The more I listen to this interview — the more I enjoy and respect Dr. Millet. I have even listened to
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
now, which I definitely recommend. And while I have at least a few posts planned where I hope to express what I loved about this interview, as part 2 of this series, I want to highlight something that made me a bit uncomfortable.
Let me begin with my disclaimer — as some of you may have realized, I am struggling (as a member of the LDS church) with the way that church leaders (as of late) appear to be publicly distancing themselves from many of the tenets of the “gospel” that I grew up with. This is complicated by the fact that while I am happy to see many of these changes — I also am simultaneously fearful that as we “assimilate” into mainstream U.S. culture by playing up our commonalities with others — and distancing ourselves from the differences — we will ultimately weaken the church I love, by weakening the core beliefs/theology that once made us strong.
Anyway, to illustrate….during the interview, Dr. Millet was asked why Mormons target Christians as well as non-Christians with their missionary work. His response was as follows:
“Now, people will frequently ask us, ‘But why do you go to Christians who already have a church, who already have a belief?’ And, ‘Why don’t you just go to the heathen, you know?’ And there’s a practical answer for that. And that is — I’ve had pastors ask me this, and I’ve said to them, ‘How large is your congregation?’ ‘Well, about 700.’ ‘When you look out at that congregation, can you literally tell at one glance who of all those people have truly been converted? Who of all those people have had a personal conversion experience? Who of all those people have been born again? Who of all those people have, in your language, accepted Jesus as their savior? Do you know in each case?’ And he said, ‘Well, no, of course not.’ I said, ‘Neither do we.’ And so we approach everyone. “
Based on Mormon scripture, doctrine, and theology — isn’t the most honest and up front answer to this question the following: “We don’t consider any other church to have the legitimate authority of God — and so our missionary work must go to all people”. If I may quote from the Pearl of Great Price:
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.”
Again — I can understand what he is doing here. He is trying to build on common beliefs — and he doesn’t want to offend.
But I ask you — is it completely honest? Or is it misleading? Is Dr. Millet telling the whole truth here — or only a partial truth? More importantly — as more and more devout LDS folks pick up on answers like this — are they not going to start wondering what’s going on…and where the church that they grew up in (and that the pioneers sacrificed for) has gone? All watered down and stuff?
Finally, for those of you who were missionaries — how focused were you on “helping people to accept Jesus as their personal savior”, vs. helping them to join the one and only true church? And if people told you that they had already accepted Jesus as their Savior, did you politely accept their response, and move on to someone else — or did you keep trying?
Loading ...
Well, when I was a missionary, there was one part of one discussion about the savior and a whole discussion about the one and only true church (as I recall it, anyway).
I took several classes from Robert Millet at BYU – I tried to take anything he offered. He’s a great teacher and, I believe, a sincere man. I think he tends to engage in apologetics, and that’s how I see his above response. It’s not the only answer, it’s not the best answer, but it’s a defensible answer.
I’ve been wondering for some time about how to answer the question “why do you preach to other Christians instead of just going to the heathen”.
“Because God said all the other creeds were wrong” is true, but it’s dreadfully incomplete and just sounds a bit contentious.
What about: “Because Christ has sent new messengers to prepare the way for his Second coming, just as John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for his first.”
I like President Hinckley’s paraphrase: We invite people to bring the good they have and make it better. It’s an invitation to move into a bigger better house without burning down the old one.
Dear John:
I read your comments with great interest, and offer the following for your consideration.
On page 66 of the Robert Millet/Greg Johnson book, “Bridging The Divide: The Continuing Conversation Between A Mormon And An Evangelical,” Robert Millet states that:
“If we’re going to disagree, however, let’s disagree on the right stuff, on matters that we actually believe and teach today, not just something that was said years ago but is not really a part of the doctrine of the Church.”
Recently, I wrote Millet and asked what exactly do Mormons believe and teach today on God, Jesus Christ, and salvation. Millet promptly replied and referred me to chapter 5 of his book, “A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-Day Saints” (beginning on page 81).
But after re-reading the chapter, as well as the Glossary of Mormon terms (beginning on page 189), it is obvious to me that Millet’s beliefs on God, Jesus Christ, and salvation were developed from Mormonism’s founding fathers, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
Thus, your questions on whether Millet is being completely honest or misleading, and whether he is telling the whole truth or a partial truth, are questions you and others must answer on your own.
But the most important question for you to answer is, “What about Jesus Christ and salvation?” Because in Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, the Bible informs us about “another” gospel, Jesus, and spirit. And those who believe it and preach it are under a divine curse (anathema).
A false “Jesus” hasn’t the power to save, sanctify, and redeem the sinner, but it does have the ability to deceive precious souls for whom the real Jesus died for.
In Christian love,
Bud Press, Director
Christian Research Service
http://www.christianresearchservice.com
Jude 3
In my opinion, he is being dishonest. The missionaries do not care if someone believes they have accepted Christ as their Savior. Unless they are a member of the LDS Church they are considered a member of a false, apostate church and need to be converted to the LDS Church in order to be able to reach the celestial kingdom. Unless and until the church changes its doctrine to say anything else is being dishonest, telling a half truth.
Darrell
Dear Bud,
It is ironic that you would use one of those time-honored, falacious arguments we Mormons hear all the time and that Dr. Millet specifically addresses and answers in the extended interview with Krista Tippett.
Really now, don’t you think we have heard that a million times? Tell us something we don’t already know that you beleive about Mormons.
We really don’t need nor want that kind of stuff on this blog.
John,
You have heard members say all the time, “we were going to a church, but weren’t really satisfied with what we were hearing over the pulpit, the pastor, etc. So when the missionaries knocked on our door…..”
So, I think there are opportunities to share what the LDS Church is about with “churched” people who already accept the Savior but are still seeking answers. I think our view of the eternal nature of souls and the eternal nature of families is especially appealing to Christians.
I think that Peter and Pres. Hinckley hit the nail on the head.
I think you are missing the point. The point of the Church is to bring men to Christ as the way, the truth and the light. That is what the Church is for. The reason for missionaries is that people need to be converted to the LDS Church in order to comply with the ordinances God has set forth to follow Christ and return to God.
It is easy to get blindly focused, like Darrell, above, and miss the point that if you believe that following Christ requires being baptized as Christ was, and if you believe that requires authority, then to follow Christ requires being part of a Church with authority from God that can administer baptism.
There are three doctrines I see out there about having authority. The first is that it is passed along, the way Christ taught it was, and that it never left. That leaves you with the Orthodox Churches. The second is that anyone can claim it for themselves as a believer (some Protestant Churches). The third is that it was lost, and needed to be restored.
The concepts are interlocked, but the highest one in the hierarchy from “you should follow Christ, to follow Christ you need to abide the path he taught, part of that path is ordinances, ordinances require authority to administer, authority was lost, we have authority restored” is “you should follow Christ.”
Yes, people lose sight of that, but they shouldn’t. I think it is a good thing to remind missionaries of their primary goal, the reason there is a Church, the reason they administer ordinances, the task they are given in the Doctrine and Covenants to bring souls unto God. When it talks about “how great shall be your joy” in the doctrinal charge, it talks directly of bringing souls to Christ.
That is why we also talk of converting members.
“I like President Hinckley’s paraphrase: We invite people to bring the good they have and make it better. It’s an invitation to move into a bigger better house without burning down the old one”
The missionaries emphasised this when I had the discussions, because they knew that I had grown up in a church. The reality of it after I had joined the church was an attitude of ‘we know better than the other churches’. But maybe they didn’t emphasise Christ over the church because they figured I already knew about Christ, but not much about the church? I know my husband served a mission in Asia and had to spend more time explain the concept of christ, because the people there had little knowledge of him. I would guess it depends on the audience.
We “see through a glass, darkly” even in the Church, which I wouldn’t necessarily refer to as the “one true,” but rather the “most true.” We expect too much of ourselves if we believe we have all the answers and I really think this is what we’ve done in the past. We’ve presented potential converts with this set doctrine as something they must believe to be saved. And what is really necessary to be saved? The ordinances. Repentence. Belief in the Christ. This is what we should focus on. I have been so pleased to see the Church stepping back from “doctrine” that was voiced as an opinion and has no real bearing on modern life or future salvation.
Stephen — My point is this…..this feels like deceptive language for me — like we’re crafting our words to make outsiders (Evangelicals) think that our intentions are very different than what they really are.
Dr. Millet seems to want them to THINK he’s saying, “We just want to help people get saved through Jesus Christ — just like you!!!”
When in reality, our goal as a missionary church is to have people join our church — and to stop attending any and all other churches. That is our goal — but the language he uses about “helping people to accepting Christ as their personal savior” seems to be carefully crafted in a way to make them feel less threatened than they otherwise might (and probably should be).
That’s how it feels to me, anyway. Like we are saying one thing to them to make them not feel threatened by us — but we are saying something very different to our members internally, and our goals (in fact) ARE AND SHOULD BE incredibly threatening to them. It feels deceptive — at least by my standards.
In the end, our goal is to take all people away from all other churches — and to have them join ours. If we are God’s one true church — shouldn’t we be honest about that, and not speak in a coded way to avoid telling the truth? I guess if you look at Jesus’ example — He often spoke in code and parables as well — so maybe that’s how they/apologists justify the double-speak? But if someone is going to tell me (as insiders) that it’s NOT double-speak — well then that person has diminished credibility with me as a person of integrity.
But, we do view salvation in slightly different manner than do other churches. So, we want folks to “Come to Christ” and be saved the way that we view it. Since Krista didn’t ask Dr. Millet what he really meant, he didn’t get to answer the question about what we really mean by being saved.
The answer that Dr. Millet gave was one that he said he gives often to evangelical ministers who ask the question.
I believe that an objective person would find it pretty clear/obvious that the intent of the crafted statement is to disarm those who might otherwise feel threatened — and that in doing so, we are not to telling the complete truth.
I understand why he does it — I just feel that it is an incomplete, somewhat deceptive answer intended to make the ministers and general public feel less threatened than they otherwise might.
Our ultimate goal is to bring people to Christ by taking them out of any church they might be attending – -and to bring them into our church. I can see (pragmatically) why we soft-pedal that — but I do believe that when we do, we are telling only half-truths. Again — if you can’t acknowledge this — then I believe that you are saying it’s ok to be deceptive, or that you refuse to acknowledge deceptiveness if it’s being performed by a church leader.
“And what is really necessary to be saved? The ordinances. Repentence. Belief in the Christ. This is what we should focus on.”
This still contradicts what Dr. Millet said. He implies that we preach to Christians in case they are not converted. The reality, as John has pointed out, is that even the most basic parts of our gospel regardless of any controversial doctrines makes this not completely true. Here is the core gospel from the articles of faith:
Dr. Millet’s claim of our intentions ony covers Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s only the first principle. You have to go on into baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. The successive article clearly says that those things must be done by someone with authority and we believe that authority only exists in the LDS church. Thus, a member of the pastor’s congregation (including the pastor himself) could be more converted to Christ than any Mormon you’ve ever met and our gospel would still require that he/she accept our gospel as truth for their salvation.
John,
Why does it matter to you what the Church distances itself from when you can have a personal quest for truth and find out what the truth is for yourself? To me, the institutional Church doctrine is different than truth. The institutional Church doctrine is the party line, and then one can have personal beliefs while being supportive of the institution. I don’t understand why it should be important to worry about what the church does with doctrine as long as one can find out for oneself what is true anyway.
