Question about LDS Church after Smith's death.

[NAOS]

I don't think I am, really.



I don't want to argue because I don't think we're to far apart here, so I'l simplify.


Modern-day Hinduism is a polytheistic faith. On that, we agree.
Modern-day Hinduism is a polytheistic faith that has undergone nationalistic attempts to be homogenous and canonized primarily from British colonial efforts (for various reasons). You proposed this point, and I agree.


You suggest (from my understanding, and maybe I misunderstood) that monotheism intrinsically is a driver towards a monolithic conception of 'truth'. I disagreed here. Primarily because there have been many monotheistic faiths that have avoided our Western conflation of monolithic truths with Abrahamic faiths (think Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Baha'i)-- along with my belief that every religion is contoured and contorted and morphed into a unique interpretation based on the region and the cultural background/backdrop in which they live in.

You seem to be implying (from my understanding) that modern-day polytheism in nations such as India have become more preoccupied with a monolithic conception of truth, because they have been forced unto them by British Colonialism-- which uses this monolithic truth-conception of Christianity to force it onto other controllers. I argue that this monolithic pursuit of faith is characteristic of European monotheism as is presently constituted-- but that there isn't anything intrinsic to polytheistic, or monotheistic faiths that makes them more preoccupied with one single definition of truth, or multiple definitions of truth. This is my point that I'm trying to argue.

Those sorts of things are more representative of leaders trying to ascertain political control of expanding regions, as canonizing heterogenous religious identity into something monolithic will nurture an expanding group identity that rules can exploit. We see this certainly in Islam, a faith which started out very heterogenous but has grown to become growingly monolithic as powerful factions deem their interpretations as the only 'correct ones'

I think we are far apart on the principle argument I've put forward -- mainly because you keep mischaracterizing that argument.

You extrapolate way too much from my comments on Hinduism. That was an example that you put forward and I found preposterous. You've taken my rebuttal and run a really long ways with certain implications in it. I could engage you further on what you said about Hinduism, but I hesitate because it seems that the argument will spin further out of shape.

I don't SUGGEST, I claim quite plainly that monotheisms are intrinsically drivers toward monolithic models of truth. Then I provided an (internet-message-board level) example to support my claim. Without refuting it, you put forward modern-day Hinduism (again), along with the error that religious structures mold themselves to the cultural backdrop in which they find themselves (an argument that wouldn't pass muster in undergraduate social science classes because of its reliance on categorical thinking; religious structures are not categorically distinct/separate from "cultural backdrops"... if you find a story to support this argument, then all you've found is a way to justify the categorical imperative that you started out with).

Anyway, those are the two points of disagreement that we found early on in this discussion. And we still have them.

I've never said that monotheisms are the ONLY drivers toward monolithic models of truth... and it seems like you want to paint me into that corner. Nor have I said that monotheisms produce static models of truth. You're getting the wrong impression if you think I see them as spitting out one static truth that is consciously understood by its adherents. I've said that the catchment for possible truths is exceptionally small. I'll go further and say that monotheism's adherents -- through practice -- are unconsciously induced to sense and then (re)derive possible truths. These possible truths are under constant variation (like everything), but the catchment remains small and inductions remain highly derivative.

 

[babe]

/thread


#shotsfired

So I just read this note in the thread from days ago.

According to Joseph Smith, in his "Inspired" KJV revision, God knows us pretty good. The parable is given about The Kingdom being left to stewards, and after many days God sends his servants to reap the harvest, but the stewards run them out of the "vineyard", thinking to keep the "Kingdom" in their own hands. After killing and/or running off many servants, God finally decides to send His Son, thinking perhaps the stewards will reverence His Son. But the stewards conspire, saying "this is the heir, let's kill Him and everything will be ours", and do. Jesus told this parable to the chief priests and leaders of the Jewish faith in His days, and it made them mad, and they really did kill Him.
But the parable doesn't end there, it alludes to the same sequence of events recurring in the last days, and the Kingdom again being reorganized by God. So whatever "church" there is, with whatever authorities it might have, is apparently a sort of addictive power trip for humans given this stewardship, and God knows He'll need to do something about it all at some critical point in time.

