Beyond Mitt's Underwear: Part 3: The Preexistence, Creation, and Plan for Salvation
Father in Heaven (Elohiem) and His wives live near the star called Kolob on a pair of magic stones. They were once mortal humans just like we are and have retained their physical bodies of flesh and bone, but instead of blood they have “spirit matter, a substance which is more refined and pure and glorious than blood”. At the time of creation
( Read more... )
*good natured snerk*
It's true, if you were talking about rumors about my beliefs or making up bullcrap regarding a lifestyle or religion you only understood from the outside instead of living it, I would totally call you on it.
However, if I was talking to you about your beliefs, whatever they are, you are free to be an authority because you know better than me. If I was to discuss something you are an expert on, I'd better have citations, but I also have accept that you might be somewhat of an authority and don't have to cite everything since much of what we know is organic and not recorded.
If it would be helpful, I'll blog about my beliefs and then cite myself so you have something in writing, but I suspect that would not be what you are looking for. :)
It sounds to me that you are claiming unless a specific point is documented, then there is no argument, but you and I both know that simply isn't true. To only accept what has been written gives a warped view of life and people. For instance, anyone reading what I have written over the years might draw certain conclusions about me, which may or may not be true. For one, I have changed, so what I seemed to be at one point, might not be what I am any more. It also gives a very narrow view of the whole of me, which is much more organic.
We are an organic religion that has to be experienced to be truly understood (which is true of everything in life, not just us). Rejecting the thoughts of a lifetime member on the basis that what I have been taught isn't easily cited allows you to twist existing data to fit your own purposes, whatever they may be.
My first comment on my first post said "Lots of mormons don't know lots of things about their church history, and I'm expecting certain parts of my overview to be as surprising to you as it is to non-mormons." I suspected that some of the surprises found in your official church doctrine might bother you as much as they bother me. Tough titties.
Actually, I have always found you to be fair and well-researched, and this has not been an exception. As I mentioned above, I don't waste my time searching out this stuff because I don't care. The core of the church involves the doctrines of changing hearts, how to be a better person and receive answers. All the rest of this stuff is fluff to the solid granite at the middle. If someone from a long time ago taught something they thought was true and it got revoked along the way, who cares? What didn't change was the commandment to love thy neighbor, (still) the most important commandment in the law. And that's what I focus on.
The stuff on Strang was quite interesting and new! I question the authenticity behind Grant's book, but nevertheless, even if he was correct in his citations, it doesn't change what I have already found to be true concerning the power of religion and this Gospel to heal wounded hearts.
Other aspects, as I discussed above, are your misinterpretations of official church doctrines. I'll correct you, and you are welcome to accept or reject those corrections as you prefer. Either way, my opinion of you hasn't changed (not that this would be a motivator for you one way or another), and I will still comment along the way as needs be. :)
Reply
Except he's not talking about rumours. He's quoting your own scriptures from your own scriptural authority, and what you've done in response is say "Well nobody actually BELIEVES any of that!"
Which is, uh, kind of missing the point. Yes, 98% of Catholics use birth control despite it being absolutely banned in all cases, but pointing out that no Catholics follow the rule doesn't change what the rule *is*.
What didn't change was the commandment to love thy neighbor, (still) the most important commandment in the law.
Your inclusion of "(still)" implies that, like all other teachings, it's subject to revision via the ongoing revelation. I have to ask, what if it *did* change? What would you do then?
(I mean, the definition of 'neighbour' has been forcibly expanded due to societal pressure on the LDS church on multiple occasions in the past, but 'we will no longer preach hatred towards that group because we have been forced to admit that group is neighbour and not not-neighbour' is not the same thing.)
Reply
Nah, he's either quoting stuff that is not considered doctrine, or he is misinterpreting what the doctrine says. I get that to an outsider (and an atheist at that), some of the wording could mean something to you that it doesn't really say, so it's more like, "Well nobody actually believes any of that the way you explained it!" In other words, it's not the words he quotes I am disagreeing with.
I haven't even once claimed he's quoting rumors, even though the Journal of Discourses, while not precisely rumors, also doesn't qualify as canon for the church. He's always great about quoting sources, which is the only reason he can write the stuff he does - everything is very well documented.
Your inclusion of "(still)" implies that, like all other teachings, it's subject to revision via the ongoing revelation. I have to ask, what if it *did* change? What would you do then?
Actually, that's not my implication. My implication with that word is that after all this time, we still know what the most important commandment in the law. It has not changed since OT times, and it won't change now. It is the true core of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Reply
You said: if you were talking about rumors about my beliefs or making up bullcrap [...]I would totally call you on it while proclaiming that he was wrong and that you were calling him on it.
You were, in fact, claiming that he was talking about rumours.
It is the true core of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
And what would you do, tomorrow, if the Prophet declared once again that dark skin reflected the sins of the wearer and that non-white people could no longer be priests?
What would you do if, once again, something other than neighbourlyness became the judge of "who is my neighbour?"
Reply
What would you do if, once again, something other than neighbourlyness became the judge of "who is my neighbour?"
These are actually emotionally manipulative questions in the first place because you don't even believe in God, and so there is no answer I could give here that would properly answer them. Not to mention they demonstrate you don't even really understand what actually happened historically, either. Oh, you understand the facts from your outside, deeply opposing emotional point of view, but you don't get it. You only see what you want to see, which is fine, but there's no reason for me to fall into your trap.
