The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[sock puppet]

I don't think you have to worry. If members were going to 'shatter like glass' over published Church doctrine, this piece that Sock Puppet earlier referred to would already have accomplished the task:


First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

1. Published in many places, e.g., in Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church, ed. Lester E. Bush Jr. and Armand L. Mauss (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1984), 221.


Don't you think?

Views on race also have their origins in the times of those that lived concurrently with those views being taught/expressed. Some of those view were taught as truth by those LDS leaders that believed in and followed their religious brethren of other faiths. Come to find out, there were some problems with those remnants of racism as they traveled into the later 20th century and into our time.

Line upon line, precept upon precept.

That is a HARD thing for some to understand and deal with. Some people actually leave the church because they have a heck of a time dealing with a God that works in this fashion.

Regards,
MG

MG--so what the First Presidency proclaims as doctrine, even a 'direct commandment from the Lord', is not such?

[Marcus]

That is a HARD thing for some to understand and deal with. Some people actually leave the church because they have a heck of a time dealing with a God that works in this fashion.

You're kidding me. I can't believe that.

It's like going to a restaurant. Suppose the first time you went, you had never been to another restaurant, and everyone told you the burgers and fries were great. You believed them, and went nowhere else for years.

Then, you grew up, started learning about food, and developed your tastes. You go back to the same restaurant, and now, they serve you a burger that's just a bun, lettuce, and a pickle, and fries that are overcooked so much they look like charcoal sticks.

You don't think the original was that great, but this is far worse, so you ask what happened.

"NOTHING! We are still the best restaurant in the Universe! Our beloved chef has, line upon line and precept upon precept, evolved our burgers and fries." you point out it's not a burger without the patty, and depending on who you ask, you get one of two answers:

1. "You're wrong, there never was a patty."

or

2."No, it actually wasn't a burger before, you just thought burgers had patties, but the Chef was grilling as a Man back then."

So you post a scathing review to yelp, and never return...... oh wait. We're doing 2.0's version.

You say "okay. Obviously the current Chef's position is right, so I will like what the current Chef tells me is currently best. And I will eat nowhere else, and I will tip an extra 10% forever even though the Chef refuses to share it with anyone, and I will also clean all the restaurant bathrooms weekly, for free, because the Chef tells me that's how I can best express my loyalty. "

Then you sit yourself in the front window of the restaurant, choking down your patty-less burger and your charcoal stick fries, and you mock and laugh at all the people walking by who aren't loyal enough to eat what they are told to eat by a changing Chef with no taste.

[Res Ipsa]

I think I need a primer on the difference between "line upon line, precept on precept" and "making stuff up as you go along."

[malkie]

I think I need a primer on the difference between "line upon line, precept on precept" and "making stuff up as you go along."

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks, I get it now.

[MG 2.0]

MG--so what the First Presidency proclaims as doctrine, even a 'direct commandment from the Lord', is not such?

At the end of the day, so to speak, I think we are free agents. Not beholden to anyone or any institution per se. We align ourselves to what we believe is right and good/correct. I think leaders do the same thing. We’re all in the same boat in this respect. A recent poster suggested a ‘slippery slope’ in which members might within reason determine that the resurrection of Jesus didn’t occur. Or that other core doctrines in regards to faith in God, saving ordinances, etc., could become passé or unnecessary. I don’t think that is the case. There is so much we don’t know. There are some things leaders know and other things that they may not have a full understanding of.

My personal credo is that if a letter comes out from the 1st Presidency with their signatures underneath I will give them the benefit of a doubt that they have sought and received the mind and will of the Lord for that time and for a certain purpose. But even then, that’s not saying they have an all encompassing understanding of all the in’s and out’s of the ramifications, etc., that may result from what they are putting out there. There are just too many examples of adjustments to revelations to think otherwise. Conditions change, so does revelation.

When it comes to the Great Flood and the Priesthood Ban and the united front that was maintained by the brethren, I’m of the opinion that they sought the mind and will of God and then did what they did. But they were also subject to the limitations of their own faculties, cultural inhibitions/restraints, etc. How all that meshes together is the million dollar question.

But I believe that over time things tend to work themselves out. And most often they do. That’s the line upon line, precept upon precept I’m referring to. Always clean? No.

Humans are messy creatures.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

That is a HARD thing for some to understand and deal with. Some people actually leave the church because they have a heck of a time dealing with a God that works in this fashion.

Nobody can say that God doesn't make everything work out as he goes along just right such that it works for MG personally. But MG's "nuancing" church is no different than any other religion or UFO movement. Begins with the extraordinary, what kind of extraordinary things does it have to offer? As it goes along, it moves into the defensive: how can it redefine itself such that we can't rule it out all those crazy things that were once a big attraction?

There are two kinds of religious dupes. There's the schizo, who drops out of real life to pursue the fantastical, and the milquetoast who won't leave a warm bed until the house is literally engulfed in flames.

Nobody would ever have joined MG's version of Mormonism. MG would never have joined Smith's original church. But Neither would Joseph Smith stay in today's Mormonism - boring as hell.

[MG 2.0]

I think I need a primer on the difference between "line upon line, precept on precept" and "making stuff up as you go along."

Granted, the two may look very similar. It’s the “Is God hiding, and if so, why?” question that seems to pop up so frequently.

So easy to slip into the idea of no God. More than one reason to go there.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

…you don’t need to believe anything literally [in the LDS church] but you do have to hand over the cash to be considered in good standing.

That’s true. It’s called tithing. The temple recommend interview and the questions that are asked need to be answered in the affirmative. So yes, there are certain things that one believes and/or gives allegiance to as a member of the church to be in good standing.

The Great Flood, evolution, blacks and the priesthood, and other speculative theories and theological investigations are not included in what one must believe one way or the other to be a member in good standing.

But these issues, and others, are things that can result in people losing their faith in the restoration. It’s obviously hard to say yes to the core teachings and doctrines if one is totally hung up with side issues without any hope of resolving them.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

I think I need a primer on the difference between "line upon line, precept on precept" and "making stuff up as you go along."

Granted, the two may look very similar. It’s the “Is God hiding, and if so, why?” question that seems to pop up so frequently.

So easy to slip into the idea of no God. More than one reason to go there.

Regards,
MG

Not similar. Identical. You throw these rationalization around like they are some kind of talismanic get out of jail free card. Nothing in the concept of line upon line includes God either lying to the leaders of his one and only true Church or sitting back and letting them be deceived into thinking they were inspired to present objectively false information as an inspired interpretation of Holy Scripture.

It’s not about God hiding. It’s that you have to throw your God under the bus as a trickster or deceiver in order to defend your religious sect. And you do so quite cheerfully.

Yes, there are many valid reasons not to believe in Mormon God. You’ve just illustrated one of them.