Lack of inoculation takes another

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Wow. I think the fundamental premise of Tex's paradigm has finally been revealed, and the reason Tex is so at odds with some of the rest of us. Tex isn't going to convince the Dude, and the Dude's not going to convince Tex.

Personally, I think the "sit back and wait for God to reveal knowledge" perspective is damaging to the search for truth, but I guess that's just me. I'd always thought God wanted us to seek knowledge through scholarship. A worldview that discourages scholarship and learning is distasteful to me.

Originally Posted by Archaea

That is an amazingly different worldview, that God only reveals and man can know nothing, and is really simple variation of Nietzsche's nihilistic worldview that man can know virtually nothing.

I barely have the patience to respond to this garbage, especially in light of my specifically having said:

Originally Posted by Tex

Those wishing to evaluate the church on a scholarly basis can approach it that way if they wish, and that's fine.

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not being critical of the scholarly approach that demands as complete and accurate a picture as possible. Facts are facts.

...

Does that mean we can never learn about these matters? Again, no. I enjoyed the DOM book despite my criticisms, and so far I've enjoyed what little of Bushman I've had time to read. It's interesting, and it can be instructive.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Classic. Accuse me of using overwrought drama to end threads in the first sentence and then do precisely that in the second sentence.

You have to admit, this one was a whopper:

"I'm using my powers of reason to infer that if he wanted us to know that, he would reveal it. Since he hasn't, I'm left with the conclusion that he doesn't."

I am still shaking my head over that one. It is self-serving logic like this that makes me question your intellectual honesty sometimes.

Once again, what makes you think that he hasn't revealed the truth behind the ban to individuals through a combination of study and promptings? How do you know he hasn't provided wisdom and comfort to thousands of people to whom this is a significant issue (AA members as the most obvious example)? Yet again you condemn or deny the possibility of individual thought and inspiration that is not fully in line with your ultra-orthodox views.

It's a "whopper" and "self-serving" logic that leaves me with questionable intellectual honesty, eh? Gee, that's not overwrought drama language. How could I possibly have misjudged you.

I believe there are many hard-to-understand doctrines/events in scripture and church history whose full purpose and meaning can only be discovered by revelation. You're welcome to disagree with that hypothesis--I won't accuse you of whopping, self-serving, intellectual dishonesty--but I think there's solid support for it in scripture.

The priesthood ban is just one of these. You can be the most brilliant man to ever walk the earth, with all the learning and research tools that the 21st century has to offer, and still not discover the purposes of God.

Remember, the ban was rescinded by revelation. It wasn't a bunch of scholars who got together and persuaded Kimball and Co. that it needed to be removed. Instead, it came by pleading and petition of many prophets throughout several decades (assuming the DOM book is to be believed).

If you think you can figure it out, more power to you. If somehow that puts your mind at ease and makes your testimony easier to bear, more power to you. I think it's a misplaced notion. But I won't actually say so until I start hearing folks saying they think the church ought to accommodate that misplaced notion, to the extent of getting quite nasty.

[Archaea]

Tex please reconcile:

Sure, it's possible. I'm using my powers of reason to infer that if he wanted us to know that, he would reveal it. Since he hasn't, I'm left with the conclusion that he doesn't.

If you're suggesting that God intends it to be revealed through scholarship, I'm going to really disagree with you on that.

with

Those wishing to evaluate the church on a scholarly basis can approach it that way if they wish, and that's fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
I'm not being critical of the scholarly approach that demands as complete and accurate a picture as possible. Facts are facts.

...

Does that mean we can never learn about these matters? Again, no. I enjoyed the DOM book despite my criticisms, and so far I've enjoyed what little of Bushman I've had time to read. It's interesting, and it can be instructive.

It seems you are saying that God won't reveal through scholarship, but people may resort to whatever they wish.

And then you elevate your ability to reason above scholarship. And revelation above that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Major props for responding to a quote referencing "the Dude" with a comment about nihilists.

LOL.

"Say what you will about national socialism, dude. At least it's an ethos."

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Tex please reconcile:



with



It seems you are saying that God won't reveal through scholarship, but people may resort to whatever they wish.

And then you elevate your ability to reason above scholarship. And revelation above that.

Hugh B. Brown taught that revelation could come through scholarship.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's a "whopper" and "self-serving" logic that leaves me with questionable intellectual honesty, eh? Gee, that's not overwrought drama language. How could I possibly have misjudged you.

I believe there are many hard-to-understand doctrines/events in scripture and church history whose full purpose and meaning can only be discovered by revelation. You're welcome to disagree with that hypothesis--I won't accuse you of whopping, self-serving, intellectual dishonesty--but I think there's solid support for it in scripture.

The priesthood ban is just one of these. You can be the most brilliant man to ever walk the earth, with all the learning and research tools that the 21st century has to offer, and still not discover the purposes of God.