I think the story is a caution about idolatry with organized churches and statist human management generally. . . . .Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Our convictions and ideals have somewhat the same character when we substitute our understanding for the actual being who is God.

Cliff Note version: There is a reason why "faith" amid valid uncertainties is the best way for us to make our way in life. It's really the only mode where God can teach us and lead us. And it makes it pretty clear that if we do choose to try to believe in God and do the best we know, it is because we do in the most fundamental sense just love God "for loves' sake only", as Elizabeth Barrett Browning penned her poem about true love.

 

[Dr. Jones]

So I just read this note in the thread from days ago.

According to Joseph Smith, in his "Inspired" KJV revision, God knows us pretty good. The parable is given about The Kingdom being left to stewards, and after many days God sends his servants to reap the harvest, but the stewards run them out of the "vineyard", thinking to keep the "Kingdom" in their own hands. After killing and/or running off many servants, God finally decides to send His Son, thinking perhaps the stewards will reverence His Son. But the stewards conspire, saying "this is the heir, let's kill Him and everything will be ours", and do. Jesus told this parable to the chief priests and leaders of the Jewish faith in His days, and it made them mad, and they really did kill Him.
But the parable doesn't end there, it alludes to the same sequence of events recurring in the last days, and the Kingdom again being reorganized by God. So whatever "church" there is, with whatever authorities it might have, is apparently a sort of addictive power trip for humans given this stewardship, and God knows He'll need to do something about it all at some critical point in time.

I think the story is a caution about idolatry with organized churches and statist human management generally. . . . .Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Our convictions and ideals have somewhat the same character when we substitute our understanding for the actual being who is God.

Cliff Note version: There is a reason why "faith" amid valid uncertainties is the best way for us to make our way in life. It's really the only mode where God can teach us and lead us. And it makes it pretty clear that if we do choose to try to believe in God and do the best we know, it is because we do in the most fundamental sense just love God "for loves' sake only", as Elizabeth Barrett Browning penned her poem about true love.

I'm confused. Does the LDS church have their own revised KJV of the Bible? I know you said it but I was unaware.
Also, from where are you quoting the parable?

 

[babe]

I'm confused. Does the LDS church have their own revised KJV of the Bible? I know you said it but I was unaware.
Also, from where are you quoting the parable?

Yes, but it doesn't get much attention anymore. Joseph Smith made a major project of it, though. I'd have to look up the chapter and verse. The parable I refer to is several verses, and most of it is in your Bible. It occurs very late in the Gospels, a few days maybe a week at most before the death of Jesus, about the time of Lazarus' illness. Luke 9:9-19; Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12. Joseph Smith added two verses clearly stating that there would be a parallel event in the last days.

 

[colton]

I'm confused. Does the LDS church have their own revised KJV of the Bible? I know you said it but I was unaware.
Also, from where are you quoting the parable?

Joseph Smith started a "translation" of the Bible, but didn't finish it before he died. I put "translation" I quotes because although it's often called the Joseph Smith Translation (or JST), he wasn't really translating it from source material. It is sometimes also called an "inspired version", which I think is a better description. Most of the changes from KJV are adding or switching words here or there in order to better fit doctrine. For example, in the Old Testament where it says the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, Joseph Smith changed it to read that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. The official LDS church published scriptures uses the regular KJV text but has selections from Smith's inspired version as footnotes and an appendix.

Mixed in with that type of thing are a couple of items that came about during his translation, that we accept as full revelations, and those are included in the Pearl of Great Price (small canonical book of scripture in case your are unfamiliar worth it, kind of a supplement to the Doctrine and Covenants). Those include more info on Moses and more info on Matthew 24.

 

[NAOS]

So I just read this note in the thread from days ago.

