Question for bomgeography about the flood

[_ClarkGoble]

Certainly not throughout, and interestingly the New Testament condemns it, and you would think Jesus would have practiced it.

There's one reference to it in the New Testament and that's at best ambiguous where it says (for unknown reasons) that a Bishop should have one wife. (repeated in three verses)

By the time of the first century Judaism was moving away from polygamy although this wasn't really codified until several centuries later and in a fashion that applied more to European Jews. In the 19th century it was still practiced in the middle east by Jews. But we know the Dead Sea Scrolls condemned it and it likely was rare for other reasons. Part of this was undoubtedly the influence of Hellenistic culture on Palestine along with obvious economic issues for regular people. Although Josephus does mention polygamy going on at the time.

Second we don't know anything about Jesus' home life. The assumption by silence is that he was single but there was a fairly extensive tradition early on that he was married. There's no evidence for that of course. The most popular candidate was Mary Magdalene. Early Mormons frequently believed that but there doesn't appear to be a solid reason for their beliefs on the subject.

[_ClarkGoble]

Joseph Smith preyed on vulnerable women by abusing his spiritual authority as a religious leader for his own sexual gratification. A fourteen-year-old girl never had a chance to marry someone she loved, because her prophet took a fancy to her. There are a lot of wives there, Clark, and every one of their stories appalls me.

I'm well aware of the history. And as I said I don't agree with everything he did although again I think we have to distinguish between implementation and theory. In my view they were flawed men trying to implement a principle as best they could. I just don't see this as being done for sexual gratification.

[_tapirrider]

The scriptures of both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon passages lead readers to believe it was a global flood. But even more than that, the LDS church is built on the premise of living prophets and apostles.

Yes but it's also a foundational principle that being a prophet is not the same as being omniscient. That is a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. So the attempt to portray every interpretation in a manual as "official inspired teaching" is a strawman.

So what they teach in General Conference ought to be inspired instruction to help members understand the scriptures. But that isn't really what happens, is it? What it means to be church doctrine is comparable to trying to nail jello to the wall, even with the alleged mouthpieces of the Lord trying to help us.

It must be annoying to people who wish to attack things that clearly have no revelation behind it.

I'm more confused as to where this idea that anything published by the church or stated by a church leader is to be treated as infallible. It reminds me more than anything of the phenomena of people who read bad science reporting in papers (especially on dietary stuff where the science was dubious at best) and then use that to say scientists know nothing and we can dismiss what they say on say climate change. The desire to put everything on an equal epistemic level fascinates me.

Primarily it's a desire to attack the weakest arguments that the believers typically don't even hold rather than engaging with the strongest ones. (To be fair some believers do the same thing to unbelievers but it's annoying when they do it to)

I never said they were infallible. What I am prepared to back up with words from LDS prophets and apostles is that the talks in General Conference and temple dedicatory prayers are claimed to be inspired.

If you are claiming that members don't hold the belief that conference talks are inspired words from the mouthpieces of the Lord, given for the benefit of the members and to the world for what Christ wants them to know, then you are probably not voicing the view of most temple going members.

Also, I started this thread with a specific question to bomgeography. In his replies on another thread he came right out and said that two apostles were wrong in the dedicatory prayers of Guatemala temples. Now think about that. There is a huge difference between treating apostles as infallible and claiming that they were wrong in temple dedication prayers concerning who is the seed of Lehi. Using the excuse that they are not infallible to openly accuse them of error while holding a belief that is not taught and is not doctrine such as bomgeography has done is more in-line with apostasy than with the faith of members and that is where I was going with this.

As far as attacking things that clearly have no revelation behind it, that is what I do these days to the Book of Mormon. But when I was an active believing member I respected the correlation and accepted the counsel of the First Presidency and the twelve apostles to trust that what I taught in classes from church published curriculum manuals was what needed to be taught. As a Sunday School president I ensured that extra materials were not being introduced into lessons by overzealous teachers, materials that would eat up valuable classroom time with topics and discussions that were not part of the lessons approved by the inspired leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Of course now I know that the Book of Mormon is not real and the leaders are just men with no guidance from Christ or any other deities. But when I was a faithful member things were different.

