Being a true believer in Christ has more to do with faith than with DNA. We do not belong to the Church of DNA. Our beliefs like any other church is based principally on faith.

I found it interesting how some people choose to support science only when it fits their agenda. If I believe in one of the foremost experts in science, Hawking, then God does not exist and all of these discussions are for not.

I’ve been in several bishoprics in the past but currently I’m a Stake auditor for finances. It’s a good job for me with my present feelings about the literalness of the restoration and all that other “stuff”.

I do know of you from your essays over at the cultural hall and I really like your take on things. Thanks for being part of the community and helping many of us feel their still may be a place in Mormonism for us. I’ve written lots of comments lately in defense of Lyndon Lamborn in an Arizona newspaper comment section. (East Valley Tribune) I’m not sure, but if my true identity was known I think I would suffer the same fate as Mr. Lamborn based on the content of my comments.

Hope you’re not too disappointed…

I am on your side in wanting to defend the general authorities but you really need to either re-think or re-explain your position in a better way. To be honest it is coming across as basically: 1) revelation is always up in the air, 2) most Mormons are complete idiots, 3) public impressions of what general authorities say are not correct; you seem to have some source the rest of us lack on gauging what the general authorities say and assure the rest of us that they are in agreement with you and Mormon apologists, and 4) to get the real story on Mormon doctrine one needs to talk to a group of people (the apologists) who do not speak in any way for the church as a whole, yet somehow magically hold all the right opinions.

Again, I would like to agree with your position, it simply doesn’t sell well and is not convicing logically. I am sure there is a better way of going about this; no don’t ask me I don’t know.

My point is that when critics address “typical” people rather than what can be objectively argued it is irrelevant. We don’t do that with any other discipline. Why religion?

Let me also add that I often include myself in that category. There are tons of discussions I don’t know enough about to enter in without doing a lot of reading first.

I don’t see this as pejorative, mind you, since unlike the critics I don’t see such questions as being terribly key to the gospel nor living it. Which is the point of the Church – not being able to answer trivia questions or necessarily engage others.

nice. real nice. its swell as well.

nothing like using ‘naive’ perjoratively to describe the average mormon. i assume you are not an average mormon, you are smarter than that, no? Clark man, i am not sure this victim mentality is that helpful either. the critics, their attacks, attacking the informed. sheesh man. sounds like that book of alma with so much attacking going on.

some of this thread has moved far from the original topic, including the suggestion that mormons can be divided up based on their naivite. however, i think the suggestion that revelation/doctrine/counsel from a prophet can be moved from the godly neighborhood to the manly neighborhood is perfect for the topic.

the constant apologetic responses to just about everything are – ‘spoken as a man not as a prophet’, and ‘that aint new, everyone knew that.’

there is a change in the most important book on earth, according to the prophets, and we get both apologies – mcconkie wrote that as a man, not as a prophet, and, the lgt isnt new, everyone knew that.

sounds to me like this example that hamer, dehlin and head are discussing could serve as the perfect case study of mormon doctrine, mormon culture, blood-thirsty attacking anti-mormon hellions, and the new web 2.0 mormon apologists.

btw: i think i saw a naughty word up there. it started with a p, which means it was not the word ‘crap.’

Being so far from the Salt Lake Valley, I doubt that this “news item” will be discussed at all in my area’s church circles … despite having many congregations containing majorities who would identify a having “Lamanite” heritage. Talks in church are often sprinkled with language describing the blessings of “Lamanite” heritage ….

Perhaps, for some (of the few who even hear about the “news item”), their sense of “Lamanite” identity will shakened. All in all, I don’t think it will have much of an impact.

David Clark:

Clark, I don’t think your arguments are going anywhere. You need to have a better account of revelation than this. There are a ton of problems here. If you give the prophet the benefit of the doubt and accept that they teach false things from time to time what right does any Mormon have to say that the Pope is not inspired of God?

I think Popes are often inspired by God. So that’s an odd track to take. I think God can inspire most people. And of course Brigham Young made his famous statement about inspiration in various religious leaders like Muhommad or Confucius. Mormonism encompasses all truth. We have the authority and many truths other religions don’t. But no Mormon leader has ever claimed we have a monopoly on truth.

Now as to how to deal with competing truth claims it seems to me that Mormonism has a rather obvious and oft stated answer. Go to God and get a personal revelation. However if you’ve a testimony of the gospel and of Pres. Hinkley as a prophet of God then I think Hinkley gets the benefit of doubt when you don’t have a revelation.

To me you are conflating issues of what determines truth, issues of when I know something, and issues of what I ought believe in the absence of knowledge.