According to Joseph Smith, in his "Inspired" KJV revision, God knows us pretty good. The parable is given about The Kingdom being left to stewards, and after many days God sends his servants to reap the harvest, but the stewards run them out of the "vineyard", thinking to keep the "Kingdom" in their own hands. After killing and/or running off many servants, God finally decides to send His Son, thinking perhaps the stewards will reverence His Son. But the stewards conspire, saying "this is the heir, let's kill Him and everything will be ours", and do. Jesus told this parable to the chief priests and leaders of the Jewish faith in His days, and it made them mad, and they really did kill Him.
But the parable doesn't end there, it alludes to the same sequence of events recurring in the last days, and the Kingdom again being reorganized by God. So whatever "church" there is, with whatever authorities it might have, is apparently a sort of addictive power trip for humans given this stewardship, and God knows He'll need to do something about it all at some critical point in time.

I think the story is a caution about idolatry with organized churches and statist human management generally. . . . .Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Our convictions and ideals have somewhat the same character when we substitute our understanding for the actual being who is God.

Cliff Note version: There is a reason why "faith" amid valid uncertainties is the best way for us to make our way in life. It's really the only mode where God can teach us and lead us. And it makes it pretty clear that if we do choose to try to believe in God and do the best we know, it is because we do in the most fundamental sense just love God "for loves' sake only", as Elizabeth Barrett Browning penned her poem about true love.

This is one of the best uses of a religious text for an argument against the over-rationalization of God/creation that I've read in a while. Transcendental-Pastoral Mormonism... babe at his best. About as far as this board gets, while staying with Christian affects, from Hantlers and his transitive property.

My favorite thing about how some sweat lodges are run is after you've poured water and made your incantations to the ancestors (etc., etc.), is at the end, when you have a moment of silence dedicated to the great mystery of creation.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Joseph Smith started a "translation" of the Bible, but didn't finish it before he died. I put "translation" I quotes because although it's often called the Joseph Smith Translation (or JST), he wasn't really translating it from source material. It is sometimes also called an "inspired version", which I think is a better description. Most of the changes from KJV are adding or switching words here or there in order to better fit doctrine. For example, in the Old Testament where it says the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, Joseph Smith changed it to read that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. The official LDS church published scriptures uses the regular KJV text but has selections from Smith's inspired version as footnotes and an appendix.

Mixed in with that type of thing are a couple of items that came about during his translation, that we accept as full revelations, and those are included in the Pearl of Great Price (small canonical book of scripture in case your are unfamiliar worth it, kind of a supplement to the Doctrine and Covenants). Those include more info on Moses and more info on Matthew 24.

Thanks, C.

So with all the "a translation of a translation of a translation" that I always hear from LDS folks, is this different because JS was inspired and everyone else wasn't? (Of course I mean from the LDS perspective.)

 

[Dr. Jones]

This is one of the best uses of a religious text for an argument against the over-rationalization of God/creation that I've read in a while. Transcendental-Pastoral Mormonism... babe at his best. About as far as this board gets, while staying with Christian affects, from Hantlers and his transitive property.

My favorite thing about how some sweat lodges are run is after you've poured water and made your incantations to the ancestors (etc., etc.), is at the end, when you have a moment of silence dedicated to the great mystery of creation.

Seems like an odd response to a post that basically said have faith for the sake of having faith and believing what you will with or without evidence.
Without this obvious tenet what use is even having the word faith as part of our language?
Is there any language that exists that lacks this word/ideal from its normal course of life?

 

[RandyForRubio]

I'm still giggling that NAOS thinks calling me a legalistic is an insult.









Jesus was a legalistic.

 

[NAOS]

I'm still giggling that NAOS thinks calling me a legalistic is an insult.









Jesus was a legalistic.

I do think that.






I know.