Reply
You can't claim that you don't care about the incorrect things past prophets taught because they didn't contradict the TRUE gospel, while still claiming that the prophets understand the true gospel *and* that no future prophet will contradict your TRUE gospel.
Either the past prophets were wrong (and thus the current ones are thus obviously fallible as well) or the past prophets were correct and GOD CHANGED HIS MIND about how His church should act. You maintain that that second one is true: God's instructions to His church changed because the church needed to act differently at different times. Which means the question of what if they change AGAIN, in ways you don't like this time, is an perfectly pertinent one.
The fact that you dismiss it as "emotionally manipulative" because you don't have a good answer for it and don't want to consider what the actual teachings of your actual religion might mean, is telling.
Reply
Heh. It's only telling because you want it to be telling. If I asked you when you stopped beating your wife, and you refused to answer the question, and then I nodded, saying to others, "Look how he refused to answer my direct question! Telling!", it would be about the same situation.
The prophets' job is to call us to repentance and guide the church through the challenges of the day. Your question assumes that the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood was because we were hateful of them, which is not true in the first place.
Some of the leaders wrongly taught things about blacks being less righteous, but they were clearly refuted when the OD2 came out. What's more is that many of the black people within the church at the time stated plainly that they felt no hate from the church, only love and a hope that someday the Lord would give them their full blessings.
But you, seeing only what you want to see in your emotionally irrational state of hatred towards us, sees only hate, which was then implied in your question. Here's a great quote that I use regularly with my clients who are accusatory towards some other person, persons, groups, or whatever in their life:
The world is a mirror and we see ourselves in it.
If you see hate, it is because you have hate in your heart. This does not mean you are strictly incorrect, but it does mean that you ignore/justify your own hate while lashing out at others for the level of hate your perceive in them. That level is most often not accurately perceived because of your own emotional investment, and very often, it is absent all together, with you merely projecting onto others what you possess yourself.
FACT: We teach love towards our fellow man. This will never change, ever. It is the absolute core of the Gospel.
While you may not perceive our actions as loving, because you are emotionally predisposed against religion in general, and Mormons in particular (it seems), then your perception is not a trustworthy one. Get rid of your own hate and see if you can perceive things more clearly.
Reply
Wait, wait. You're now taking the position that the prophets were wrong, and that their divinely inspired scripture was, in fact, incorrect? Because those dudes *were* the prophets, and they *did* say that dark skin indicated unrepented sin and a lack of righteousness, and they *did* say that a more righteous person would become more white.
By saying that was wrong, you've neatly skewered yourself on the *other* horn of your dilemma. Since you argue that the prophets can be wrong and the scriptures can be false, you have the problem of "what would you do if the prophet reinstated these false and wrong scriptures?" replacing "what would you do if God once again told you to do evil?"
If you see hate, it is because you have hate in your heart.
Or it's because hate really is there. I could be the nicest least-hateful person on the planet, and the Mormon church would still be rabidly and irrationally homophobic. Sometimes, things really *are* real, external to your perception.
FACT: We teach love towards our fellow man. This will never change, ever.
Except that's not fact. You demonstrably do not currently teach love towards your fellow man, even with your unfortunate choice of euphemism laid aside. And you demonstrably did not teach it in the past, ever, when you taught that non-white people were sinful and unworthy and how they would be made white on salvation.
And it demonstrably *has* changed - when your church attempted to correct for it's racist past and decided that non-white people were, in fact, among the neighbours Jesus told them to love, for example, you started teaching a little more love to your fellow man than you did before.
It is the absolute core of the Gospel.
Perhaps, but, and this is important, *you can't justify or defend that claim intelligibly*.
The claim *can* be defended, but you can't do it. You can't even follow the argument well enough to point to someone who *can* make the claim.
And you can't even begin to address the question-begging that is inherent in the term "the Gospel".
While you may not perceive our actions as loving,
Because they are indefensibly not, and because you can't even *mount* the failed defense that others have tried.
you are emotionally predisposed against religion in general,
"Rationally post-disposed" against religion in general, in fact. I, unlike you, have considered the claims of religions, plural, on their merits.
I, unlike you, can explain what each religion believes and where those claims fall short.
I, unlike you, can demonstrate how to test the claims of a religion - and I, unlike you, can explain why untestable claims are irrelevant, and understand both the tests and the dismissal of the untestable.
and Mormons in particular (it seems)
No. You just see that because you argue about Mormonism with me, and I know more about Mormonism than you do. If you were a Scientologist arguing with me, you'd think I was specifically predisposed to dislike Scientologists. It would be for the same reasons, too: I can explain the OT3+ Tech and why they're wrong better than you can understand them at all.
Get rid of your own hate and see if you can perceive things more clearly.
Not hate, pity. You're bad at theology, even your own.
Reply
I began this series by saying:
I should start with the obvious disclaimer that there’s a difference between what the LDS gospels say, what the general authorities of the Church say, and what most Mormons currently believe and practice. I can’t say whether Mitt wears temple garments, I can just say that the general authorities say that he should.
I am not, and have never said, what your beliefs are. I have said what the General Authorities say that your beliefs should be. If you're saying that the General Authorities are wrong, that's fine. I think they're wrong also. But don't come to me later saying that you have to destroy same-sex couples' marriages because the General Authorities told you to, and you trust them.
Reply
Leave a comment