DiscussMormonism.com

moksha wrote:I was just thinking that the milk and the meat analogy is a bit faulty...

Inconceivable wrote:Meat is just another way of saying:

"pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

But one thing to consider is the difference between core beliefs and current Church policy, as well as the difference between official LDS beliefs (canonized as authoritative) and the personal beliefs of churchmembers, including General Authorities. One of the issues I had to address, within my first two years of the Church, was the co-existence of official Church teachings alongside Mormon folklore and popculture. Just as the Constitution doesn't require the president to swear in on a Bible - let alone add, "So help me God," the core, official, beliefs of the LDS Church are not to be confused with the opinionated rants of Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine," or the silly Broadway-blather of "My Turn on Earth" or "Saturday's Warrior." Don't get me wrong. These and many other soures have their place in the broad, multilayered, dialogue between Mormons who find release, satisfaction and creative inspiration in such dialogue. But much of what your fellow Mormons take for granted as "Mormon doctrine," may be little more than "Mormon gossip" and "Mormon assumptions."

In the law, there is a distinction between BLACK LETTER LAW (which is the ruling or precedent being set) and DICTA (which are the judges' various explanations or justifications for their decision). Black Letter rules; dicta doesn't. Putting your faith in dicta is like "affirming the consequent" in logic. You may think, because a judge has used Argument X in his dicta that Argument X is the law, but it's not.

When it comes to Church teachings, it's extremely helpful to boil everything down to the basics. By "basics," I don't mean dumbed-down versions of what Mormons believe. I mean "fundamentals." Let me provide you some examples:

WORD OF WISDOM - The principle is basically this: Take care of your body. The Black Letter is to avoid alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea and harmful drugs. Beyond this, there is a universe of debating points between different well-intended Mormons who think the Word of Wisdom should apply to everything from Near Beer to refined flour and white sugar. Don't get sucked into that. Keep it simple.

THE LAW OF CHASTITY. In the temple, there's a definition of chastity that is so simple and straight-forward, you'd be surprised to find it discussed in the temple - where everything is supposed to be so surreal: Don't have sex with someone who isn't your spouse. That's it. Chastity is so important that you could write a book on what people should do or not do to avoid violating the principle. In the end, however, it's all just dicta.

BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD. Before 1978, blacks could not receive the priesthood. After it, they could. Joseph Smith didn't set up this policy; Brigham did. But Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, which refers to the Lamanites as dark skinned and filthy. He also wrote the Pearl of Great Price, where the idea of a "seed of Cain" and a curse upon Canaan is discussed. I've argued, more than once, that one could accept the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price without adopting such ideas. How? Well, if the Book of Mormon is as authentic as the Bible (which contained passages attributing genocide to God's command), it's possible to imagine that the Nephites had a problem with racism. Imagine that! In fact, such racism might well have been reflected in even the most inspired of ancient writings. It could well be that the Church was tripped up by this, or that it felt it necessary to put off a change it feared would cause divisions it didn't feel strong enough to endure. Whatever the case, the only way to completely defend this policy is to adopt a racist attitude, which is something I refuse to do. If Moses can be Moses - and still be responsible for ancient acts of genocide - it's possible to be true to yourself and still believe in something.

GAYS AND THE CHURCH. The Church still holds that homosexuality is a sin but today distinguishes between latent homosexuality and homosexual sex. At present, that still leaves the Church between a rock and a hard place but it's a far cry from the hellfire of Paul's day or the stonings of the Old Testament. Along the way, some really silly ideas have been bantered about, but no sillier than some of the banter you'll hear in a typical Sunday school lesson. Your obligation is not to believe everything you hear but to uphold the ban on gay sex. If you're not gay, or not planning to have gay sex, that's all you have to worry about. Explaining or defending the Church's position is somebody else's problem. You don't have to adopt any explanation that seems simplistic or unfair.

Life is definitely "so much more than the black and white painted by the church." But, to be fair to the Church, it's more than the black and white painted by the president, the Congress, your governor, the public relations department of every corporation, the advocacy found in love songs and movies, and the blather that bounces off the walls at hair salons, bars, diners or convention centers. The essence of mass communication is simplicity. When addressing hundreds, if not thousands, of people - it pays to keep a simple, consistent, message.

On the other hand, the simplicity of some of these messages is an ear ache for me as much as it must be for you. I, myself, often feel like the message could be more effectively communicated if it were less a rehash of scriptural references and simplistic arguments than a well-thought-out argument that speaks of the daily challenge of living an enlightened life.

Has anyone noticed that the meat consists almost entirely of revelations that either failed, are embarrassing or required that the doctrine fly in the face of morality, common virtue, integrity, logic or even Christlike character?

bcspace wrote:

Has anyone noticed that the meat consists almost entirely of revelations that either failed, are embarrassing or required that the doctrine fly in the face of morality, common virtue, integrity, logic or even Christlike character?

No. I can't think of a single example. However, I do believe that everything you can find in the scriptures is milk.

Has anyone noticed that the meat consists almost entirely of revelations that either failed, are embarrassing or required that the doctrine fly in the face of morality, common virtue, integrity, logic or even Christlike character?

No. I can't think of a single example. However, I do believe that everything you can find in the scriptures is milk.

Here are a few examples within canonized scripture:

1) God commands through prophets to (Old Testament):
a) lay waste to both men, women, children and every creature
b) " But save the animals.
c) " but save the trees

2) God commands through a prophet to give hundreds of women to the kings of Israel

3) D&C 132

4) God killing a couple that are caught lying about paying a full tithing (New Testament)

5) First Vision version going head to head with just as credible versions (PGP)

6) Explanation of bogus book of Moses and Abraham (PGP)

In the 1800's and early 1900's, the Journal of Discources was considered scripture (the mind and will of the Lord). It is still selectively quoted in every church educational manual, yet it is one of the most embarrassing source documents published.

BC, you know all this. You're kidding, right?

Why is it that apologists can't just humble themselves and simply say, "I honestly don't have a moral explanation" and leave it at that?

bcspace wrote:

In the 1800's and early 1900's, the Journal of Discources was considered scripture (the mind and will of the Lord). It is still selectively quoted in every church educational manual, yet it is one of the most embarrassing source documents published.

Still selectively quoting BY are we?