 

[NAOS]

Seems like an odd response to a post that basically said have faith for the sake of having faith and believing what you will with or without evidence.
Without this obvious tenet what use is even having the word faith as part of our language?
Is there any language that exists that lacks this word/ideal from its normal course of life?

sorry, braugh, I'm not really sure what you're asking.

 

[Dr. Jones]

sorry, braugh, I'm not really sure what you're asking.

Not a question directed to anyone in particular... Just the musings of an amusing fella.

 

[colton]

Thanks, C.

So with all the "a translation of a translation of a translation" that I always hear from LDS folks, is this different because JS was inspired and everyone else wasn't? (Of course I mean from the LDS perspective.)

First, the whole "translation of a translation of a translation" thing is just plain wrong, in my opinion. As I posted recently (earlier in this thread? not sure), the word "translate" in Joseph Smith's day didn't necessarily mean "render from one language to another", it also meant "To transfer; to convey". See https://sorabji.com/1828/words/t/translate.html. And that is a much better description of how we view the Bible--we believe it to be correct, as far as it has been conveyed correctly from the apostles & prophets to us. In my opinion the main problematic step was going from the apostles' & prophets' words to the initial manuscripts, not the translation of the initial manuscripts from Greek & Hebrew into English.

Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine. That's directed more towards the LDS readers, not towards you.

But yes, the LDS view is typically that Joseph Smith was doing his version of the Bible under the inspiration of God, and therefore it fixes some of the lost/changed material in the Bible. And most LDS probably view it as being more correct than the KJV by itself. My own view tends to be a little more skeptical. It was a work in progress when Smith died, and he never presented it to the church as a completed document. Therefore (with a few exceptions) to me Smith's inspired version doesn't meet the standard of canon. The whole project seems mainly to have been a trigger for revelations to Smith that we have in the Doctrine and Covenants, which we do accept as canon. I don't have the number offhand, but there are probably 20-40 revelations in the Doctrine in Covenants whose prefaces say things like "Revelation given to Joseph Smith as he was working on the translation of the Bible." See the preface to D&C section 76 as one famous example: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76

 

[Deleted member 848]

I think we are far apart on the principle argument I've put forward -- mainly because you keep mischaracterizing that argument.

You extrapolate way too much from my comments on Hinduism. That was an example that you put forward and I found preposterous. You've taken my rebuttal and run a really long ways with certain implications in it. I could engage you further on what you said about Hinduism, but I hesitate because it seems that the argument will spin further out of shape.

I don't SUGGEST, I claim quite plainly that monotheisms are intrinsically drivers toward monolithic models of truth. Then I provided an (internet-message-board level) example to support my claim. Without refuting it, you put forward modern-day Hinduism (again), along with the error that religious structures mold themselves to the cultural backdrop in which they find themselves (an argument that wouldn't pass muster in undergraduate social science classes because of its reliance on categorical thinking; religious structures are not categorically distinct/separate from "cultural backdrops"... if you find a story to support this argument, then all you've found is a way to justify the categorical imperative that you started out with).

I also mentioned other monotheistic faiths that aren't characterized with the Abrahamic-pursuit of monolithic truth. You ignored those, from what I gather. I also haven't gone in detail with the interaction between society and religion when it encounters a new one, as I don't really have the time to dive deeply into it. We can leave it at that, and agree to disagree.

Anyway, those are the two points of disagreement that we found early on in this discussion. And we still have them.

I've never said that monotheisms are the ONLY drivers toward monolithic models of truth... and it seems like you want to paint me into that corner. Nor have I said that monotheisms produce static models of truth. You're getting the wrong impression if you think I see them as spitting out one static truth that is consciously understood by its adherents. I've said that the catchment for possible truths is exceptionally small. I'll go further and say that monotheism's adherents -- through practice -- are unconsciously induced to sense and then (re)derive possible truths. These possible truths are under constant variation (like everything), but the catchment remains small and inductions remain highly derivative.