I disagree that we want all people to join our church. We’re looking for the “elect”. We would encourage everyone else to stay where they are, at the light they can receive; and other churches are also preparing their flocks for the end times. Only those who feel the call should come in. Everything else beyond this point on our part would be brainwashing.
Dude — It matters to me for 2 reasons:
1) When a church holds itself up as God’s one true church, led directly by prophets who regularly receive divine revelation from God — then I believe that it must maintain the highest of ethical standards — as it normally does (I see our church as highly ethical — just not in this one tendency to spin for PR reasons).
2) There are millions of people who base their testimonies and very LIVES on the LDS doctrine that they have been taught. If that is the case — I believe that they deserve to be dealt with honestly, and directly. And not to have leaders speak to them one way in private — and to other people in a different way. To me, that ultimately erodes faith — and I’ve seen it in thousands of people over the past few years. Our PR spin is causing people to lose their faith. And I think that’s a bad thing.
“But I ask you — is it completely honest? Or is it misleading? Is Dr. Millet telling the whole truth here — or only a partial truth?”
Well, I think the obvious answer is that it is a partial truth. But on the other hand, I think a better question to ask is, is it the right thing to present a partial truth versus the whole truth. And does presenting a partial truth constitute a lie, or only what someone “needs to know”? Or in other words, are the means justified? We know what end they are trying to come to. Was the means of Nephi’s killing Laban justified by the ends? Was the partial truth told by Abraham to Pharoah about his wife justified? If you are trying to convert people, is it better to get them to listen by telling them what they need to know so they will listen so that you can deal with the rest later? Or will they reject it later because they will figure out later that you told the partial truth to get a foot in the door?
Like when we went to a guy’s house when I was on my mission to teach them. I had told them that we know that Mary is the Mother of God, because the guy believed in Mary. I showed him the verses in the book of Mormon where it talks about Mary. He expected us to have the same beliefs in Mary he did, being a Catholic. So when my Nimrod companion decided to pull out the verse “thou shalt have no other Gods before me”, it fell apart during the first discussion, and we ended up having to walk out the door. But if he would have held his peace until after several discussions, perhaps it could have been diffused more gradually.
John,
I really feel the same discomfort you do at the lack of honesty in Dr. Millet’s response. If he were being asked for his personal views, and not speaking as a semi-official representative of the Church, I would have no problem with his answer. He does not distinguish between the two, and I think this reinforces the unfortunate impression that all Mormons have exactly the same views as the current Party line, which reminds me of Orwell’s history-denying “1984.”
I applaud any and all attempts by the institutional Church to focus all that we preach, teach, and do on Jesus Christ. This would make the Church a much more divine and healthy place to worship.
There have been attempts in the Catholic Church to refocus attention on the figure of Christ as well. The current Pope comes from the Bavarian school, which is less Mariolatric (is that a word?) than his Polish predecessor’s brand of Catholicism.
Which brings me to what Millet should have said as he distinguished between his personal agenda and the Church’s: “I personally believe we need to focus our missionary work on deep conversion to Christ and belief in his power to save, while the institutional Church prefers to stress the necessity of other Christians accepting our authority to perform essential saving ordinances by the power of the restored New Testament priesthood. The Catholics do this as well, so you see, we’re as mainstream as they are.”
Emphatically… NO. If you believe you have to lie or deceive to get people to accept the true gospel of Christ, then you don’t have sufficient faith in the power that God has to work miracles in people when they hear the truth. If the gospel is the truth and its as important to people’s happiness as we say, why can’t we treat it with the highest reverence, and let it stand for itself?
John,
“I believe that an objective person would find it pretty clear/obvious that the intent of the crafted statement is to disarm those who might otherwise feel threatened — and that in doing so, we are not to telling the complete truth.”
Ok, if we are really, really honest, we would say, “Dear Pastor, we are trying to recruit every person out of your church that we can.” If we could, we’d station our missionaries at at your doors and put them on a bus, teaching them the discussions on the way to the church to baptise them.” but, that’s not really the way we operate. We offer the gospel to investigators.
“Our ultimate goal is to bring people to Christ by taking them out of any church they might be attending – -and to bring them into our church.”
We don’t ‘take” anyone. We offer what we have and, hopefully, by the power of the Holy Ghost, and THEIR agency, they join.
Why does it matter to you what the Church distances itself from when you can have a personal quest for truth and find out what the truth is for yourself? To me, the institutional Church doctrine is different than truth. The institutional Church doctrine is the party line, and then one can have personal beliefs while being supportive of the institution. I don’t understand why it should be important to worry about what the church does with doctrine as long as one can find out for oneself what is true anyway.
In principle, this should be a great answer. In practice, it ignores the history of the LDS church. Throughout the history of the LDS church, various doctrines (now called “theories” or “speculations”) have been first deemphasized, and then actually condemned. In some cases, these doctrines have been discarded to the point that publicly teaching them (after being “corrected” by leaders) can result in LDS church discipline.
I was an unapologetic Nauvoo-era Mormon. I’ll readily admit I even privately believed some of those early doctrines that had already become excommunicable teachings. I also believed many early Mormon teachings which had not been officially denied yet, but had been “officially forgotten” through silence. On one occasion, I discussed some of these early teachings (dealing with temple ordinances) with another active LDS member, and within days found myself sitting in the bishop’s office, where I was threatened with removal of my temple recommend “and anything else it takes” if I persisted in my belief (notice I said “belief,” not just “teaching”). I was also asked what other “fringe beliefs” I held, with a strong implication that the bishop suspected me of plural marriage.
The simple fact is that during the last two decades, the LDS church has sought to deemphasize, and even discard as “speculations,” doctrines which place it at odds with other christian faiths. As I read various blogs, I see that many of those who are now young adults or young converts fully accept this as good and proper. When the LDS PR department says that a married Jesus has “never been the doctrine of the church,” these members actually believe it. When Hinckley tells reporters that the LDS church doesn’t teach, let alone understand, any idea of deity having once been a mortal man, these members actually believe it. This generation of LDS members is being shaped and molded in this way, leaving “old-school Mormons” to become curious relics.
If the past history of the LDS church is any indicator, people like John who actually believe the more distinctive doctrines of Mormonism will find themselves ostracized, and their membership in the modern LDS church jeapordized. That is why it matters what the LDS church “continues to distance itself from.
I have to agree with John Delin on this one. Millet’s answer is misleading, unless there is more info than printed here that I’m not aware of that goes on to explain it better.
This is not at all the same the the President Hinckley answer that we discussed/debated previously. When I have a moment, I’ll explain my reasoning more fully. However (throwing a bone to the other’s defending Millet) I am not a cynical person and I would not assume this misrepresentation was intentional. I think I even know why he gave this answer, though he butchered his original source. (Again, I’ll explain more when I have a chance. Back to work.)
“On one occasion, I discussed some of these early teachings (dealing with temple ordinances) with another active LDS member, and within days found myself sitting in the bishop’s office, where I was threatened with removal of my temple recommend”
Well, that is why you simply don’t tell anybody about your beliefs if you have such beliefs. That to me is the other common sense part of this. I’ve learned that lesson myself.
“Well, that is why you simply don’t tell anybody about your beliefs if you have such beliefs. That to me is the other common sense part of this. I’ve learned that lesson myself.”
That sounds like a pretty lonely way to live.
“If the past history of the LDS church is any indicator, people like John who actually believe the more distinctive doctrines of Mormonism will find themselves ostracized, and their membership in the modern LDS church jeapordized. That is why it matters what the LDS church “continues to distance itself from.”
That is why it is so necessary to keep quiet about any such things and let the Church go where it will with whatever doctrines the authorities choose to espouse. If you value membership, then you learn to “keep a secret” as Joseph Smith said. I don’t see why it is necessary to volunteer information that is unnecessary and set oneself up as a target. I don’t see why anyone needs to be a missionary for their own personal beliefs anyway. Such things should be held sacred if they are true anyway, one’s own pearls not for the rest of the Church anyway. Obviously when people go on quest for truth, the Lord has revealed things to people in that quest that he hasn’t revealed to others, so why then should we share those pearls?
Dude (#18) — I respect your opinion, but feel like it is a dangerous way to live, and a slippery slope (to get in the habit of telling partial truths, and withholding information based on what we think the people really want or need to hear).
In my experience, that is dangerous for the dissembler, the inquirer, and ultimately the institution.
This truly is fascinating to me as I realize more and more often the issue we face is that of being bilingual, speaking Mormonese and Traditional Christanese. Mormons believe in essentially a universal salvation, at least by traditional Christian standards. Yet we use the words salvation and exaltation interchangeably, and pretty much ignore justification and sanctification. One thing that Millet points out is that we are relatively new at learning how to speak about our faith to others, as well as to the church as a whole. Mormons know what they believe and what they don’t believe, but for the most part the ideas aren’t connected or logical, nor are they specific for the most part. Mormonism is far more about a specific “world view” and being part of a community than “doctrines” anyway. That world view entails that the Church is “true and living” and being loyal to the leadership of the Church. The fact that Mormons don’t know what they mean by “true and living” as it relates to other faiths and the “big picture” is not surprising and is a bit disheartening.
As a result, Millet speaks in the mainstream language in this case, but doesn’t finish the thought by adding the Mormon understanding of certain ideas. Unfortunately for Mormons, we ignore the concept of universal salvation in practice with regards to our missionary work. I think the whole misguided idea from McConkie and others that there are no second chances after this life if the gospel was preached to you really played a large role during the 70’s and 80’s, and put a type of urgency and fear into many.
I see other Christian churches as able to deliver the heaven they actually preach to their congregations. The idea that there is even more heaven available to Mormons than to other Christians sounds pompous and insensitive, and for most Mormons diminishes the other kingdoms they may inherit. Also, there is nothing scriptural that prohibits progression between kingdoms (another time McConkie went beyond what has been revealed).
As a teenager (I am now 32 year old) I remember the revulsion and confusion I had as I read Mormon Doctrine and Principles of Salvation, many concepts just didn’t ring true to my experience with God or the church. I am perfectly happy to only be bound by the scriptures and to let the rest be schools of thought in Mormonism. I guess I am a Blake Ostler, Orson Scott Card, Daniel Peterson kind of Mormon, and CES can diminish as it defers to real scholars and thinkers instead of dogma.
Jeff,
In many instances (in our missionary program) we do, in fact, TAKE people to baptism. In Latin America and the Philippines, it happens daily. We round up the young, and the impoverished, and we TAKE them to be baptized — shooting for the lowest common denominator. It’s one of the reasons that our activity rates are as low as 10% in some parts of the world.
If you haven’t read Michael Quinn’s essay on Baseball Baptisms, or listened to Ted Lyon’s interview about Chile — I could not recommend them highly enough.
Baseball Baptisms: http://mormonstories.org/baseballbaptisms.html
Chile Baptisms: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VzCcCacfnfU
“The simple fact is that during the last two decades, the LDS church has sought to deemphasize, and even discard as “speculations,” doctrines which place it at odds with other christian faiths.”