[_Physics Guy]

I'm more confused as to where this idea that anything published by the church or stated by a church leader is to be treated as infallible. It reminds me more than anything of the phenomena of people who read bad science reporting in papers (especially on dietary stuff where the science was dubious at best) and then use that to say scientists know nothing and we can dismiss what they say on say climate change. The desire to put everything on an equal epistemic level fascinates me.

Primarily it's a desire to attack the weakest arguments that the believers typically don't even hold rather than engaging with the strongest ones. (To be fair some believers do the same thing to unbelievers but it's annoying when they do it to)

Yeah, people on all sides do this trigger-happy blazing away at every straw man that they think they see. But it's this terrible slippery slope: if they were to actually pay attention to what other people really think, why, pretty soon they wouldn't be able to attack anyone at all. They'd be reduced to wandering around aimlessly with nothing to do but respect other viewpoints. And then where would we be?

On the high road to veganism, that's where.

[_Lemmie]

I'm more confused as to where this idea that anything published by the church or stated by a church leader is to be treated as infallible. It reminds me more than anything of the phenomena of people who read bad science reporting in papers (especially on dietary stuff where the science was dubious at best) and then use that to say scientists know nothing and we can dismiss what they say on say climate change. The desire to put everything on an equal epistemic level fascinates me.

Primarily it's a desire to attack the weakest arguments that the believers typically don't even hold rather than engaging with the strongest ones. (To be fair some believers do the same thing to unbelievers but it's annoying when they do it to)

Yeah, people on all sides do this trigger-happy blazing away at every straw man that they think they see. But it's this terrible slippery slope: if they were to actually pay attention to what other people really think, why, pretty soon they wouldn't be able to attack anyone at all. They'd be reduced to wandering around aimlessly with nothing to do but respect other viewpoints. And then where would we be?

On the high road to veganism, that's where.

I'm not sure about the absolute logic of that pathway, but far be it from me to disagree with such eloquence.

[_Themis]

It must be annoying to people who wish to attack things that clearly have no revelation behind it.

I'm more confused as to where this idea that anything published by the church or stated by a church leader is to be treated as infallible. It reminds me more than anything of the phenomena of people who read bad science reporting in papers (especially on dietary stuff where the science was dubious at best) and then use that to say scientists know nothing and we can dismiss what they say on say climate change. The desire to put everything on an equal epistemic level fascinates me.

Who suggested infallible? If you are going to counter an argument, you should first understand what people are really saying. You also don't really need revelation for something to be church doctrine, and with a global flood, most members would think that the Bible story is the original revelation supporting it. Another problem I see is that many LDS define doctrine incorrectly to mean religious truth. Doctrine is just what a church teaches, and yes the church teaches a global flood. They don't bring it up hardly at all, just like they don't bring up most doctrines. They are not core doctrines of the church, or important. You just don't want to admit the church has a position/doctrine you don't believe in. I didn't believe in a global flood for decades as a believing member, but I certainly knew it was the doctrine/position of the church that is was global.

[_ClarkGoble]

Who suggested infallible?

As soon as you open the texts up to having mistakes, then on what basis can your claims take hold? Manuals can (and actually should be expected) to have errors. At which point the errors kind of lose any significance except perhaps to criticize the knowledge and/or skill of the manual writers on the particular narrow topic at hand. At best we can discuss the kinds and persistence of particular errors and why they change.

For errors to have the significance you and others appear to be giving them we first have to have a position where such errors can't be expected.

You also don't really need revelation for something to be church doctrine, and with a global flood, most members would think that the Bible story is the original revelation supporting it.

Right, but again in a few places I've been pretty careful to delineate what I mean by doctrine and note there are several different senses. If we're doing a more sociological analysis of the church then of course the various normative beliefs matter. If we're critiquing the church's in a broader sense of it's purported truth then those normative beliefs don't matter at all it would seem to me.