And to me, that's less a character of something as broad as 'monotheism', and more telling of either human nature, or the societal backdrop (which may, or may not include the religion of the region) of that community. I'd go more in detail, but I'm honestly pretty busy and it just seems like we're going to butt heads on this.

 

[LogGrad98]

First, the whole "translation of a translation of a translation" thing is just plain wrong, in my opinion. As I posted recently (earlier in this thread? not sure), the word "translate" in Joseph Smith's day didn't necessarily mean "render from one language to another", it also meant "To transfer; to convey". See https://sorabji.com/1828/words/t/translate.html. And that is a much better description of how we view the Bible--we believe it to be correct, as far as it has been conveyed correctly from the apostles & prophets to us. In my opinion the main problematic step was going from the apostles' & prophets' words to the initial manuscripts, not the translation of the initial manuscripts from Greek & Hebrew into English.

Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine. That's directed more towards the LDS readers, not towards you.

But yes, the LDS view is typically that Joseph Smith was doing his version of the Bible under the inspiration of God, and therefore it fixes some of the lost/changed material in the Bible. And most LDS probably view it as being more correct than the KJV by itself. My own view tends to be a little more skeptical. It was a work in progress when Smith died, and he never presented it to the church as a completed document. Therefore (with a few exceptions) to me Smith's inspired version doesn't meet the standard of canon. The whole project seems mainly to have been a trigger for revelations to Smith that we have in the Doctrine and Covenants, which we do accept as canon. I don't have the number offhand, but there are probably 20-40 revelations in the Doctrine in Covenants whose prefaces say things like "Revelation given to Joseph Smith as he was working on the translation of the Bible." See the preface to D&C section 76 as one famous example: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76

I remember a seminary teacher who was deep into the historical facts that coincide with the Bible. He pointed out, and now I can't remember the exact passages, places where the archaeological record suggested the numbers listed in parts of the OT were wrong, or incorrectly recorded. Something like enough soldiers listed as having died in a battle that really would have wiped out more than the entire population of that region at that time, let alone just that number of soldiers. He described it as possibly being scribes rewriting ancient texts to convey them and seeing 500 people having died in a battle, and thinking "well it must have been more than that" and adding a 0 to make it a more respectable 5000, or something along those lines. Or thinking that the people of the lord slaying 50,000 carried more weight than if they only killed 5,000. Or even conversely dropping a 0, maybe just an ancient typo, so to speak. He had a pretty persuasive argument really. It made sense.

 

[Dr. Jones]

First, the whole "translation of a translation of a translation" thing is just plain wrong, in my opinion. As I posted recently (earlier in this thread? not sure), the word "translate" in Joseph Smith's day didn't necessarily mean "render from one language to another", it also meant "To transfer; to convey". See https://sorabji.com/1828/words/t/translate.html. And that is a much better description of how we view the Bible--we believe it to be correct, as far as it has been conveyed correctly from the apostles & prophets to us. In my opinion the main problematic step was going from the apostles' & prophets' words to the initial manuscripts, not the translation of the initial manuscripts from Greek & Hebrew into English.

Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine. That's directed more towards the LDS readers, not towards you.

But yes, the LDS view is typically that Joseph Smith was doing his version of the Bible under the inspiration of God, and therefore it fixes some of the lost/changed material in the Bible. And most LDS probably view it as being more correct than the KJV by itself. My own view tends to be a little more skeptical. It was a work in progress when Smith died, and he never presented it to the church as a completed document. Therefore (with a few exceptions) to me Smith's inspired version doesn't meet the standard of canon. The whole project seems mainly to have been a trigger for revelations to Smith that we have in the Doctrine and Covenants, which we do accept as canon. I don't have the number offhand, but there are probably 20-40 revelations in the Doctrine in Covenants whose prefaces say things like "Revelation given to Joseph Smith as he was working on the translation of the Bible." See the preface to D&C section 76 as one famous example: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76

Thanks for the explanation. I do from time to time like to step back and question things I have been repeatedly told as perhaps not being the general consensus among LDS.