David Clark:

If no revelation is ever settled then why would anyone go on a mission or follow the prophet or do anything else for that matter?

Because we usually act on incomplete or imperfect knowledge. The issue is typically not if we have some irrefutable and indubitable knowledge. That seems to me to be a strawman. There is very little of my knowledge that is indubitable. Only the most hardened Cartesian would demand such things and of course even Descartes limited what he claimed indubitably quite a bit.

LiP:

In which case you should not have quoted JS saying “that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such” when ETB has clearly expanded it. Or are both invalid since both are dead?

I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say here. Could you rephrase your claim and argument? Nothing Pres. Benson or Joseph Smith said entails a prophet being invalid simply because they are dead.

LiP:

The Mormon church lacks a disciplined canonical committee.

The bigger issue is that being canonical has a vastly different meaning in Mormonism than it does in Protestantism. The problem is that critics keep using the Protestant view to critique Mormonism as if they were making a critique from within. But that’s plain silly. To take one example consider the Song of Solomon which is undeniably canonized but which Joseph Smith felt was completely uninspired. Brigham Young famously said that the Bible contains the words of God, the words of men and the words of the devil. While in part he was making a hermeneutic point I think it applies to how we approach canon. There simply is nothing like sola scripture nor inerrancy in Mormon theology.

LiP:

…there is no definitive process for establishing doctrine within the church.

Yes. Which pisses off critics to no end since it means they can’t make simple and easy arguments. Mormonism was from the beginning a religion that was a work in progress founded on continuing revelation. It is far more analogous to science and scientific progress than most traditional Christianity which seems focused on fixed and established doctrines one must believe. (Less so in the more liberal varieties but certainly the case with conservative Protestantism)
Anyway, you see this as a negative. I see it as a positive.

LiP:

The Mormon church lacks a disciplined canonical committee.

The bigger issue is that being canonical has a vastly different meaning in Mormonism than it does in Protestantism. The problem is that critics keep using the Protestant view to critique Mormonism as if they were making a critique from within. But that’s plain silly. To take one example consider the Song of Solomon which is undeniably canonized but which Joseph Smith felt was completely uninspired. Brigham Young famously said that the Bible contains the words of God, the words of men and the words of the devil. While in part he was making a hermeneutic point I think it applies to how we approach canon. There simply is nothing like sola scripture nor inerrancy in Mormon theology.

LiP:

If they wouldn’t go around willy nilly changing things to fit their personal belief it would be a whole lot easier to believe they were inspired and there was a lot of prayerful consideration over even minor changes in doctrine.

If you demand a conservative Protestant view of revelation as a series of indubitable, complete and unchangeable propositions then yes, you will always find Mormonism hard to believe. (I’d suggest that any person who adopts such a belief ought find the Bible hard to believe as well. But that’s a different topic)

So those who as a presupposition adopt the Protestant view of revelation either need to change their presuppositions or will leave the Church once the inconsistencies of their position become manifest. Fortunately one can simply discount such a view of revelation and stick with the one that prophets like Pres. Benson, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or others taught. Mormonism is much more consistent in such a scheme.

Equality :

I think the manuals are carefully screened by the Brethren and that the members are being taught to believe exactly what the Brethren want them to be taught to believe.

Feel free to believe that. I’ve known too many people writing manuals who discussed the process to believe that. I know for instance you are familiar with Bill Hamblin’s famous anecdote about a joke that made it through the committees.

It is rather funny to me how critics demand that our leaders be involved in detail on so much and think through every possible implication of what is said, intending them all. Once again I’m sure this makes life much easier for the critic.

Equality :

My point is that the Brethren and the average church member are in agreement on matters of doctrine. It’s the apologists and Bloggernaclers who are the outliers–the so-called “informed Mormons.”

Well, I’m not even sure how to start here. What do we mean by doctrine in such a context? I’m fairly sure, for instance, that most of the brethren accept a view roughly akin to John Sorensons (even if they might not accept the details of his model) But what factual elements of history or narrative constitute doctrine?

I think that pretty much the brethren and so-called “informed Mormons” (outside of more liberal intellectuals) tend to agree on probably most of the doctrine. There may be a few places they disagree. (For instance I suspect I disagree with Elder Packer over the nature of evolution, but I doubt I disagree with him on much else and I know there are plenty of GAs who think the same as me on evolution) But then that gets to the central question. Critics like the idea of this unanimity on every doctrinal point that establishes nice uncontroversial propositions for then to attack. And they’ll always try to dismiss Mormons who disagree as irrelevant since it undermines their approach. Therefore the position on say evolution is what Bruce R. McConkie wrote. (Although you could submit any doctrinal point in question – say some figure from the 1970s who was writing against a LGT view of the Book of Mormon) It’s a nice convenient way to having to avoid dealing with the arguments of FARMS, FAIR or others.