Another problem I see is that many LDS define doctrine incorrectly to mean religious truth. Doctrine is just what a church teaches, and yes the church teaches a global flood. They don't bring it up hardly at all, just like they don't bring up most doctrines. They are not core doctrines of the church, or important. You just don't want to admit the church has a position/doctrine you don't believe in.

I'm not sure my belief/disbelief matters too much as I take a rather fallibilist stance towards my beliefs. I'm completely fine with being wrong. I do my best to take that seriously but undoubtedly there are beliefs other Mormons believe but which I do no that are true. That said with regards to what I'd call core doctrines I can't think of any off the top of my head I don't believe. By and large I consider myself a pretty mainstream member.

The difficulty of going by normative beliefs is of course the classic one that most members of any community are largely ignorant as to the more formal beliefs of that community. I bet you could give a fairly simple test on prominent facts of the Book of Mormon, Bible and church history and most members would fail. Given the reality of that ignorance what is the significance of normative belief? It has significance, but not the significance many give it.

With regards to lesson manuals or GA statements the same problem occurs even though they are far better educated on such matters. If you ask why they believe what they state I bet most can't give a compelling argument. Often it boils down to that's what they've heard but they often haven't really inquired on the matter. That is in terms of the grounds within the community often the beliefs are themselves ungrounded in terms of what the community holds as appropriate grounding. My experience with people who've been involved in such things is that they're pretty forthright about such matters. If the discussion turns into a quasi-political discussion or gets tied to group identity then of course they'll dig in their heels. But that's basic human nature.

I didn't believe in a global flood for decades as a believing member, but I certainly knew it was the doctrine/position of the church that is was global.

I think most Mormons think it global. The more useful question would be whether one can be a believing orthodox Mormon and hold to that belief. That is the better question is what range of beliefs is acceptable rather than what the typical belief is.

Even that gets complicated since by and large the Church doesn't care what you believe so long as you don't start preaching it in a way that undermines authority. Consider if back in 1968 you were praying about the blacks and the priesthood issue and received a personal revelation that the policy was going to change and that many mainstream teachings on it by say BRM were wrong. As I understand church doctrine you'd be completely justified in knowing that and believing that but not in teaching that. Further part of the inspiration would likely to keep it to yourself. So the very nature of the theology of personal revelation within the church makes all of this a bit more complicated than it appears at first glance.

[_Themis]

So you cannot say who suggested infallibility, and you have your own particular definition of doctrine.

[_ClarkGoble]

The purpose is to have your particular family, your dynasty, your "seed" outproduce that of others. Not for the general population of the colony to increase. The idea is to have your family, your tribe dominate in terms of genetics in addition to other sources of power. It assumes greater social coherence will be the result, with a more potent command and control structure. It's feudalistic and elitist, but this is a system wherein Joseph was crowned a king, remember.

Todd Compton's theory in In Sacred Loneliness is that Joseph's polygamy was essentially dynastic. It's been a few years since I read it but I think general consensus is this captures part of what Joseph was doing. The problem is that the dynastic sealings weren't necessarily tied to children. (None of his polygamous wives had children) So the speculative theory is that Joseph thought that for the sealing theology to work everyone had to be sealed in a fashion that they ended up either married or adopted to a family. I think the adoption element became more significant over time and the current theology of the church is much more the idea that eventually all who end up saved then have to be married and sealed into a family. The theory by some is that Joseph had a fragmentary idea of this back in Nauvoo that developed later to be more adoptive.

(I have no particular views on the subject I should say - while the theories are interesting I don't think they have enough evidence for me to believe them)

[_ClarkGoble]

So you cannot say who suggested infallibility, and you have your own particular definition of doctrine.

When someone says because a prophet says something then if they are a prophet the text wouldn't have errors that's to me a de facto infallibility. If I misunderstand those making that argument I'm more than willing to correct myself.

As for 'my own definition' I simply listed the different ways people use the term. Often in Mormon circles true doctrine is the ultimate teachings were we to have better understanding and more revealed. If you do a quick search on LDS.org you'll find my use is fairly ubiquitous. We see through a glass darkly and our understanding is limited. We attempt to teach only true doctrine but as flawed human beings sometimes we screw up.