OT: one thing that bothers me about communicating with LDS (not that this is exclusive to LDS by any means) is this; I have partners that are bishops and a stake president. I am close with them and consider them friends as much as biz partners. They will often tell me "what LDS believe", in very specific terms on a very isolated subject matter. Let's say it's a known and somewhat controversial topic within the LDS faith. I later broach the topic with someone else that I know to be LDS, known to also be somewhat scholarly and committed, but they say, "whomever told you that is just wrong and don't know what they're talking about." I realize people think and feel differently from person to person, but what it feels like, to me, is that once someone knows and trusts you, when they know you mean no harm or malice, they tell you the truth. Very guarded otherwise. Fine, but it comes off very disenguous and like there's things that are intentionally hidden. Happens all the time or I wouldn't bring it up. And I only do now to say you never seem to do this. You don't seem to be afraid of being completely devout while also thinking critically, with your spirit, if you will, and let it be known when you have a question about something. Much appreciated.

 

[NAOS]

I also mentioned other monotheistic faiths that aren't characterized with the Abrahamic-pursuit of monolithic truth. You ignored those, from what I gather. I also haven't gone in detail with the interaction between society and religion when it encounters a new one, as I don't really have the time to dive deeply into it. We can leave it at that, and agree to disagree.

...."mention[ing] other faiths" in such a brief and passing fashion that they didn't constitute anything beyond a vague sense. So vague, that they don't budge the point I'm trying to make (unfortunately). If you care to expand, then I'm happy to read what you write. My original point certainly wasn't limited to Abrahamic "pursuits."

The examples that you have given of a society "encounter[ing] and new [religion]" have been far from convincing. It is impossible, for example, to have such clear boundaries of cause and effect anywhere where Islamic and Christian forms encounter one another; they are too similar in every sense. You could look at modern colonial encounters for more stark encounters, but in every such project I am aware of, there were waves of Christian missionary activity doing its part to render truth in monolithic terms. Also, even if you try to remove these waves from your analysis of cultural change in colonial places (a seriously flawed tactic), you have to keep in mind that Judeo-Christian values had already captured the law codes of the colonizing powers, thus making a 'religion-free' analysis impossible.

Maybe you could look at the encounters of Native American populations and Anglo-settler populations of the 16th thru 19th centuries (depending on the location). For evidence that might fit your argument, you could track changes in cultural myths, combing for alterations in moralizing messages, etc. I only know a little bit about this stuff, but there has been work done. I can tell you that in the case of the Paiute (like many other tribes) the anglo settlers brought disease, economic collapse, and other serious forces upon their way of life, and this resulted in less nuanced (i.e. more starkly rendered) myths. One might even say they contained more monolithic models of truth. So what's the cause of this?

And to me, that's less a character of something as broad as 'monotheism', and more telling of either human nature, or the societal backdrop (which may, or may not include the religion of the region) of that community. I'd go more in detail, but I'm honestly pretty busy and it just seems like we're going to butt heads on this.

I'm going to say quite confidently that there's nothing inherent in human nature that impels us toward monolithic truths. Human nature may have taken a turn in that direction with the emergence of Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, which are are essentially State religions* that have had powerful political-military backing, but there is still an overabundance of play with meaning and multiplicity of truths operating everywhere. The catchment-closing powers of these conglomerates are limited. Also, braugh, you seriously have to drop the distinction between "cultural backdrop" and "religion." It's wicked bad. Can you name a single example of a cultural backdrop that has no "religious" component? Why must we continue with lazy categorical thoughts? Who taught you to think this way about these phenomena?


*the likes of which had never been seen before in human history... the fruits of the 'Axial Age'.

 

[Archie Moses]

Thanks for the explanation. I do from time to time like to step back and question things I have been repeatedly told as perhaps not being the general consensus among LDS.