Well, in truth, the only doctrines the Church has to defend are the ones in the Standard Works anyway. The rest are expendable, even if they are true, because they are unproven and uncanonical, even if true. Thats one reason I think that FARMS trashes on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and only defends the Book of Abraham, a precedent started by Hugh Nibley. Because they are only forced to defend the Book of Abraham, and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers were expendable. But I know they are true. If these things come to be a hindrance in the Church’s missionary efforts, why should they be defended? Just because I know something is true personally doesn’t mean any or most of the other people in the Church would agree with me. Why not allow the Church to choose the “lesser portion of the word” if it helps in the missionary efforts, when they are trying to preach milk before meat anyway? It doesn’t hurt me, in my own quest for truth. And furthermore, it allows them to whittle things down so they can be stomached by those who are weak spiritually. I would rather those people who are weak be nursed to the point where they are strong. I predict at some point all these things will be restored back to their proper place anyway if they are true. You may not like that answer, but I think this is only logical since the Church’s mission is to be a missionary Church, and bring people to at least a lesser portion of the word. The Church’s mission is not to preach the mysteries, and my progress in learning the mysteries is not hindered if I shut up. I can learn the mysteries and progress spiritually in spite of others being fed the lesser portion.
Kind of like the Word of Wisdom being by invitation at first and now it is a commandment (with loopholes for eating meat, though in the future it is a possibility that even that may be frowned upon like drinking coffee). I agree Dude, why make it harder to swallow when it is not essential or even that life altering to accept most of these types of ideas?
John,
I am well aware of the rogue missionary programs that have occurred in the church. Most of it thanks to you (the knowledge, that is) and Mormon Stories. Most Mission Presidents know that this approach is not what the Lord has in mind for “going to all the world” and dragging them into the church.
But, having said that, human nature tells me that we would do it as a practice if it would work. Which, thank goodness, it wouldn’t.
Jeff, baseball baptisms weren’t “rogue”. It was an official church program initiated by Henry D. Moyle, the first counselor to David O. McKay.
Stephen — My point is this…..this feels like deceptive language for me — like we’re crafting our words to make outsiders (Evangelicals) think that our intentions are very different than what they really are.
Except, I’d say that our intention to convert people to our Church are front and center (we are using missionaries after all, and calling them that). The real question that we should be asking ourselves is what should conversion be and where should it lead? Have we, at times in the past, lost sight of the goal?
I think the answer is yes. The true goal should be to bring people to Christ. That is what we should be doing and should remind ourselves to focus on.
That’s only the first principle. You have to go on into baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I very much agree. I think if we called the missionaries “faith counselors” or something similar, there might be some confusion, but we call them missionaries for a good reason.
I applaud any and all attempts by the institutional Church to focus all that we preach, teach, and do on Jesus Christ. This would make the Church a much more divine and healthy place to worship.
There have been attempts in the Catholic Church to refocus attention on the figure of Christ as well. The current Pope comes from the Bavarian school, which is less Mariolatric (is that a word?) than his Polish predecessor’s brand of Catholicism.
Which brings me to what Millet should have said as he distinguished between his personal agenda and the Church’s: “I personally believe we need to focus our missionary work on deep conversion to Christ and belief in his power to save, while the institutional Church prefers to stress the necessity of other Christians accepting our authority to perform essential saving ordinances by the power of the restored New Testament priesthood. The Catholics do this as well, so you see, we’re as mainstream as they are.”
I can see the same statement, with five pages of footnotes, being given to someone who wants a short statement.
I think the problem is just what is the scope of the answer that Dr. Millet is giving? Is he giving the 13 articles of faith or is he giving the first one with the other twelve in plain and obvious view?
Is the implication as obvious as he probably thinks it is if so many people here seem to conclude he is ending the conversation instead of starting it with his statement. Is the problem a function of the media and the scope of the statement?
Interesting stuff there, obviously. Someone should forward this blog entry, and all the comments, to him for his thoughts and reflection for the next time he discusses the subject.
I would say it was rogue, regardless. It was wrong, period.
“Jeff, baseball baptisms weren’t “rogue”. It was an official church program initiated by Henry D. Moyle, the first counselor to David O. McKay.”
If something is bad and it has to be abandoned regardless of who it comes from, it might as well be rogue. That is true whether it is doctrine or practice. Eventually everything that is wrong or untrue will be abandoned for that which is true anyway. And when the lesser portion of the word has fulfilled its mission, it will be abandoned as well. Did the parts they took out of the Temple Ceremony stop being true? I would say not. I would say that we have witnessed the Temple Ceremony being engineered for a “lesser portion” as much as the non-canonical but true items being de-emphasized. I don’t see why those things would not be brought back at some future time if they are true.
“I would say it was rogue, regardless. It was wrong, period.”
and..
“If something is bad and it has to be abandoned regardless of who it comes from, it might as well be rogue.”
I agree, from my perspective. From a more faithful and loyal perspective, these statements get to what I said in my reconstruction post about the implications of saying our leaders are fallible. 1960 was a long time ago so its easy to say Henry D. Moyle was wrong, or rogue, with his supposedly inspired mission program. What if were Elder Monson who created the program last year? Moyle held the identical position in the church.
“Stephen — My point is this…..this feels like deceptive language for me — like we’re crafting our words to make outsiders (Evangelicals) think that our intentions are very different than what they really are.”
Of course we are, because bottom line, people who are not in the gospel do not know what is good for them, or what they would want if they had more light. Yes, I know that sounds bad, but it is true. They don’t know what is good for them. We do. So we have to do what it takes to reel them in. You may think that is deceptive. I would say it is wisdom. I would say that it is having people’s best interests in our hearts. There is precedent for this.
“22 Now Ammon being wise, yet harmless, he said unto Lamoni: Wilt thou hearken unto my words, if I tell thee by what power I do these things? And this is the thing that I desire of thee.
23 And the king answered him, and said: Yea, I will believe all thy words. And thus he was caught with guile.” (Alma 18:22-23)
Any right thinking person would know that Ammon wasn’t manipulating the king without the King’s best interests in mind. And manipulating was precisely what he was doing, thus the word “guile.”
My mind is going around in circles with these comments. I agree with the following:
“I disagree that we want all people to join our church. We’re looking for the “elect”. We would encourage everyone else to stay where they are, at the light they can receive; and other churches are also preparing their flocks for the end times. Only those who feel the call should come in. Everything else beyond this point on our part would be brainwashing.”
This also makes sense to me:
“I see other Christian churches as able to deliver the heaven they actually preach to their congregations. The idea that there is even more heaven available to Mormons than to other Christians sounds pompous and insensitive, and for most Mormons diminishes the other kingdoms they may inherit. Also, there is nothing scriptural that prohibits progression between kingdoms (another time McConkie went beyond what has been revealed).”
I so see what you’re saying about the possible deception of Millet’s statement, but I don’t think it definitely deceptive. So I’m not worrying about it.
“What if were Elder Monson who created the program last year? Moyle held the identical position in the church.”
Then it will be similarly abandoned later. Revelation isn’t always a cut and dried thing coming directly from heaven. Sometimes the truth reveals itself through being manifested by the results of mistakes showing themselves for what they are, and then the truth of the matter is clear, and therefore, the truth is revealed on the matter.
“In my experience, that is dangerous for the dissembler, the inquirer, and ultimately the institution.”
John, I think that is true sometimes, and other times not true. I don’t think that the answer is the same in every situation. The fact of the matter is, its always messy, whether you tell the whole truth, or tell a partial truth. You have to choose the less messy way for the situation at hand. I think its more damaging to tell the whole truth for one situation, where in another it would be more damaging to tell a partial truth. I think its an issue where the Spirit has to weigh in. I don’t think that either one is the correct answer for every situation. I think both are necessary when appropriate.
RE: #38
“Of course we are, because bottom line, people who are not in the gospel do not know what is good for them, or what they would want if they had more light. Yes, I know that sounds bad, but it is true. They don’t know what is good for them. We do. So we have to do what it takes to reel them in. You may think that is deceptive. I would say it is wisdom. I would say that it is having people’s best interests in our hearts. There is precedent for this.”
Man, if I was from another faith and saw this statement, I would know fro sure that you were of the devil. This sounds like typical political deception. Tell me what I want to hear, lure me in, fetter me to the wall…leading them gently down to hell. Sorry, but this does sound like a conniving plan to get converts.
RE: #40
“Sometimes the truth reveals itself through being manifested by the results of mistakes showing themselves for what they are, and then the truth of the matter is clear, and therefore, the truth is revealed on the matter.”
From what I understand of this, it sounds like revelation is “trial and error.”
Dude (#30),
The challenge with that approach (having our leaders start to peel away all that is not scriptural) is that it fundamentally challenges (and often undermines) our level of confidence in LDS church leaders. Even though church leaders may not verbally encourage it, most members look to our leaders as having direct revelation from God — and as having very solid, firm, sound understanding of the gospel, doctrine, scripture, plan of salvation, etc. They are prophets, seers and revelators, after all. And this is God’s one and only true church.
So when LDS church leaders begin distancing ourselves from things that their predecessors actively and consistently taught over the pulpit , and in church manuals for over 150 years (God was once a man, Native Americans are Lamanites, Blacks will not get the priesthood, polygamy is required for salvation, the Book of Abraham is a translation of Egyptian papyri, etc.) — over time, members begin asking, “Well…if ya’ll were wrong about all that…what are you wrong about now?”
That, to me, is the great pickle. The brethren want to discard all that is not certain — but in doing so, they are peeling away much that is central to people’s faith, and they are also undermining their own authority in the eyes of many members (but not most members, by any stretch — only pin-heads like us).
One other interesting thing….currently the church leaders seem to be doing much of this distancing through casual press releases — and by sending out proxy spokespeople like Otterson and Millet — Either that or speaking only to external media (like when Oaks/Holland spoke to Helen Whitney).
I wonder if a day will come when the apostles and prophets will take up more of this work themselves…instead of by proxy…and speak directly to the members, instead of primarily to external audiences. I would love to see the day when in General Conference, we hear things like:
1) We should no longer assume that all Native Americans and Pacific Islanders are Lamanites — because we simply don’t know.
2) We should no longer teach that God was once a man
3) Polygamy is no longer church doctrine
4) The Book of Abraham is not a translation — in the way we usually use the word
5) The teachings that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence were wrong
6) Homosexuality is often not a choice, and we should love, support and not judge our homosexual brothers and sisters
7) Etc. etc.
The only problem is…the more they do this….the weaker their mantle becomes.
Again — what a pickle.
“with his supposedly inspired mission program”
Who said it was inspired?
“Man, if I was from another faith and saw this statement, I would know fro sure that you were of the devil. This sounds like typical political deception. Tell me what I want to hear, lure me in, fetter me to the wall…leading them gently down to hell. Sorry, but this does sound like a conniving plan to get converts.”
The only problem with your statement is that they end up in heaven, not hell if they get baptized and endure. And if I were of the devil, my intention would not be to save them, but to damn them. Telling part of the truth, not all, is not deception. It is telling part of the truth. Telling a falsehood is a lie. Using wisdom isn’t conniving. Using carefully crafted statements to bring the desired result isn’t being of the devil.
“From what I understand of this, it sounds like revelation is “trial and error.””
Revelation is always trial end error. You study it out in your mind. if you don’t get the expected result, you trash that and start over again till you find out what is true and what isn’t. Thomas Edison, we are always told, as well as all the rest of the inventors were inspired. And he had to go through how many iterations of try this and try that until he finally got the “AHAH!” moment??
“The challenge with that approach (having our leaders start to peel away all that is not scriptural) is that it fundamentally challenges (and often undermines) our level of confidence in LDS church leaders.”