Clark, I don’t think your arguments are going anywhere. You need to have a better account of revelation than this. There are a ton of problems here. If you give the prophet the benefit of the doubt and accept that they teach false things from time to time what right does any Mormon have to say that the Pope is not inspired of God?

I think the Pope is often inspired by God. So that’s an odd track to take. I think God can inspire most people. And of course Brigham Young made his famous statement about inspiration in various religious leaders like Muhommad or Confucius. Mormonism encompasses all truth. We have the authority and many truths other religions don’t. But no Mormon leader has ever claimed we have a monopoly on truth.

Now as to how to deal with competing truth claims it seems to me that Mormonism has a rather obvious and oft stated answer. Go to God and get a personal revelation. However if you’ve a testimony of the gospel and of Pres. Hinkley as a prophet of God then I think Hinkley gets the benefit of doubt when you don’t have a revelation.

To me you are conflating issues of what determines truth, issues of when I know something, and issues of what I ought believe in the absence of knowledge.

David Clark:

If no revelation is ever settled then why would anyone go on a mission or follow the prophet or do anything else for that matter?

Because we usually act on incomplete or imperfect knowledge. The issue is typically not if we have some irrefutable and indubitable knowledge. That seems to me to be a strawman. There is very little of my knowledge that is indubitable. Only the most hardened Cartesian would demand such things and of course even Descartes limited what he claimed indubitably quite a bit.

LiP:

In which case you should not have quoted JS saying “that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such” when ETB has clearly expanded it. Or are both invalid since both are dead?

I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say here. Could you rephrase your claim and argument? Nothing Pres. Benson or Joseph Smith said entails a prophet being invalid simply because they are dead.

LiP:

The Mormon church lacks a disciplined canonical committee.

The bigger issue is that being canonical has a vastly different meaning in Mormonism than it does in Protestantism. The problem is that critics keep using the Protestant view to critique Mormonism as if they were making a critique from within. But that’s plain silly. To take one example consider the Song of Solomon which is undeniably canonized but which Joseph Smith felt was completely uninspired. Brigham Young famously said that the Bible contains the words of God, the words of men and the words of the devil. While in part he was making a hermeneutic point I think it applies to how we approach canon. There simply is nothing like sola scripture nor inerrancy in Mormon theology.

LiP:

…there is no definitive process for establishing doctrine within the church.

Yes. Which pisses off critics to no end since it means they can’t make simple and easy arguments. Mormonism was from the beginning a religion that was a work in progress founded on continuing revelation. It is far more analogous to science and scientific progress than most traditional Christianity which seems focused on fixed and established doctrines one must believe. (Less so in the more liberal varieties but certainly the case with conservative Protestantism)

Anyway, you see this as a negative. I see it as a positive.

David Clark:

Clark, I don’t think your arguments are going anywhere. You need to have a better account of revelation than this. There are a ton of problems here. If you give the prophet the benefit of the doubt and accept that they teach false things from time to time what right does any Mormon have to say that the Pope is not inspired of God?

I think the Pope is often inspired by God. So that’s an odd track to take. I think God can inspire most people. And of course Brigham Young made his famous statement about inspiration in various religious leaders like Muhommad or Confucius. Mormonism encompasses all truth. We have the authority and many truths other religions don’t. But no Mormon leader has ever claimed we have a monopoly on truth.

Now as to how to deal with competing truth claims it seems to me that Mormonism has a rather obvious and oft stated answer. Go to God and get a personal revelation. However if you’ve a testimony of the gospel and of Pres. Hinkley as a prophet of God then I think Hinkley gets the benefit of doubt when you don’t have a revelation.

To me you are conflating issues of what determines truth, issues of when I know something, and issues of what I ought believe in the absence of knowledge.

David Clark:

If no revelation is ever settled then why would anyone go on a mission or follow the prophet or do anything else for that matter?

Because we usually act on incomplete or imperfect knowledge. The issue is typically not if we have some irrefutable and indubitable knowledge. That seems to me to be a strawman. There is very little of my knowledge that is indubitable. Only the most hardened Cartesian would demand such things and of course even Descartes limited what he claimed indubitably quite a bit.

LiP:

In which case you should not have quoted JS saying “that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such” when ETB has clearly expanded it. Or are both invalid since both are dead?

I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say here. Could you rephrase your claim and argument? Nothing Pres. Benson or Joseph Smith said entails a prophet being invalid simply because they are dead.

