Bcspace probably right about what is LDS Doctrine

[_Nomad]

It's a word I would use to describe him. I got tired of his accusations, insinuation, and outright judgments of me and my faith. I don't care to discuss him any further. If you care to clarify his question and help me understand why I would supposedly be scared of answering it, please do.

Is it also a word you would use to describe:

Dan Peterson
Bill Hamblin
Lou Midgley
John Gee

How about Pahoran?

Just curious.

[_Nomad]

If you care to clarify his question and help me understand why I would supposedly be scared of answering it, please do.

While I can't speak for him directly, I do think I see what he was driving at, and so I'll ask the question that I think comes next:

To what degree do you believe the principles contained in the following quote inform LDS decision making at the highest levels in 2011?

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said that thou shalt not kill, -- at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted -- by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

[_the narrator]

It's a word I would use to describe him. I got tired of his accusations, insinuation, and outright judgments of me and my faith. I don't care to discuss him any further. If you care to clarify his question and help me understand why I would supposedly be scared of answering it, please do.

Is it also a word you would use to describe:

Dan Peterson
Bill Hamblin
Lou Midgley
John Gee

How about Pahoran?

Just curious.

Dan and I have had our awkward back and forths, but I still consider him a friend. He was a High Counselor in my singles ward years ago and I see him at various conferences here and there. A few weeks ago I ran into him at the Los Angeles temple after doing a session with my wife and had a fun short chat with him and his wife (who I have also gotten to know a bit over the years). So while I may not agree with his tone that he occasionally exhibits online and the FARMS Review, I would not consider him a hateful person.

I don't know, nor have ever met Bill Hamblin or John Gee. I am not much of a fan of Lou Midgley though. While I have never spoken with him personally, I have not liked the unabashed ad-hominems and accusations he has thrown out at conferences where we have both attended. I wouldn't call him a hateful person though--just a grumpy old man.

I don't even know who Pahoran is.

[_the narrator]

If you care to clarify his question and help me understand why I would supposedly be scared of answering it, please do.

While I can't speak for him directly, I do think I see what he was driving at, and so I'll ask the question that I think comes next:

To what degree do you believe the principles contained in the following quote inform LDS decision making at the highest levels in 2011?

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said that thou shalt not kill, -- at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted -- by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

In public discourse I would not say that it informs their teachings (in manuals and sermons) very much or at all . Typically those emphasize unchanging absolute moral claims and criticisms of moral relativism--I supply examples in my aforementioned article.

While in private they may entertain the possibility of divine moral relativism to understand the changes of the doctrines of the Church, I have not seem much evidence that this has been supported or widely discussed publicly.

[_Nomad]

I am not much of a fan of Lou Midgley though. While I have never spoken with him personally, I have not liked the unabashed ad-hominems and accusations he has thrown out at conferences where we have both attended. I wouldn't call him a hateful person though--just a grumpy old man.

That characterization conforms exactly to the caricature that passes for truth here at MDB.

Funny how that works out, isn't it?

Well, here is a rather significant paper by the "grumpy old man".

The Utility of Faith Reconsidered

When you produce something as significant as this, let me know.

[_the narrator]

I am not much of a fan of Lou Midgley though. While I have never spoken with him personally, I have not liked the unabashed ad-hominems and accusations he has thrown out at conferences where we have both attended. I wouldn't call him a hateful person though--just a grumpy old man.

That characterization conforms exactly to the caricature that passes for truth here at MDB.

Funny how that works out, isn't it?

Well, here is a rather significant paper by the "grumpy old man".

The Utility of Faith Reconsidered

When you produce something as significant as this, let me know.

I never said it was "truth," nor would I even understand what that would mean. It is simply a description of my perceptions of him at academic conferences that we have both attended. I think he is a pretty smart person, I just have found him a bit too aggressive at times. Have you witnessed him much at academic conferences? And trust me, many of his colleagues at BYU and elsewhere share the same feelings as me about Lou's grumpy-old-man-ness.

I am interested in why you find that particular essay "significant" though. What exactly does it signify? What has that particular essay done to deserve such a descriptor? And what exactly would I have to publish in order to be considered as publishing something as significant as this?

And now that we are on the topic of publications, what have you ever published?

[_the narrator]

ETA: I thought his question was perfectly clear. Are you sure you're not just obfuscating because you don't want to discuss the issues implicit in the answer you'd have to give?

I think you know exactly where he was going with his question, but you didn't want to have your hegemony over this thread threatened.

I really didn't understand the question as I wasn't sure what had elicited it (context is everything). And I am still not sure why I should have been afraid to answer it.

[Guest]

"We advise you not to hang out with black people."

Isn't that a racist piece of advice, bcspace, even if you can choose to ignore it?

Who is giving that advice?

Who doesn't matter. Is that advice racist?

Such would determine whether or not it's LDS doctrine. And maybe whether or not such actually is racist.

[_the narrator]

"We advise you not to hang out with black people."

Isn't that a racist piece of advice, bcspace, even if you can choose to ignore it?

While the Church certainly had its bulk of racist teachings, Kimball's instructions were largely about marriage problems that can arise out mixing two different cultures and ethnicities. And though it is probably somewhat inspired by more racist teachings of the past, for Kimball it would be difficult to characterize his advise as racist. And your characterization of it is simply pathetic.

That Kimball's still exists in current lesson manuals is very unfortunate and exemplary of the uncontemplative nature of the Church's curriculum department (and perhaps some/much of the leadership), and the antequated thinking by many Church leaders (an almost unavoidable effect of a gerontocracy. As a child of an interreligious marriage (born 2 years after Kimball's statement), I am glad my parents did not take his advise.

[_bcspace]

While the Church certainly had its bulk of racist teachings,

I don't know that the Church ever had any racist teachings. Certainly some indiviudals.

Kimball's instructions were largely about marriage problems that can arise out mixing two different cultures and ethnicities. ... it would be difficult to characterize his advise as racist. And your characterization of is simply pathetic.

Amen.

That it still exists in current lesson manuals is very unfortunate

I don't think so. Interacial relationships are viewed much more neutrally today, but there still can often be a culture clash to take into consideration.

I dated interacially back in the 80's.