All this is true. But I’m confident that these leaders constantly weigh all of this type of stuff in the decisions they make, and come up with the *least messy* way of doing it, or at least, what they hope is the least messy. And they do it in good faith, trying to do their best. And yes, if it turns out to be more messy, then that fact is revealed, and then that is abandoned for something more effective. Every single decision they make has to be weighed for its negative consequences. And this, it is obvious, that they have decided is the least messy way to go, or so they hope.
“members begin asking, “Well…if ya’ll were wrong about all that…what are you wrong about now?””
Perhaps the members should be asking this. Perhaps the members who understand the “greater portion” should be seeking truth about where the Church can improve.
“I would love to see the day where in General Conference, we hear things like….. The only problem is…the more they do this….the weaker their mantle becomes.”
I don’t think that is true. I think its a minority in the Church that perceives that anything the prophets do that is controversial make their mantle weak. I think that the rank and file would accept anything coming from the mouths of the authorities. I don’t think we are at a time where people would apostatize en masse because of something somebody does or says. I think too many people belong to the ethnic group of Mormonism, and have too many ties to it to let that kind of stuff weaken their perception of anything.
RE: #45
“The only problem with your statement is that they end up in heaven, not hell if they get baptized and endure. And if I were of the devil, my intention would not be to save them, but to damn them. Telling part of the truth, not all, is not deception. It is telling part of the truth. Telling a falsehood is a lie. Using wisdom isn’t conniving. Using carefully crafted statements to bring the desired result isn’t being of the devil.”
Like I said, it is all a matter of perspective. If I was from another denomination and read what you have written, then it appears to be ommission of fact to gain an end, and to me and many that is deceptive. Furthermore, -you- may think it leads to heaven, but by your definintion of revelation, we won’t know until we get there. Joseph just thought up all this stuff, it’s being fine tuned, but it may end up like the incandescent light bulb and the phonograph–scrapped for the newest and latest revelation. You or I may get to the afterlife and say, “oops” or “ahah.” Either may not be good.
#30:
The Church’s mission is not to preach the mysteries, and my progress in learning the mysteries is not hindered if I shut up. I can learn the mysteries and progress spiritually in spite of others being fed the lesser portion.
One method that some LDS leaders have used to deemphasize the distinctive doctrines of Mormonism is to classify anything you don’t learn in Primary as “deep” or “mysteries,” and then to chant “leave the mysteries alone.”
“Joseph just thought up all this stuff, it’s being fine tuned, but it may end up like the incandescent light bulb and the phonograph–scrapped for the newest and latest revelation.”
Things are always being fine tuned.
“You or I may get to the afterlife and say, “oops” or “ahah.” Either may not be good.”
That’s what the spirit is for, to know that the basic course you are taking in life is not a mistaken one. I don’t believe that the small things I do or not do in this life will damn me. Of course I have to repent for the small things. But they still won’t damn me. I just have to go day by day repenting for them. On the other hand, if my life isn’t on the right track in general, then I have a real problem, and then I have a real challenge to get on the right track or I really will be damned. And as long as I’m seeking to know that I am on the right track, and the spirit has told me so, then I will be ok.
“If I was from another denomination and read what you have written, then it appears to be ommission of fact to gain an end, and to me and many that is deceptive.”
Precisely why they don’t know what they would want, and why you have to be wise in your dealings with them, and not give them more truth than they can stomach or they will choke. Precisely why you have to deal with them carefully and wisely, or they will shoot themselves in the head without knowing how to use a gun.
“One method that some LDS leaders have used to deemphasize the distinctive doctrines of Mormonism is to classify anything you don’t learn in Primary as “deep” or “mysteries,” and then to chant “leave the mysteries alone.””
You and I, both being mature in our spiritual progress (I would assume, not knowing you personally), both of us well know that slogans like that don’t fly. But let them do what they will do. It doesn’t matter to my spiritual progress. My slogan would be “Let the brethren do what the brethren will do. Leave the matters of the leadership to the brethren.” As long as Old Ship Zion is floating and heading to the promised land, I’m not going to jump off, because I know I’m supposed to follow the brethren, and I have all of the tools I need at my fingertips for my own progress in the mysteries.
Nick,
“One method that some LDS leaders have used to deemphasize the distinctive doctrines of Mormonism is to classify anything you don’t learn in Primary as “deep” or “mysteries,” and then to chant “leave the mysteries alone.”
Which leaders have done that? I don’t recall hearing any lesder saying “That is a mystery. Leave it alone.” I know that Goerge Carlin used to tell a similiar story about his Catholic Priest using that line. But I’ve never heard it in an LDS context.
RE: #49 and #50
What I am saying is that Joseph and everyone in the church may be completely wrong and no one will know for sure until it all ends because the whole thing was on the side error, if one is to go off the “trial and error” idea of revelation.
To be blunt about you response concerning converts: spiritual imperialism. The natives don’t know what’s good for them, but we do, by golly! Another term for it is spiritual arrogance. Perhaps that is what Dr. Millet is avoiding as he skirts the “truth.”
I’m actually having a hard knowing if you’re for real, Dude.
“I’m actually having a hard knowing if you’re for real, Dude.”
Well, you know, I assure you that I’m not a phantasm using my poltergiest skills to type on this keyboard. I don’t particularly care what you think. You obviously have your mind made up about what principles are most important to you. If you condemn my way of thinking, well, then I guess you can yell at me in upper case letters if you want. That will really cause me to lose sleep.
Hey guys, just giving a friendly warning about tone. Please stick to the issues and keep away from personality and style conflicts. Thanks.
p.s. Its also going to lead down unproductive paths to speak the oponent’s point of view for them in a caricatured voice. Lets avoid that.
This whole thing has really pretty much gone downhill to the point where it isn’t useful anymore. I mean seriously, somebody calls me arrogant and imperial when I’m expressing the need for being careful and wise, when my intent is to point out how I care more about people’s souls than whether I feed them all the facts so they can choke on it, so I really am done here I think. I mean seriously, what is more important?
Dude,
I am concerned about the idea of revelation working itself out. When a prophet or apostle seeks divine approval on a “wrong” idea, does God, through the Holy Spirit, support the wrong idea at that time, does He remain silent (or in other words, leave the requester hanging), or does He say “No” but they defy Him? I know you don’t know, but in your concept of trial and error, how do you imagine that part working?
The problem with God approving the wrong thing in the short term is that it paints God as inconsistent and contradictory to His own perfection. In my opinion, most LDS folks land in this place on issues like polygamy and priesthood ban, only they don’t say it was “wrong”, they say “God’s ways are not our ways”. But they believe all doctrines and practices are approved by God while they are in use.
The problem with God remaining silent is that the actions and teachings of prophets and apostles have direct impact on the life course of millions of Mormons. I believe in a God that would think they deserve some kind of answer in those circumstances.
The problem with God saying “No” and then being ignored is that now you have prophets or apostles that think they know better than God, or else don’t actually know when God is talking to them. Either way, it means they can wield incredible power in people’s lives without real inspiration.
Clay,
I will avoid the caricature voice, but it was to illustrate a type of imperialism. Nonetheless, I will respect your concern. Further, I do indeed wonder if Dr. Millet was trying to avoid a condescending tone and imperialistic-type appearances.
Dude,
I was simply stating that I wasn’t sure if you were baiting the issue or if you legitimately believe what you are writing. As far as having my mind made up–for the most part, yes, I do. I am willing to modify my thinking if I see that a point is valid. I am in no way attacking you nor am I condemning your thought processes; I am simply restating the way it appears to me. If I have offended you because you thought I was provoking an ad hominem attack, my apologies. My intent was to attack the idea, not the individual.
“Either way, it means they can wield incredible power in people’s lives without real inspiration.”
I think that everybody does the best they can to listen to the spirit. And they can only do so effectively when they are fine tuned to it. When you stick a regular guy in a position of power who has the gift of the Holy Ghost just as any other guy, you will find that he will most likely feel the weight of his calling seek out inspiration to the best of his ability. If he doesn’t get the communication right all the time, I don’t necessarily think that is because he isn’t trying. Your comment assumes that we don’t look through a glass darkly or that all communication is always unclouded and crystal clear, or that even the communication comes when we think it should and that we aren’t left to ourselves sometimes to grovel in darkness if we don’t keep commandments perfectly. I’m telling you, I have confidence that these men do the best they can, and when they think they have a great idea, and they feel good about it, or at least, think that they feel good about it, sometimes it may get implemented and not work. It is incredibly hard to discern between one’s own emotions and the Spirit, even when in tune. I know this out of experience, and anyone that has sought for it would know this. And these men do their darndest to try to be inspired. How can anyone not try to put themselves in their place and not feel compassion for what these men are called on to do?
“I was simply stating that I wasn’t sure if you were baiting the issue or if you legitimately believe what you are writing.”
I absolutely believe what I am writing. I absolutely believe that being wise in one’s words and not feeding people unnecessary information is absolutely critical.
Dude #59:
I agree. They are regular people trying the best they can. I totally appreciate the weight of their responsibility. Sadly, Mormon culture (and I think its a top-down thing) does not really embrace this humanity. The humanity of church leaders could be embarrassing to the church and so it is downplayed and sometimes covered up. The Mantle is revered as something that makes a regular guy into something better when he holds an important priesthood calling. Does “the mantle” exist?
There is a certain amount of fallibility that is acceptable and understandable. Baseball Baptisms is an example of something that most Mormons almost unanimously agree seems obviously wrong, yet it originated with a man highly entitled to the Mantle, and supported by mission presidents who also qualify for the mantle. My understanding of the concept of the mantle is that it should protect the church from high-ranking leaders’ human failings from crossing certain extreme lines. To me, baseball baptisms, the continued priesthood ban during the 60’s and early 70’s, are some examples of crossing the line. Considering these things, the idea of mantle becomes super confusing and almost meaningless.
#52:
Which leaders have done that? I don’t recall hearing any lesder saying “That is a mystery. Leave it alone.” . . . I’ve never heard it in an LDS context.
Seriously, Jeff? I think if you did a little searching on lds.org, you’d find many statements of “leave the mysteries alone” or its co-conspirator, “stick to the basics.” I’ve heard it many times in the last decade or so, from LDS leaders, from general authorities right down to bishops.
(Sorry, I haven’t read any of the comments yet. Forgive me if I repeat something someone already said)
I don’t think it is dishonest in the least. Indeed I think one big important change Pres. Hinkley made to missionary work was to not only go after other Christians but to go after other Mormons. Missionaries are allowed to work with inactives far more now then when I was on my mission in the late 80’s. I worked with a few inactives to get them back but it was pretty much in spite of what we were supposed to do rather than because.
Now if we see missionaries working with members they happen to track out but whom may not have been to church in years, how can we say it’s dishonest to say the same about other Christians? We go after everyone.
The only place I find Millet’s comment as problematic is that we aren’t merely after a belief in Christ but a dedication to Christ through the ordinances of the gospel.
“My understanding of the concept of the mantle is that it should protect the church from high-ranking leaders’ human failings from crossing certain extreme lines.”
I think that is manifestly not correct, and way too simplistic. I think that the mantle is nothing but a lofty calling and keys, and that the reality of its definition needs to be defined by the evidence, not by assumptions of what it should be. If the mantle was supposed to act as a shield from extremes in fallibility, then Brigham Young should have been corrected on Adam God. And I absolutely disbelieve in that doctrine and reject it as absolutely incorrect. Yet I absolutely know Brigham Young had the mantle, and I know that he shined when the mantle manifested itself in him to pull of miracles.