LiP:

The Mormon church lacks a disciplined canonical committee.

The bigger issue is that being canonical has a vastly different meaning in Mormonism than it does in Protestantism. The problem is that critics keep using the Protestant view to critique Mormonism as if they were making a critique from within. But that’s plain silly. To take one example consider the Song of Solomon which is undeniably canonized but which Joseph Smith felt was completely uninspired. Brigham Young famously said that the Bible contains the words of God, the words of men and the words of the devil. While in part he was making a hermeneutic point I think it applies to how we approach canon. There simply is nothing like sola scripture nor inerrancy in Mormon theology.

LiP:

If they wouldn’t go around willy nilly changing things to fit their personal belief it would be a whole lot easier to believe they were inspired and there was a lot of prayerful consideration over even minor changes in doctrine.

If you demand a conservative Protestant view of revelation as a series of indubitable, complete and unchangeable propositions then yes, you will always find Mormonism hard to believe. (I’d suggest that any person who adopts such a belief ought find the Bible hard to believe as well. But that’s a different topic)

So those who as a presupposition adopt the Protestant view of revelation either need to change their presuppositions or will leave the Church once the inconsistencies of their position become manifest. Fortunately one can simply discount such a view of revelation and stick with the one that prophets like Pres. Benson, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or others taught. Mormonism is much more consistent in such a scheme.

Equality :

I think the manuals are carefully screened by the Brethren and that the members are being taught to believe exactly what the Brethren want them to be taught to believe.

Feel free to believe that. I’ve known too many people writing manuals who discussed the process to believe that. I know for instance you are familiar with Bill Hamblin’s famous anecdote about a joke that made it through the committees.

It is rather funny to me how critics demand that our leaders be involved in detail on so much and think through every possible implication of what is said, intending them all. Once again I’m sure this makes life much easier for the critic.

Equality :

My point is that the Brethren and the average church member are in agreement on matters of doctrine. It’s the apologists and Bloggernaclers who are the outliers–the so-called “informed Mormons.”

Well, I’m not even sure how to start here. What do we mean by doctrine in such a context? I’m fairly sure, for instance, that most of the brethren accept a view roughly akin to John Sorensons (even if they might not accept the details of his model) But what factual elements of history or narrative constitute doctrine?

I think that pretty much the brethren and so-called “informed Mormons” (outside of more liberal intellectuals) tend to agree on probably most of the doctrine. There may be a few places they disagree. (For instance I suspect I disagree with Elder Packer over the nature of evolution, but I doubt I disagree with him on much else and I know there are plenty of GAs who think the same as me on evolution) But then that gets to the central question. Critics like the idea of this unanimity on every doctrinal point that establishes nice uncontroversial propositions for then to attack. And they’ll always try to dismiss Mormons who disagree as irrelevant since it undermines their approach. Therefore the position on say evolution is what Bruce R. McConkie wrote. (Although you could submit any doctrinal point in question – say some figure from the 1970s who was writing against a LGT view of the Book of Mormon) It’s a nice convenient way to having to avoid dealing with the arguments of FARMS, FAIR or others.

I don’t think the problem is that there are bad manuals or that the members are not being taught well. I think the manuals are carefully screened by the Brethren and that the members are being taught to believe exactly what the Brethren want them to be taught to believe. My point is that the Brethren and the average church member are in agreement on matters of doctrine. It’s the apologists and Bloggernaclers who are the outliers–the so-called “informed Mormons.” I might even go so far as to say that “critics” and “informed Mormons” might have more in common than “informed Mormons” and the “naive lay members.” Of course, this is a point that has been raised many times before, so, according to John, is probably not worth discussing.

Clarke: “It would seem to be entailed by his comment, “Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.”

In which case you should not have quoted JS saying “that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such” when ETB has clearly expanded it. Or are both invalid since both are dead?

The Mormon church lacks a disciplined canonical committee. Excepting the PR doctrinal blurb after “The Mormons” was aired which largely seemed aimed at non-Mormon media and not the members, there is no definitive process for establishing doctrine within the church. That’s how BRM can publish a book full of errors as Mormon Doctrine or the intro to the BoM and how GBH can rewrite the doctrine of Godhood on Larry King Live.

Anti-Mormons don’t make it anywhere near as difficult to believe as the church authorities themselves. If they wouldn’t go around willy nilly changing things to fit their personal belief it would be a whole lot easier to believe they were inspired and there was a lot of prayerful consideration over even minor changes in doctrine.