Remember, the ban was rescinded by revelation. It wasn't a bunch of scholars who got together and persuaded Kimball and Co. that it needed to be removed. Instead, it came by pleading and petition of many prophets throughout several decades (assuming the DOM book is to be believed).

If you think you can figure it out, more power to you. If somehow that puts your mind at ease and makes your testimony easier to bear, more power to you. I think it's a misplaced notion. But I won't actually say so until I start hearing folks saying they think the church ought to accommodate that misplaced notion, to the extent of getting quite nasty.

Ironically, a little more research would shed some more light on this topic. The DOM bio is a great start, but you most definitely fudging on the facts when you say that there was "pleading by many prophets over several decades".

Such research would lead you to discover that the church came very close recently to issuing a formal apology. You may also discover that top church leaders are much less likely (if ever) to say ("God must have had his reasons"). Now we are getting quotes like this:

Elder Child said he doesn't recall that his missionaries encountered "any problem with someone asking" about why the priesthood ban existed or the folklore that was used to explain why it endured for almost 150 years within the church.

"When you think about it, that's just what it is — folklore. It's never really been official doctrine. I know there have been some misconceptions and some statements made by people in the past, but as Elder (Bruce R.) McConkie said, we've received new and additional light and knowledge through revelation, and even the folklore is obsolete now because of the fact that we have the revelation."

He said he doesn't know of specific efforts to remove erroneous material from LDS publications. Church spokesman Mark Tuttle said the church "can't remove it from our history books, and that's mostly where it is." "We have to keep in mind that it's folklore and not doctrine," Elder Child said. "It's never been recorded as such. Many opinions, personal opinions, were spoken. I'm just so grateful for this revelation," he said, adding he can recall exactly where he was and what he was doing when he heard the news 30 years ago.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...232679,00.html

Notice the conspicuous absence of "We don't know why God did it".

And yet Tex sits around waiting for a revelation from God that would overturn the folklore.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Ironically, a little more research would shed some more light on this topic. The DOM bio is a great start, but you most definitely fudging on the facts when you say that there was "pleading by many prophets over several decades".

Such research would lead you to discover that the church came very close recently to issuing a formal apology. You may also discover that top church leaders are much less likely (if ever) to say ("God must have had his reasons"). Now we are getting quotes like this:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...232679,00.html

Notice the conspicuous absence of "We don't know why God did it".

And yet Tex sits around waiting for a revelation from God that would overturn the folklore.

Perhaps "pleading" is too strong a word. The DOM book makes it clear that McKay did ask, while also noting that both Grant and Lee felt that a revelation was required to change it (as opposed to simple fiat).

But I don't want to wade too far back into the blacks/priesthood tall grass. We've been over this territory a thousand times already and it's redundant.

If we could return to the original topic ... I'd rather to stick with the ban as just an example of broader concept: that understanding the whereto's and the whyfor's is unnecessary for a strong testimony. Or further, that spending disproportionate focus on those things (in the noble name of "inoculation") can actually weaken faith.

Your thesis here, if I understand it correctly (I'm trying to be fair here), is that more scholarship, more information, more research can only be a good thing. Beyond that, you believe it is inevitable anyway, due to the speedy methods of disseminating knowledge these days. Thus, the church should not only accommodate, but facilitate.

My point is and has always been that such is fine for those who want it. But in the grand scheme of faith and testimony, it plays a near insignificant role (or ought to). A man's spiritual progression simply should not have any foundation on the details behind the priesthood ban, or any other controversial problem in scripture or church history. And I don't blame the church, nor do I think others should, for putting (relatively) minimal effort in facilitating it.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Perhaps "pleading" is too strong a word. The DOM book makes it clear that McKay did ask, while also noting that both Grant and Lee felt that a revelation was required to change it (as opposed to simple fiat).

But I don't want to wade too far back into the blacks/priesthood tall grass. We've been over this territory a thousand times already and it's redundant.

If we could return to the original topic ... I'd rather to stick with the ban as just an example of broader concept: that understanding the whereto's and the whyfor's is unnecessary for a strong testimony. Or further, that spending disproportionate focus on those things (in the noble name of "inoculation") can actually weaken faith.

Your thesis here, if I understand it correctly (I'm trying to be fair here), is that more scholarship, more information, more research can only be a good thing. Beyond that, you believe it is inevitable anyway, due to the speedy methods of disseminating knowledge these days. Thus, the church should not only accommodate, but facilitate.

My point is and has always been that such is fine for those who want it. But in the grand scheme of faith and testimony, it plays a near insignificant role (or ought to). A man's spiritual progression simply should not have any foundation on the details behind the priesthood ban, or any other controversial problem in scripture or church history. And I don't blame the church, nor do I think others should, for putting (relatively) minimal effort in facilitating it.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.