#57:
The problem with God saying “No” and then being ignored is that now you have prophets or apostles that think they know better than God, or else don’t actually know when God is talking to them. Either way, it means they can wield incredible power in people’s lives without real inspiration.
Actually, my impression is that some leaders simply never ask deity, because they are so steeped in certain traditions that they think deity’s will is already “obvious,” and that it’s superfluous to seek revelation on the subject. Similarly, I think some leaders have such strong personal feelings on an issue that they assume those strong emotions are a confirmation from the Holy Ghost, so again, they don’t ever get around to asking.
#65:
Which is another dimension to the whole problem, because we are also told that we are slothful servants if we are commanded in all things, so we are apparently *SUPPOSED* to use our best judgment sometimes.
Nick,
“Seriously, Jeff? I think if you did a little searching on lds.org, you’d find many statements of “leave the mysteries alone” or its co-conspirator, “stick to the basics.” I’ve heard it many times in the last decade or so, from LDS leaders, from general authorities right down to bishops.”
Stick to the basics, yes, I have heard that countless times. Most members don’t do the basics. But please provide an example. If I go searching on lds.ord, I doubt i am going to find what you are reffering to.
If the mantle was supposed to act as a shield from extremes in fallibility, then Brigham Young should have been corrected on Adam God. And I absolutely disbelieve in that doctrine and reject it as absolutely incorrect. Yet I absolutely know Brigham Young had the mantle, and I know that he shined when the mantle manifested itself in him to pull of miracles.
“Dude,” I could provide you with literally hundreds of statements from earlier LDS general authorities, who “absolutely believed” in Brigham Young’s doctrine concerning Adam, and accepted it as absolutely correct. Carefully examined, it is a beautiful concept. Because it offended non-LDS christians, however, LDS leaders began to say it should not be discussed publicly. As we have seen in other cases like this, later leaders sought to eliminate it, with Mark E. Peterson inventing the positively false claim that there was only a single statement by Brigham Young ever recorded on the subject, and it was “obviously mistranscribed.” Relying on Peterson, Spencer W. Kimball declared it a “theory,” and labelled it false doctrine. Those who continue to believe the revelation of Brigham Young on the topic, and dare declare it publicly, are now subject to disciplinary action from the LDS church. Of note, Kimball never declared a revelation on the subject, while Brigham Young did.
“If the mantle was supposed to act as a shield from extremes in fallibility, then Brigham Young should have been corrected on Adam God. And I absolutely disbelieve in that doctrine and reject it as absolutely incorrect. Yet I absolutely know Brigham Young had the mantle, and I know that he shined when the mantle manifested itself in him to pull of miracles.”
This position just doesn’t make sense to me. It seems like you are just choosing to acknowledge a mantle when it works in favor of your view, but dismiss it when it fails.
Side note: I don’t consider a theological doctrine like Adam-God to be crossing into extreme fallibility. People’s lives aren’t heavily altered by believing that or not.
“This position just doesn’t make sense to me. It seems like you are just choosing to acknowledge a mantle when it works in favor of your view, but dismiss it when it fails.”
No. I am simply reworking the idea of “mantle” to fit what is readily apparent from evidence. If I’m guilty of redefining it to fit evidence, so be it. If the regular definition doesn’t fit what is clearly the case, then the definition was flawed to begin with.
Its like how I wont believe Kinderhook plates or Michigan Relics are real when some still want to believe they are real, but when the archeology speaks against it.
Sounds like you are choosing to let the definition be defined by a preconception rather than evidence. I like to let evidence speak. And that isn’t contradictory to my position on not giving out unnecessary info to people in an infant stage in the gospel. I think evidence should speak to those who are ready for that level of truth.
Just did a seach on lds.org. Jeff is right, Nick. The only thing on the first page of hits to ‘leave’ was Satan worship.
Many references to seek for the mysteries.
““Dude,” I could provide you with literally hundreds of statements from earlier LDS general authorities, who “absolutely believed” in Brigham Young’s doctrine concerning Adam, and accepted it as absolutely correct.”
Believe me I’ve seen them. I don’t care. I know what I believe, and don’t care what they believed. And I also know Joseph Smith thought he was translating the Kinderhook plates, another episode where mantle should have protected things. Or when Mark Hoffman decieved the General Authorities. The fact is, the regular idea of mantle is flawed, and has to be redefined.
Just because someone says something in authority doesn’t make it so unless the Holy Ghost backs him up. And from what I feel, unless my discernment is flawed on this one, the Holy Ghost doesn’t back them up on Adam God. I don’t speak for the Church. I speak for what I feel and what my own beliefs are, and what I think the Holy Ghost tells me about Adam God. I’m convinced that Brigham Young was told by the Holy Ghost that Adam was God, which isn’t incorrect. But he went off on his own and tried to fill in the rest of the puzzle with his own speculation. He just didn’t get the other piece of the puzzle from the Holy Ghost, where the Adam which is God who is Elohim is actually a different guy than the Adam which ate the fruit and fell into mortality, usually referred to as Michael. The son Adam was named after the Father.
Dude, I get it. I’m already there as far as feeling that the definitions we have for things are flawed. Its my opinion that there is no mantle, and that where our conversation has gone is the natural conclusion when you really think about what it means to say leaders a fallible “regular guys” like you and me.
“Its my opinion that there is no mantle, and that where our conversation has gone is the natural conclusion when you really think about what it means to say leaders a fallible “regular guys” like you and me.”
Well, there is no doubt that they are regular guys. I disagree that there is no mantle. The mantle is simply what is special about them, and it is (1) lofty calling, (2) keys, and (3) special witnesses of Christ, whatever that means, either a special endomwment by the Holy Ghost on that particular point, or a vision of Christ or a personal visitation. I don’t care what it is, and its probably different in some cases, but it still makes them “special” witnesses of Christ. So that is my definition of mantle. That is what makes them special, and infallibility is not one of those things.
Clay,
I assume you intended to address this in your follow on post, but what do you actually believe about God? Do you believe there is a God? Do you believe God is “a person” (i.e. not a deistic uncaring force) that in fact “loves” us in much the same way you love your children? (Or hopefully more so?) If you do believe in a God that is loving, why do you believe He does not speak to us more directly as you seem to be indicating He should have if the LDS Church leaders have a prophetic mantle? (Or do you believe He does speak in that way, but to someone else?)
I admit that you have me very curious about your beliefs now. I currently see no way your beliefs could actually form into a coherent whole unless you are in fact an aetheist. (I am not accusing you have being an aetheist. Not that there is anything wrong with being an aetheist. But I wouldn’t assign someone into a religious category without their permission.) This may just be because you haven’t yet expressed all your beliefs. A belief system should never be taken only in part.
While Dude’s beliefs definitely seem like backtracking (as he admits) they do form a coherent whole to me. That is why his beliefs, even if they seem weak, seem stronger than yours to me at this point in time. I’ll await your next post for clarification.
It’s one thing to shoot holes in someone else’s belief system. That’s generally pretty easy. It’s another thing all together to form your own coherent belief system that doesn’t have it’s own holes.
Hey Nick,
I took you up on your challenge. Here are a few samples that I found on lds.org;
1.”Why is it important to know the mysteries of God? President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) explained: “Of all treasures of knowledge, the most vital is the knowledge of God: his existence, powers, love, and promises. … “If we spend our mortal days in accumulating secular knowledge to the exclusion of the spiritual then we are in a dead-end street, for this is the time for man to prepare to meet God; this is the time for faith to be built. … “Secular knowledge, important as it may be, can never save a soul nor open the celestial kingdom””(The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball [1982], 3
2. “In response to a skeptic’s questions about the Resurrection, the prophet Alma gave this great insight into the mysteries of God: “It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
“And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
“And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell” (Alma 12:9–11).
We teach and learn the mysteries of God by revelation from His Holy Spirit. If we harden our hearts to revelation and limit our understanding to what we can obtain by study and reason, we are limited to what Alma called “the lesser portion of the word.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Nourishing the Spirit,” Liahona, Aug 2001, 11 From an address given at Ricks College on 13 February 1996)
3. “Our spiritual power line is strengthened through prayer. As we counsel with God in all our doings, he will direct us for good. (See Alma 37:37.) Prayer is available whenever we ask for it!
But the Lord places the initiative upon us. He expects us to reach for his power, just as we must insert the plug in the outlet for electricity. He said, “If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know the mysteries and peaceable things—that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal.” (D&C 42:61; italics added.) Personal worthiness and scripture study enable us to do more with this power. (Russell M. Nelson, “Protect the Spiritual Power Line,” Ensign, Nov 1984, 30)
4. “During those days of unconsciousness, I was given, by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, a more perfect knowledge of His mission. I was also given a more complete understanding of what it means to exercise, in His name, the authority to unlock the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven for the salvation of all who are faithful.”(David B. Haight, “The Sacrament—and the Sacrifice,” Ensign, Apr 2007, 14–18)
5. “Read and study the scriptures. The scriptures should be studied in the home with fathers and mothers taking the lead and setting the example. The scriptures are to be comprehended by the power of the Holy Ghost, for the Lord has given this promise to His faithful and obedient: “Thou mayest know the mysteries and peaceable things.” (D&C 42:61.)” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Seek the Spirit of the Lord,” Ensign, Apr 1988, 2)
Just a few examples of the Brethren ENCOURAGING members to seek after the mysteries. Not t he other way around.
#72:
And from what I feel, unless my discernment is flawed on this one, the Holy Ghost doesn’t back them up on Adam God.
Was that before, or after Kimball told you not to believe it, “Dude?” Do you suppose official LDS pronouncements just might influence your interpretation of spiritual impressions?
Jeff,
Okay, so my simplistic demonstration didn’t work. The point is, I’ve heard countless times from bishops, stake presidents and general authorities that members of the church should avoid “mysteries” or so-called “deep doctrines,” and focus on the “simple truths” of the gospel. If you’ve seriously never come into contact with this emphasis, you’re very lucky indeed.
Well, first of all, the first time I read crap about Adam God, it never made sense to me. It never felt right to me. I sought for understanding on it for a very long time. President Kimball’s pronouncement certainly factors into the equation of why I feel I’m not deceived in what I feel.
On the other hand I might ask, why is it then that when I feel that then ten tribes are not just scattered, but in a body where they were originally taken captive and never left (i.e in Assyria/Media and surrounding areas), and they are in an apostate condition not on another planet, but on this earth? So why, I ask, is it that I reject Elder McConkie’s teaching on that, that they are all scattered? Or why is it that I reject Joseph Fielding Smith’s teachings on no death before Adam? Or why is it that I reject the Mesoamerican Cumorah theory, yet I reject the teaching that the Narrow Neck was in Panama?
Its because on each one of these things, I’ve carefully weighed the issue, and I’ve carefully sought out the spirit, to believe or disbelieve based on where the evidence is and also, what makes sense according to what I feel the Spirit is telling me. I’m an entirely *ECCLECTIC* believer in this that or the other based on where the spirit has led me. If an authority taught it, and it happens to be true by the Spirit, then I’m there with it. If some authority taught it, and it isn’t true, then I reject it. I have no feelings one way or the other based on what this that or the other guy said about it. Its nice when what they teach is true. But if it isn’t true what they teach, then I dont have any hesitation to reject it. I reject Joseph Smith’s theory of ten tribes on another planet, because the SPIRIT says it isn’t true! This is all personal, and I dont care if anybody else rejects it, but you asked for an explanation. So here it is.