OT: one thing that bothers me about communicating with LDS (not that this is exclusive to LDS by any means) is this; I have partners that are bishops and a stake president. I am close with them and consider them friends as much as biz partners. They will often tell me "what LDS believe", in very specific terms on a very isolated subject matter. Let's say it's a known and somewhat controversial topic within the LDS faith. I later broach the topic with someone else that I know to be LDS, known to also be somewhat scholarly and committed, but they say, "whomever told you that is just wrong and don't know what they're talking about." I realize people think and feel differently from person to person, but what it feels like, to me, is that once someone knows and trusts you, when they know you mean no harm or malice, they tell you the truth. Very guarded otherwise. Fine, but it comes off very disenguous and like there's things that are intentionally hidden. Happens all the time or I wouldn't bring it up. And I only do now to say you never seem to do this. You don't seem to be afraid of being completely devout while also thinking critically, with your spirit, if you will, and let it be known when you have a question about something. Much appreciated.

I get what you're saying here. I think a lot of members are defensive and play the "that's wrong card" because of all the anti-mormon half-truths, bad journalism, tv shows, and just being ignorant because they feel they know everything about the church's doctrine and history.

 

[bigb]

Thanks for the explanation. I do from time to time like to step back and question things I have been repeatedly told as perhaps not being the general consensus among LDS.

OT: one thing that bothers me about communicating with LDS (not that this is exclusive to LDS by any means) is this; I have partners that are bishops and a stake president. I am close with them and consider them friends as much as biz partners. They will often tell me "what LDS believe", in very specific terms on a very isolated subject matter. Let's say it's a known and somewhat controversial topic within the LDS faith. I later broach the topic with someone else that I know to be LDS, known to also be somewhat scholarly and committed, but they say, "whomever told you that is just wrong and don't know what they're talking about." I realize people think and feel differently from person to person, but what it feels like, to me, is that once someone knows and trusts you, when they know you mean no harm or malice, they tell you the truth. Very guarded otherwise. Fine, but it comes off very disenguous and like there's things that are intentionally hidden. Happens all the time or I wouldn't bring it up. And I only do now to say you never seem to do this. You don't seem to be afraid of being completely devout while also thinking critically, with your spirit, if you will, and let it be known when you have a question about something. Much appreciated.

I think a lot of what people say we "believe" is based more on word of mouth than actual doctrine. They hear we believe, so they think it's true rather than investigate it all and actually find out for themselves.

 

[b_line]

Thanks for the explanation. I do from time to time like to step back and question things I have been repeatedly told as perhaps not being the general consensus among LDS.

OT: one thing that bothers me about communicating with LDS (not that this is exclusive to LDS by any means) is this; I have partners that are bishops and a stake president. I am close with them and consider them friends as much as biz partners. They will often tell me "what LDS believe", in very specific terms on a very isolated subject matter. Let's say it's a known and somewhat controversial topic within the LDS faith. I later broach the topic with someone else that I know to be LDS, known to also be somewhat scholarly and committed, but they say, "whomever told you that is just wrong and don't know what they're talking about." I realize people think and feel differently from person to person, but what it feels like, to me, is that once someone knows and trusts you, when they know you mean no harm or malice, they tell you the truth. Very guarded otherwise. Fine, but it comes off very disenguous and like there's things that are intentionally hidden. Happens all the time or I wouldn't bring it up. And I only do now to say you never seem to do this. You don't seem to be afraid of being completely devout while also thinking critically, with your spirit, if you will, and let it be known when you have a question about something. Much appreciated.

On the same subject, I find that people in the LDS church sometimes have very different ways of belief from their LDS neighbors. For example, my parents live almost a completely different religion, one that is much more superstitious, than I do, and they are members of the same church. I think a certain amount of your experiences with LDS members having contrary viewpoints to other mormon friends probably comes from members believing differently.

Also, there is a fair amount of change in the LDS church going on right now, and different "fundamental" and "progressive" factions forming. It is an interesting time to be a Mormon, especially a young one.