I personally never came to the conclusion that the GAs should be teaching me about the details of polygamy and polyandry.
I have suspected that it is something to study on my own, and where I still have questions, ask other saints who have studied the issue. For many of us who believe, it is not a matter of just weighing facts and history. It is about a belief in personal revelation. I never challenge people when they say something has been revealed to them. I may ask some questions about it, and I may have doubts occasionally, but because I believe in the process, I have no power to deny it from another person. It is also my personal prejudice that it is rare for someone to leave the church over a historical point. It is much more complicated than that. |
01-03-2006, 01:38 AM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
To be fair to iluvatar, I think he is saying that the GAs/prophets should clarify these issues, as what is the point of having a prophet if not to get clarifiaction on such things. This is different from saying these doctrines should necessarily be taught in Sunday School. Nonetheless, I agree with Archaea's commnet that we need to pursue persohnal revelation on these topics.
Iluvatar's skepticism is rooted deeper than a quarrel over unresolved polyandry practices, as he stated at one point that he doubts the existence of God. If so, than the question of polyandry is just a minor rest stop on the road he is taking. |
01-03-2006, 01:38 AM | #54 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
That may be the linchpin but not the real reason.
If one receives a testimony, then you must lose its conviction gradually, not as a result of disagreement of a historical fact.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
01-03-2006, 01:48 AM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
Quote:
What's truly interesting is that so many spend so much time examining the past and its so called controversies in place of examining the doctrine they live. let me put a thought into your mind ... if I am sealed to my wife and my wife is sealed to her father ... ?? let's consider another thought. God is just and Justice is absolute ... I have a very good friend who lost her husband to cancer at a young age, they had two children. She is remarried in the Temple, not sealed to the new husband and has since had two more children with the new husband ... what will justice demand on behalf of the children, the wife and the first and second husbands? I prefer spending more time examining the doctrine as opposed to playing the victim and protesting that I have been lied to. Perhaps the brethren do respond to such issues by teaching THE SAME doctrine over and over again. As far as the introduction of the BofM is concerned you focused and pointed to ONE aspect, even one to three words in the entire introduction -that is dealing in half-truths. Your post made it sound as if that is all the introduction has to say, when in fact it says so much more. |
|
01-03-2006, 01:59 AM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
|
Quote:
As far as the title page issue goes I can also see your point. It's not an issue that bothers me and so I haven't spent much time researching it. I don't think that the evidence currently available necessitates an apology or admission of error from the church. Archaea made a pretty good argument here and I tend to feel the same. Bottom line for me: is it possible that leaders of the church since the inception of this church have overstated the Native American/Lamanite link? Yes, it's possible. Does it bother me? No, not personally. Can I understand why it bothers you? Yes. |
|
01-03-2006, 02:10 AM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,964
|
Quote:
As far as the charge that the Church is lying to us by not addressing difficult issues, I don't have much of a problem with that. I've done lots of things in my life that I'm not proud of, and I don't go around advertising those things now. I continually encourage my children to do things that I didn't do when I was their age. Does that make me a hypocrite or a liar? I don't think so. It's a lot more important what I'm doing today than what I was doing 20 years ago. |
|
01-03-2006, 02:14 AM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
|
Quote:
|
|
01-03-2006, 02:15 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
|
I think the Mormon church, its scholars, and its people are being as open regarding its history as ever. Bushman's book is one of the best examples of this. We have plenty of people trying to figure out to what extent the Lamanites were the primary anscestors of Native Americans. As for me, it bothers me not one whit that we have left the language as saying they were. The question is undefined and unsettled-- why retract the statement now?
Besides, if I find out some day that the Lamanites actually comprise only 1% of the ancestry of Native Americans, that doesn't disprove the book of Mormon. The reason the church does not focus on the warts of its history is because they are ultimately unimportant. Anything Joseph Smith did, Brigham Young taught, or Bishop Fillintheblank said to you is subordinate to the ultimate question regarding the truth of the Book of Mormon. That book cannot be disproven with one questionable statement written in the introduction. The veracity of the church rises and falls on the truth of the Book of Mormon. If a fatal flaw can be found in that book and exposed for the world to see, the church would crumble apart. Instead of hiding the book and its potential to destroy the church, we instead ask the world to read it and have been doing so for 170 years. Just this year the prophet has pleaded with the members of the church to read the Book of Mormon. That to me is a strong argument in favor of the book. If you're looking for a perfect book, a perfect prophet, a perfect bishop, or a perfect church, you will not find it, and none of the above claim to be it. My experience has been that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be-- another testament of Jesus Christ, and through obedience to the precepts in the book, a man may become closer to God than by any other book. I've seen it in my life, and in many other lives. If the book of Mormon is true, and I believe that it is, a hundred thousand mistakes may plague Joseph Smith and the LDS church throughout the remainder of its history without changing the ultimate fact that he was a true prophet and the church is Christ's church restored in our day. |
01-03-2006, 07:05 AM | #60 | ||
Master
|
Re: You may disagree
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ernie Johnson: "Auburn is a pretty good school. To graduate from there I suppose you really need to work hard and put forth maximum effort." Charles Barkley: "20 pts and 10 rebounds will get you through also!" |
||
Bookmarks |
|
|