Nick, Actually, my impression is that some leaders simply never ask deity, because they are so steeped in certain traditions that they think deity’s will is already “obvious,” and that it’s superfluous to seek revelation on the subject. Similarly, I think some leaders have such strong personal feelings on an issue that they assume those strong emotions are a confirmation from the Holy Ghost, so again, they don’t ever get around to asking. — you’ve got the truth there.
I was amazed to hear Bruce R. McConkie speak on that very topic, about how that was true for him (and he was pretty much ok with that, because he was sure he was right). That really formed my thinking, because of how many places he was wrong.
The Book of Abraham is not a translation — in the way we usually use the word but it is an endowment text and if you’ve been through a recent Egyptian exhibit with the gods, their stations, the signs, portents and tokens they possess and exchange with mortals, and the book of breathing (and yes, I’ve been reading versions of that since Budge, so I’m aware of what it turned into) as an endowment text, you are going to think that it is something very profound. I’ve a friend, a gospel doctrine teacher, who came back from the traveling King Tut exhibit stunned. Completely changed his perspective on the Book of Abraham.
Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) used “mysteries” the way I do, to talk about the mysteries of godliness, the greatest of which is to encompass and understand and embody the love of God. That is different from the way that many use the term. The peaceable things of God that transform the soul.
Those mysteries are like learning to live in a house, the ones others seek are like trying to understand how bricks are built.
As to Adam-God, Brigham Young was hunting something there, but he came at it a number of different ways (it always amused me that The Adad-God Maze was advertised for so long in BYU publications). I think he had the masks of God backwards, which is why he did not find a resting point on that doctrine. It is a great example of public speculation in the search of understanding, and the problems that sort of thing can cause.
And, yes, I’m quite comfortable with the way the Church seems to be coming to Christ. So many threads of doctrine, so many places to learn and grow, and I think it has.
“I currently see no way your beliefs could actually form into a coherent whole [...] This may just be because you haven’t yet expressed all your beliefs. [...] It’s another thing all together to form your own coherent belief system that doesn’t have it’s own holes.”
Frankly, there is no belief system that has no holes. But I’m glad you are asking this question. Its actually extremely relevant to the central theme of part two of my reconstruction posts. I hope you’ll forgive me for not addressing it here.
Clay — great, a teaser. We need to remind people that there is more to come. I’ve been waiting for the second half of your post.
Going to LDS.org I find “Your search for “leave the mysteries alone” has returned 0 results in All Church Content
To add, I think the point Nick is getting at is perhaps better discussed as to avoid gospel hobbyism and to stop looking beyond the mark. Both of which are discussed but which aren’t quite the same thing as Nick asserts. I think there is caution to avoid undue speculation and to avoid getting so caught up in deep doctrine that one neglects the basics. And that’s very wise counsel. But frankly I’ve never heard anything like what Nick is talking about. And I’d have thought for sure someone would have said something to me after all these years.
What a timely post
http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-peculiar-questions-briefly-answered/
Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered
A letter has been received from Australia propounding some peculiar questions, evidently prompted by persons who desired to provoke controversy rather than to obtain information. This may not have been the motive of the writer of the letter, therefore answers have been sent, brief, but to the point and without detailed explanations. For the benefit of persons who may meet with similar queries but are not familiar with the subjects presented, the questions and replies are published in the IMPROVEMENT ERA, as follows:
Question 1: What is the “New and Everlasting Covenant?”
Answer: The “New and Everlasting Covenant,” referred to in the revelation written July 12, 1843, Doctrine and Covenants, section 132, is the covenant of celestial or eternal marriage “new” to this dispensation, being a matrimonial union for time and all eternity, whereas marriage as previously understood and solemnized in the world was simply until the pair were parted by death.
Question 2: Do you believe that Jesus was married?
Answer: We do not know anything about Jesus Christ being married. The Church has no authoritative declaration on the subject.
Question 3: Do you believe that Adam had more wives than one, either in this world or in the spiritual world?
Answer: We do not know of any wife of Adam excepting Mother Eve.
Question 4: Is plural or celestial marriage essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come?
Answer: Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential.
Question 5: Do you believe that a man who has been polygamously married or married under the law of celestial marriage in your temples, can commit any sin whatever, excepting the shedding of innocent blood, and yet have part and come forth in the first resurrection?
Answer: We believe just what is stated in that revelation concerning persons who have been sealed up unto eternal life but who commit sin that is not declared unpardonable, and in their redemption after they have paid “the uttermost farthing” of the penalty imposed by eternal justice, and have been “delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption.” (See par. 26, also Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:29; I Cor. 5:5.)
Question 6: Can a Latter-day Saint be a true member of the Church and in good standing, who flatly denies the divinity and authenticity of the revelation on plural marriage?
Answer: No one can be counted a true Latter-day Saint who flatly denies the divinity of a revelation accepted as divine by the Church.
Question 7: Supposing that a true Saint has been married the second time-his first wife being dead-he is sealed to both for time and eternity, does this mean that polygamy will exist in the celestial glory?
Answer: If a man has had more than one wife sealed to him for time and eternity, of course it means that if faithful they will be his in celestial glory, as in the case of Abraham and others whose wives were “given to them of the Lord.”
Question 8: Will not a righteous husband and wife, who have fulfilled every other ordinance, be together throughout eternity, although they have not been sealed in a temple?
Answer: Every righteous husband and wife whom “God hath joined together” by his holy ordinance and authority will be one in eternity if they never saw “a temple.” But the ceremonies of men that God has not appointed have an end when men are dead. (Sec. 132:13-18. However, there are means provided for sealing ordinances in behalf of the worthy dead so that none will lose that which they merit.
Question 9: Do you believe in “blood-atonement,” or in other words, do you accept and believe in the principles taught in Brigham Young’s sermon of 8th of February, 1857, Journal of Discourses, volume 4, pages 219, 220?
Answer: We believe in “blood atonement” by the sacrifice of the Savior, also that which is declared in Genesis 9:6. A capital sin committed by a man who has entered into the everlasting covenant merits capital punishment, which is the only atonement he can offer. But the penalty must be executed by an officer legally appointed under the law of the land.
Question 10: Do you believe that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost, as described in Matthew 1:18-20Luke 1:35?
Answer: We believe that Jesus of Nazareth “was the only begotten of the Father.” It is not stated in either text cited that he was “begotten of the Holy Ghost,” and the contrary is described in Luke 1:35. It was the “power of the Highest” that overshadowed Mary, and Jesus was “the Son of the Highest.” The Holy Ghost came upon her, she “conceived” under the influence of that divine Spirit, but Jesus is nowhere declared as the Son of the Holy Ghost, but as “the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14; Heb. 1:5.) Even the sectarian creeds do not fall into the error that beclouds the minds of some apostates, but say of Jesus that He is the Son of God, “conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,” etc.
Question 11: Do you acknowledge that the other factions of the Church held or do hold the authority of the priesthood, inasmuch as they honestly fulfil the law of the Church, so far as they understand it?
Answer: There are no “factions of the Church” which was organized April 6th, 1830, and has continued as an unbroken entity and organism from that day until the present. Those persons who go out from the Church no matter how they may establish themselves or what name they may take are not and cannot be parts of the one Church which Christ set up, nor do they hold authority that he recognizes, for that would be contrary to his own repeated declarations, as well as order and common sense.
Question 12: Baptism for the dead-How do we know which of our deceased relatives are to be baptized for, and how do we know when we are to be baptized for them?
Answer: If instead of “we” the questioner had used the word “you,” we would answer: Often by personal revelation, always by the law of kindred and genealogy, and the direction of those divinely appointed to administer the ordinances commanded. It is not likely that he or those who prompted his queries would know anything about these matters.
Question 13: Should there be more than one temple in use at the same time and why? Please give Biblical evidence.
Answer: Yes. There should be as many temples as may be needed for the immense labors in behalf of the dead, for the hearts of the children who have received of the spirit of Elijah are turned to their deceased ancestors, and the hearts of the fathers are turned to their children who can act as saviors for them upon Mount Zion, without whom they cannot “be made perfect,” and there are millions and millions who are awaiting their redemption. It would not matter if there was not a Biblical reference or allusion to this magnificent subject, any more than there is to the colonization of Australia, or the Constitution of the United States. Some folks ought to hunt through the Bible for their own names to be sure they are alive. But let our inquirer read Malachi 4:5, 6; Heb. 11:39, 40; I Peter 3:18-22; I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 11:26; Philip 2:10, 11; Rev. 20:14etc.
Question 14: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?
Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility.
Question 15: Do you believe that Christ will come to the temple at Salt Lake City, and is Salt Lake City Zion?
Answer: We have no revelation on that matter, nor is it preached or discussed. Any city is Zion that is under control of “the pure in heart.”
Question 16: Why do the elders of your Church use Masonic signs and emblems, and has ‘Mormonism’ anything to do with Free Masonry?
Answer: We might answer: “Because they don’t.” Seriously, Elders or other ministers of the Church, as such, do not use any signs of secret orders. Some of our brethren may be or have been members of the Masonic society, but the Church has no connection with what is called “Free Masonry.”
Question 17: Was Joseph Smith, Jr., a Mason?
Answer: Joseph Smith the Prophet was a Mason.
Question 18: Was Joseph Smith, Jr., a polygamist?
Answer: Joseph Smith introduced and practiced plural marriage. The proofs of this are abundant and complete.
These questions are answered, so that it may not be truthfully claimed that we avoid them. Some of them are not subjects of discussion among the Latter-day Saints, but are brought forward usually by persons who desire to cavil and contend, and rarely from a real desire for information. It is to be hoped that our correspondent is not among that number.
Yours sincerely,
CHARLES W. PENROSE,
Of the First Presidency.
Charles W. Penrose, “Peculiar Questions Answered Briefly,” Improvement Era 15, no. 11 (September 1912):
I’m not sure the cut and paste caught it all (especially since it managed to drop question one the first time and I almost didn’t catch that it was missing).
Okay, I know I’m too late for this party, but I wanted to give my two cents anyhow.
If Millet’s answer didn’t say more than what John quoted (I haven’t listened to the discussion yet) then it is a misrepresentation of what we believe and teach. I am not accusing Millet of intentional misrepresentation, I am merely stating a fact that it is a misrepresentation. We do not go to members of other religions because we don’t know if they are saved or not. We go to them because they are not “saved” from our world view. (“Saved” in the sense of having all truth and access to the celestial kingdom. They may well be “saved” in other senses of the term, including possibly the very way they define that term – I.e. Avoiding hell and going to heaven.) So this answer, by itself, will mislead people from what we really believe, so I have a concern with it.
This is not the same as the answer we discussed about President Hinckley. Forgive the rehash, but this is a very important point to me, for reasons I haven’t had a chance to fully explain. To avoid a rehash, I won’t be responding to people about this post at this time.
The focus of detractors of Mormonism, such as on anti-Mormon sites, as well as some that are on this site (who are not detractors), was on only for the first sentence: “I don’t know that we teach it.” But as was pointed out ad nauseam, Hinckley then goes on to explain himself:
1.” I don’t know that we emphasize it.” This leaves no doubt that we do “teach” it in some sense because you can’t “not emphasize it” without “teaching it.”
2.“I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse.” Another open admission we teach it, though in a de-emphasized and possibly non-canonical way. But it’s an open admission that it was once said in “public discourse.”
3.“I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made.” Another open admission that it’s been taught while reducing the certainty around it’s meaning.