Clark, I don’t think your arguments are going anywhere. You need to have a better account of revelation than this. There are a ton of problems here. If you give the prophet the benefit of the doubt and accept that they teach false things from time to time what right does any Mormon have to say that the Pope is not inspired of God? Or the local guru? Or the local imam? They teach some true things and get things wrong from time to time, just give them the benefit of the doubt, they are trying hard too. It think this is deadly to Mormon theology, because you are reduced to arguing that what makes a prophet a prophet is not true revelation but authority only.

The same principle does not apply to personal revelation. If that were true then on a regular basis you would have to sit down on a regular basis and pray about the Book of Mormon, the church, the whole kit and kaboodle. Also, what happens to those times when revelation doesn’t show up and doubts appear? Is that time to chuck past personal revelation out the window? If one has doubts about the Book of Mormon can that person not rely on past personal revelation to attest to the fact that it is still a true book? If no revelation is ever settled then why would anyone go on a mission or follow the prophet or do anything else for that matter? There has to be some stability, which I think there is, I just don’t think your arguments get you there.

I honestly can’t think of anything in Pres. Benson’s talk I disagree with in the least. I think it a very good summation of LDS views of prophets.

It would seem to be entailed by his comment, “Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.”

Equality: But the problem is the constant moving of things from the “prophet” column to the “man” column on the prophetic ledger sheet

Why is that a problem? Prophets get the benefit of doubt. But they are fallible. I don’t see why this is a problem in the least. I’d note that this same principle applies to personal revelation as well. Something most Mormons should ideally be familiar with.

Equality: The problem here is that the “informed Mormon position” so often does not comport with the position taken in church magazines, lesson materials, and talks by the prophets, seers, and revelators at General Conference.

So critics claim. Certainly occasionally there are bad manuals. (The current institute manuals that are being rewritten are particularly bad IMO) If you want to say teaching in the Church isn’t as good as it should be I’d agree 100%. The problem is that critics move from “there exist manuals with errors” to “the errors in manuals should be taken as the Church’s official position.” Which is simply bad logic. Heck, look at High School science texts and how bad those are. Yet no one would say those are how we ought judge scientific orthodoxy.

So if you say we are failing in doing as good of a job teaching as we should I’ll agree wholeheartedly. But when you move beyond that…

The problem here is that the “informed Mormon position” so often does not comport with the position taken in church magazines, lesson materials, and talks by the prophets, seers, and revelators at General Conference. No one is more dismissive of the Mormon prophets than the Mormon apologists it seems.

The “naive lay members” arrive at their positions on doctrinal issues by following the prophets’ advice and restricting their inquiry to church-approved sources. The “naive lay members” are closer to the positions staked out by the Brethren than the apologists. Which raises a couple questions: (1) who leads the church–the apostles or the apologists, and (2) why would the apologists have greater light and knowledge on doctrinal matters than the men called by God to lead the church as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Note that I am not criticizing belief qua belief; I am merely posing the question of who it is the average member ought to listen to when the apologists and apostles are saying different things (which happens with some regularity in the church).

True. But the problem is the constant moving of things from the “prophet” column to the “man” column on the prophetic ledger sheet. Statements made in a prophetic context that later turn out to be wrong are simply recharacterized by the apologists as nonprophetic man-speak. Statements made in the canonized scriptures, at General Conference, in official proclamations, in church periodicals and so forth on doctrinally significant topics cannot, I think, be so easily brushed aside with the old “speaking as a man” mantra. If you want to say that a stray comment along the march of Zion’s Camp is the prophet speaking as a man, I might go along with you. But 150+ years of prophetic utterances explicating canonized scriptures? If they aren’t speaking as prophets in that context, when, pray tell, are they?

As if that helps any. That’s not what Ezra Taft Benson taught in his Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet. Which is correct?

How in the world is a rank and file member of the church supposed to sort through the conflicting teachings of the leaders to arrive at a logical conclusion as to what to believe?

mc

John Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon came out and was wildly popular back in 1985! Nearly 25 years ago! Long, long before critics got into the act in a significant way. Sorenson was distributing the research long before his book was published. By the mid-90′s Sorenson’s views were mainstream among most educated Mormons. (Certainly they were the only dominant view at BYU in the early 90′s – the debate then changed to what LGT model one ought adopt)

The critics (beyond older superficial attacks) really only got into the game the last decade when arguably their attacks were already irrelevant. They knew this so rather than attacking the informed Mormon position they appealed to what the naive lay member thought. (Ignoring the fact that one could take any doctrinal point in the Church and find a significant number of Mormons with incorrect ideas on it – heck even on basic narrative notions of the Book of Mormon stories) Ask the average Mormon questions to distinguish Sidney Rigdon from Martin Harris and see how many right answers you get, for instance.