While this answer was sloppy because of the first sentence (I only gave it a 7 out of 10), it’s hard to justify the idea that it’s a misrepresentation without forcibly (and in my opinion, rather unfairly) focusing in on one part of the whole answer. I wouldn’t want to be treated this way and I doubt anyone would, so I have a deep concern here.
It would be an interesting experience to take 100 people that know nothing about Mormonism and let them review this question and answer and see how many come away with an idea that Mormons don’t at all teach, even non-canonically, that God was once a man. This answer may or may not lead to a misunderstanding of what Mormons really believe depending on the individual’s ability to take the answer as a whole. It’s sloppy answer, but it’s not incorrect. And, to me at least, there is an obvious attempt to be honest in an off-the-cuff answer.
I don’t like to assign motives. While I admitted it’s possible that President Hinckley was intentionally trying to mislead with his answer, I really have no reason to justify imputing such a motive to him here. He gets the benefit of the doubt from me. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt in an equivalent situation.
This was the point I previously tried to make, perhaps not so well. I was really looking for someone from the it’s-a-misrepresentation camp to at least admit that it might have just been an on-the-spot answer problem where he did his best to convey his real meaning in a short space and perhaps had to backtrack or explain a bit. (I.e. A sound bite problem.) I was deeply concerned that not a single person from the it’s-a-misrepresentation camp was able to even admit this was a possibility even though it’s obvious that it’s at least a possibility. I was not asking people to change their beliefs, just to admit that they didn’t know for sure. (Especially since I admited I didn’t know for sure. I am still very deeply troubled over this lack of admission and I’m not sure what to make of it. To be honest, it bothers me a lot that this admission wasn’t forth coming.)
By comparison, Millet’s answer shows no signs of backtracking or admission of the truth. I don’t have a concern with him giving this answer so long as he goes on to explain that we also believe we have truths meant for everyone.
In fact, the moment I saw this answer from Millet it reminded me a lot of Dallin H. Oaks now famous talk, “Have You Been Saved?” (link: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=83db605ff590c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1)
It’s not hard to see that this is a possible source of Millet’s answer. He is almost quoting Oaks. But unlike Millet, Oaks goes on to explain himself more fully that we feel we have a message for everyone. I suspect some people will feel that Oak’s answer is still a misrepresentation because he doesn’t give it in a more offensive tone such as “we think we have authority and you don’t” or something like that. But to me, that is an unnecessary part of truthful representation. People that want to require Mormons start with the strange and offensive and move from there certainly don’t hold themselves to that standard. I love Oak’s answer because it really does a good job of representing the full Mormon view on preaching to other religions but avoids being offensive.
Dude,
In response to #18 and various other posts…
I did a quick search on LDS.org for Half-Truths. It is pretty clear that the brethren consider a half-truth to be a lie. I think it is obvious, and you have even stated, that Mr. Millett has told a half-truth.
I, for one, do not believe that the justification of “the ends justify the means” is a good one to use. It is a very slippery slope. It has been used throughout history to justify many atroxious acts (Hitler comes to mind). If you lie to somebody to get them to do what you want them to do, it is STILL wrong. No matter if you think what you are getting them to do is the right thing.
We are asked in our temple recommend interviews “Have you been honest in your dealings with your fellow men”. We are not asked “Have you been honest in your dealings with your fellow men… except in those cases were you told a half-truth in order to be less offending or to get them interested in the church”.
As we have been told from the brethren… half truths are lies… no matter why they are told.
Darrell
Nick,
I am not trying to stick you in the eye for your statement but when you follow it up with this:
“The point is, I’ve heard countless times from bishops, stake presidents and general authorities that members of the church should avoid “mysteries” or so-called “deep doctrines,” and focus on the “simple truths” of the gospel.”
You are correct, the brethren at all levels stress that we should studying our scriptures, pray, do service to others, hold FHE, etc. They also stress that we should humble ourselves before God, repent and seek Christ. If these are the basics, why is that bad?
But, based on the examples I gave, the way to the mysteries and “deep doctrines” is through the basics. The fact is, we are probably much better off following that route then the route many on this blog and many of those who feel so disaffected have taken.
But, you offer no proof that we are told to stay away from deep doctrines.
The focus of detractors of Mormonism, such as on anti-Mormon sites, as well as some that are on this site (who are not detractors), was on only for the first sentence: “I don’t know that we teach it.”
Bruce, there are many who value Mormonism, who are critical of Hinckley’s comments (which, btw, involve more than one interview, more than one reporter, and more than one apologist-twisted quote). In fact, some would say that it’s Hinckley who was a “detractor of Mormonism,” having spent his entire career working to create a new “LDS-ism” that was more palatable to so-called mainstream christianity.
Jeff, I think you’re mixing up two distinct issues, i.e. praxis vs. doctrine. There is no dispute that LDS leaders teach doing the so-called “simple things,” but that’s not what I was talking about. Notice I said simple “truths,” not simple “deeds.”
As for offering “no proof” of LDS leaders telling members to avoid the “deep” doctrines and “mysteries,” At the very least, I’ve offered you first hand witness testimony, from a person who spent 26 years active in the LDS church, and who sat in counsel with bishoprics and stake presidencies on a frequent basis. You can choose to call me a liar, I suppose, but you can’t say I haven’t given you evidence.
I still say that if you’ve seriously never encountered this in the LDS church, you’ve been very, very lucky.
John, I suggest you read Jeff Linday’s “Story of my Lie Chart“
I remember when GBH gave that talk. It shocked the other missionaries too. We wondered when GBH had last read the Fourth Discussion (Eternal Progression) because it seemed pretty clear from the text that we did emphasize ‘it’ and taught it pretty regularly (at least I did). I noticed that it wasn’t too much later that the discussions were discontinued and GBH published ‘Stand for Something’.
I could never bring myself to read his book.
Nick, I think you’re mixing up two distinct issues, i.e. praxis vs. doctrine. There is no dispute that LDS leaders teach doing the so-called “simple things,” but that’s not what I was talking about. Notice I said simple “truths,” not simple “deeds.”
You’re just trying to slip out of what you said and we have shown that it was not the case, at least as far as GA teaching over the pulpit and recorded in the Ensign, etc. obfuscate it all you want.
“As for offering “no proof” of LDS leaders telling members to avoid the “deep” doctrines and “mysteries,” At the very least, I’ve offered you first hand witness testimony, from a person who spent 26 years active in the LDS church, and who sat in counsel with bishoprics and stake presidencies on a frequent basis.”
So, you have said. It is the easy way out. You want me to call you a liar because that would make me the bad guy here and I will not do it. Could it be that you were just mistaken about what was said, simply because it goes against scripture?
Interesting return to the theme of the thread:
http://www.article6blog.com/2008/02/01/article-vi-interviews-the-reverend-cecil-chip-murray/
Darrell, #18:
Let’s review a bit of history for a moment. Joseph Smith once sent an epistle to the newly formed Relief Society in Nauvoo and said in it: “there may be some among you who are not sufficiently skill’d in Masonry to keep a secret….Let this Epistle be had as a private matter in your Society, and we shall learn whether you are good Masons.” How then, shall something be kept a private matter? By keeping a secret. And then of course, in the History of the Church, Joseph is quoted as saying “The secret of masonry is to keep a secret.” Now, if you remember, Joseph Smith’s practices of Plural Marriage were kept very secret. And do you think that this was just done by not saying anything about it? No. It was also vehemently denied that it was so. During the times of the New Plural Marriages from 1890-1904, the authorities of the Church were blatantly denying the practice to the government. They had every intention to continue the practice until it was finally snuffed out when they simply couldn’t get away with it anymore. Its because the importance of that principle at the time trumped both obedience to the laws of man, and it also trumped the principle of telling the whole truth. PERIOD.
Abraham was commanded of the Lord to lie to Pharoah. Nephi deceived Zoram by pretending to be Laban by talking in his voice. Missionaries in my era (1991-1993) would teach the first missionary discussion leaving out the part of the first vision about Joseph Smith being attacked by the Devil. Why? Because why in heavens name would you want to have to answer questions about the devil attacking Joseph Smith in the first discussion? Why was tithing and the law of chastity left until the 4th and 5th discussion. It is all about timing. The importance of saving souls trumps the principle of telling the whole truth at times. It is all about giving them only enough truth at a certain amount of time that they can actually benefit from, not choke on. There are all kinds of exceptions to the rule of telling the whole truth at certain times. I stand by my contention that this is the case. You already reject this, so again, this isn’t something I’m going to lose sleep over. But your absolutism and idealism on this idea that you have to tell the truth at all times and there are never any other principles more important than telling the whole truth is a naive and infantile and plain stupid lack of common sense. And I stand by my use of those words in my description of your lack of good reasoning on this issue.
Woops. The previous message (#96) was meant to be in response to Darrell #88, not #18.
The reality about deception is that the truth always comes out. And in this “information age” it’s much harder to keep secrets.
Most rational people tend to react badly when they find out they have been deceived.
TJM http://vsom.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/navigating-the-minefield/ is an interesting post. Is it lying to children when we teach them about sex and relationships in a particular order?
Jeff, I would have to be mentally incompetent to just be “mistaken” about what I’ve LDS leaders teach over and over. As you note, it goes completely against scripture, and that is part of the reason it irritated me so badly. In many cases, they have cited general authority statements such as the following from Dallin Oaks:
“Another strength Satan can exploit is a strong desire to understand everything about every principle of the gospel. How could that possibly work to our detriment? Experience teaches that if this desire is not disciplined, it can cause some to pursue their searchings beyond the fringes of orthodoxy, seeking answers to obscure mysteries rather than seeking a firmer understanding and a better practice of the basic principles of the gospel. Some seek answers to questions God has not chosen to answer. Others receive answers—or think they receive answers—in ways that are contrary to the order of the Church. For such searchers, Satan stands ready to mislead through sophistry or spurious revelation. Persons who hunger after a full understanding of all things must discipline their questions and their methods, or they can approach apostasy without even knowing it. It may be just as dangerous to exceed orthodoxy as it is to fall short of it. The safety and happiness we are promised lie in keeping the commandments, not in discounting or multiplying them.” (Dallin Oaks, October 1994, Ensign)
Now, arguably these leaders are twisting Oaks’ words. Oaks talks about being careful, yet I’ve sat in many meetings where LDS leaders on the ward and stake level have used Oaks’ words to say that delving beyond “basic” gospel principles is actually a dangerous thing to do.
“Is it lying to children when we teach them about sex and relationships in a particular order?”
Stephen, I don’t think teaching children is analogous to sharing the gospel with adults. If deception isn’t going to be problematic enough, treating them like children will only add to it.
Dude,
I’d like to engage in some dialog with you on this. I believe I am really on your side, but I don’t agree with you in this instance. I do agree with you that some posters on this site take a very black and white view on many issues and that it is very concerning. The real world isn’t as black and white as the stance I see many take here. That being said, I think Millet was wrong to put things the way he did. Let me explain why:
You gave several examples from scripture of God justifying deception. I would agree that deception is not, in and of itself, morally incorrect in all circumstances. If I were hiding Jews in Nazi Germany and I was asked to disclose if I was hiding anyone, you better believe I’d lie about it like a dog and not feel the slightest twinge of guilt over it. Simply Clintonizing my answer (i.e. “I have no Jews for you to take.”) is not sufficient in this case. Stating “no comment” is not either. Lying is the morally correct thing to do. The examples you use from scripture may well be too. I’m certain God is well aware that deception, in rare circumstances, is morally correct.
But is Millet’s circumstance really one of those rare circumstances?
>>> It is all about timing.
I agree with you on this. If this were a 1st discussion and Millet gave this answer with intent to clarify in later discussions once a better framework for the answer was built, I think this answer would probably be valid. Part of “truth” is making sure it’s explained in the right context. This means sometimes you have to explain a lot of other things first before the person is ready for the full answer. God seems to use this approach with His “line upon line” view of revealing truth. Black and white thinkers will accuse God of lying.
But Millet is not working towards a full answer here. There isn’t a plan to follow up later with clarification. This answer looks bad and will harm the Church as it is currently stated.
>>> The importance of saving souls trumps the principle of telling the whole truth at times. It is all about giving them only enough truth at a certain amount of time that they can actually benefit from, not choke on.
Having the right context for something is part of telling the truth. A good example of this is my post about other Christians calling Mormons “non-Christians.” My objection to this isn’t that non-Mormons are labeling or excluding Mormons. This is their right and maybe even duty.
My objection to them calling Mormons “non-Christians” is that they doing it in a deceptive way by removing the context of their statement. What they mean is “Mormons aren’t Christian according to my refined private definition of ‘Christian.’” But what the people, that I used examples of, heard was “Mormons don’t believe in Jesus Christ at all.” This is a clear deception on the Evangelical Christian’s part. (Possibly not intentional.) The fact is… Mormons *aren’t* Christian according to the way some Christians currently define the term: as being only those that believe in the creedal interpretations of the Bible. If that is their private definition of “Christian” sign me (and Jesus for that matter) up as being “non-Christian.”
My sole concern here is that they are asserting their beliefs in a deceptive way. Sadly, some people even try to defend these deceptions, usually why accusing Mormons of deception on far less.
Also note: the Evangelical Christians could defend themselves using the same argument you are using: that salvation matters more than truth. I do not buy that this is a sufficient answer for them, so I don’t buy it’s sufficient for us. (I’ll grant an exception if God reveals it to me to be deceptive, in say, Nephi fashion.)
But I think the real reason I find Millet’s answer deceptive is because Oaks already showed that it was entirely possible to answer this question in a non-deceptive but still appropriate manner. See the link in my post above.
I guess I should add two more points. I do not find it deceptive to give answers that approximate the truth but, because of a lack of time or interest in a full nuanced answer, all the facts don’t come out. This is a practice that we all use at times because of necessity. I dislike dual standards on this point, however. If one use this tactic at times — and we all do — one need to allow others to use it without accusing them of deception. I find this approach only problematic if the “approximate” answer leads the person away from what the person really believe. I find Millet’s answer problematic because of that very reason.
We all know it’s okay to tell people that electrons orbit around the nucleus and then later tell them that they don’t once they are ready for the more advanced view. Approximations of truth are still truth if they help people understand or conceptualize a more complex truth. Millet’s answer fails in this regard because his answer doesn’t really approximate the truth of what we believe.
I don’t even find “spin” deceptive so long as the person stating it really believes in it. E.g. if a democrat politician wants to state that, say, doing away with affirmative action would be bad for minorities but ignores possible counter arguments he/she doesn’t believe in, I do not believe said theoretical person is outside the the demands of truth at all even though they aren’t being fully candid since they aren’t bring up possible counter arguments. If a person had to bring up all possible counter arguments, even ones they don’t believe are valid, to anything they stated, we would basically be unable to state much of anything.
A real life example of this: I once read an article written by Warren Buffet making a case to not reduce capital gains taxes as the Bush administration was doing. His argument was that his secretary pays less taxes than he does if you do away with capital gains tax. I’m sure many of you are familiar with this somewhat famous article. Buffet was not being entirely candid. He completely left out the fact that as a company owner, the company already pays taxes and thus (from this point of view) the Bush tax cut actually made things equal between him and his secretary. Was Buffet lying? Not on your life. He was making a case that he believed in. It was the truth as he understood it. The demands of truth do not require him to explain possible counter arguments he doesn’t believe in.
(On the other hand, “spin” is always deceptive if you are portraying yourself as an unbiased analysis rather than obviously “making a case” as Buffet was.)
I would be hard pressed to say that Millet was just doing “spin” in his answer that represented something he really believed. So I don’t see this as an out for him.
So Dude, what do you think of what I am saying? I just spent a lot of time trying to explain my non-black and white views on “truth” and why I agree with you in many of the examples you use. But did I successfully convince you that Millet’s answer was questionable?
I have no disagreements on the abstract points you are making. I just don’t think they add up to any sort of defense for Millet’s statement.
Dude,
What concerns me about your answer is that you are basically admitting that the Church engages in deception. However, you say that this deception is OK because it is done in order to further the mission of the church. This is spritaually arrogant and is a problem that many “Anti’s” have with the church. FARMS and FAIR try desperately to convince people this is NOT happening.
I believe that the Church should hold itself to the same standard it preaches. It is hypocritical to preach that a “Half-Truth” is a lie and then to say it is OK to do so if it is expedient to the Church’s mission. I personally do not belive that is how Christ operates. The Spirit is what converts people NOT fancy selling techniques or PR campaigns. You do not have to engage in a “PR Campaign” of telling half-truths to save souls. What you are saying is that you have to “reel people in” with “Half-Truths” otherwise they will run the other way. That is not how the Spirit operates.
It almost sound like a car salesman… “I won’t tell then about the wreck this car was in 1 year ago… they’ll find that out after they take it home to try it out for a night. By then they will be sold on the car and then the small fact that the car was in an accident won’t matter”. It all seems very deceptive to me.
If the Church is not willing to hold itself to the same standard it preaches then it definitely loses it’s credibility to a lot of people. This single thing is a large part of why so many people have left the church to begin with.
Darrell
Stephen, thanks for the follow up:
”Is it lying to children when we teach them about sex and relationships in a particular order?”
lying: telling or containing lies; deliberately untruthful; mendacious; false: a lying report.
So the answer to the rhetorical question is no.
I intentionally didn’t use term “lying”, I used the term “deception”. But frankly, when kids find out there is no Santa they tend to react badly.
Bruce (#102) says:
“But Millet is not working towards a full answer here. There isn’t a plan to follow up later with clarification. This answer looks bad and will harm the Church as it is currently stated. . . .”
“So Dude, what do you think of what I am saying? I just spent a lot of time trying to explain my non-black and white views on “truth” and why I agree with you in many of the examples you use. But did I successfully convince you that Millet’s answer was questionable?”
I think Millet is doing the best he can in a messy situation, and I think that nobody can successfully find fault with what he is doing, when he is doing the best he can. See, thats the thing. Every single one of these situations where these types of decisions have to be made are MESSY. That means that sometimes it works to a degree, but it will never work perfectly. It will always be something that people can come back and make accusations about I guess, when found out. But the risk of that is inherent in the nature of what it is. Like it or not, it is MESSY. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right thing to do. Would you say that Jacob should have not deceived and yield his right to the birthright to the wicked Esau, when Esau had previously sold it? Was it not Esau that drove Jacob to HAVE to deceive to preserve the birthright to go to its proper place? Is it not the angel that declared that Jacob would rule over Esau? Just because Esau later wanted to kill Jacob and he had to flee doesn’t mean that Jacob should have yielded. Is it not circumstances that are ugly that DRIVE and COMPEL the NECESSITY of having to resolve to a YUCKY means of securing the desired outcome? Is it better to not get the outcome at all and be perfectly.
I side with Millet and I declare that he is in the right, and he is perfectly justified.
Darrell #103:
Of course FARMS and FAIR are saying it isn’t happening, because they are engaging in the very practice, justifiably so.
You say, “I personally do not belive that is how Christ operates.” Christ is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that commanded Abraham to LIE. Christ is the God that commanded Peter to LIE Three times. Yes, Spencer W. Kimball, the Prophet of the Lord, taught that Christ commanded PETER TO LIE THREE TIMES. It was out of character for Peter to have wimped out! And the only good explanation is that Christ commanded him to lie because it wasn’t his time to DIE! Come on people. USE SOME FREAKING COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!! I’m tired of this plain retardation and lack of good logic.
Dude,
I don’t believe that Christ commanded Peter to Lie… despite what Spencer W. Kimball said. Peter lied by choice… and he wept afterwards because he knew it was wrong.
If the Church is engaging in deception, it is wrong. It is not how the Spirit operates. The Catholic church engaged in deception to cover up the fact that Priests were molesting little children. Was that OK? Was that Lying for the Lord? They thought it was OK because they did it to further the cause of the Lord. Obviously the public disagreed. If we say this is ok we are on a slippery slope. Where will we draw the line? Who is to say when it is Ok to lie and when it isn’t? Call it retardation if you want. I call it a moral backbone.
We will just have to agree to disgaree.
Darrell
I’m very much against deception.
However, But frankly, when kids find out there is no Santa they tend to react badly but if they are taught about St. Nicholas, the dowries, the gold down the chimney and the chance to be like the Saint and to carry the tradition forward they learn a great deal.
Bruce Nielson pretty much covered the area, so I’ll leave it there. It is just that in my line of work I often have two or three things that rest on each other. I have to decide which comes first, which is most important and how to line them up. I don’t see that as deception (and if it is, it doesn’t survive given that there are other attorneys on the other side ready to point out any deception and a judge or judges reviewing it all). But I have to start somewhere, I have to have an ultimate goal, and I need to have points along the way.
“We will just have to agree to disgaree.”
You got that right!
“The Catholic church engaged in deception to cover up the fact that Priests were molesting little children. Was that OK?”
Comeon. Get off it. Use common sense.
Stephen Marsh,
We’ll what do you know! You’re a lawyer! Let me just say that despite all my lawyer jokes,
I have the utmost respect for those that practice that profession according to the ethics of the profession (which I assume is the majority.)
I have to say that I feel that the concept of “making a case,” which is always a one sided affair, is an integral part of truth telling. Of course it depends on context, but in the case of the legal system, we could never have a hope of getting at the truth without having two lawyers both intentionally take the same set of facts and make their best “spun” case to reflect their client’s point of view. (Incidently, this is why I have absolutely no problem with apologists — on either side — even if that isn’t my prefered approach personally. So long as they don’t use deception to intentionally misrepresent their case.)
>>> I have to decide which comes first, which is most important and how to line them up.
I completely agree with this. A *huge* part of truth telling is keeping context. Those that don’t accept this are, in my opinion, not telling the truth at all. (Or at least they are living by a dual standard as they undoubtedly follow that approach for their own beliefs.)
It’s one thing to tell people that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers; a saying carefully formulated to imply that Mormons don’t believe Jesus was uniquely the only begotten and uniquely divine. It’s another thing to say that Mormons believe all of our spirits are children of God. While both of these statements are technically true, one of them is a deception due to the context in which it is stated. Context (and thus order) matter and they matter a lot as to whether someone is deceiving or telling the truth.
Likewise, if I go around telling people that Calvinists (the majority of right wing Christians) believe God doesn’t love everyone, I’m lying even though I believe some of their beliefs might amount to this. Context really does matter. Saying they don’t believe God is loving is a deception. Saying that their views of predestination are, in my opinion, a contradiction to God’s love is not a deception.
Update: Time to shut things down. Thanks, ya’ll.
Drat! I wanted to finish talking to Dude. Dude! Call me! Let’s talk. Oh wait… you can’t. Oh never mind.
Time to shut things down. Thanks, ya’ll.