TrueIntent wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:34 pm
Michelle wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:16 pm
TrueIntent wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:17 pm
Michelle wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:32 pm
Not taking the time to learn something, is not the same as it being hidden.
I find this kind of thinking in people all the time with all kinds of topics. (One example might be UN Agenda 21 and 2030. When I tell people what it says they say it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but they refuse to go and read it for themselves. It isn't even that long or hard. Another would be when I quote the Law of Moses. So many people haven't ever read the Old Testament and think there is no way the Lord addressed so many topics that modern science has just recently began to understand and teach, of course without credit to God. Just a couple of examples of truth being available, but people not willing to learn for themselves.)
I don't have time to make a list, but my dad told me as a kid that a lot of the mistakes he made in his life were because he listened to the brethren and then they changed. Funny thing, I went back and read the General Conference talks for the times he speaks of, and they absolutely refute what he is saying. So really, either he didn't listen and learn, or he heard what he wanted to hear.
As for it being hard to find these sources, not at all. Long before the internet we had the History of the Church written by Joseph Smith. We had many books written by prophets and apostles. There were printed General Conference compilations (I use to find the old ones at DI.) For those with pioneer ancestors, we even had the written history of our family members, if we were doing family history as we should. There are plenty of sources. But since at least the advent of television (and certainly before) many people have chosen to spend their free time idling it away instead of studying the truth. They have their agency to do so, but they can't claim it was hidden, only that they were slothful in studying.
One more point. Elder Ballard gave one example. There are more. Should he have taken the time to run down an exhaustive list of references while answering this question? That would certainly have gone over well, right? Can you imagine General Conference talks like that? Just a list of references after every claim? Luckily, the GC talks are printed and sources listed there. With the internet it is not hard to find plenty of sources to back up Elder Ballards claims. Again, not his job to spoon feed. He answered. He provided and example. We are free to continue learning on our own time.
As far as I can tell the two men who wrote the article are only trying to stir up contention and putting on display their own ignorance.
Could be stirring up contention....however, you could say the same thing about the scrptures. If it weren't for opposition, we would not be able to sort out the good from evil. Just because something isnt received by others doesn't mean it isn't true, or good, or of value. The Old Testament for example....as a seminary student...my teacher glossed over stories like Lot sleeping with his daughters...but that's a reflection of the teacher....she was uncomfortable with the information.....same thing with church history...it's not taught or hidden because we are uncomfortable as a church with it. I became more comfortable with it when I realized apostles can be bigots, racists and chauvinist in the early church, just like everyone else at the time was...my generation is not comfortable with how general authorities have handled history....because we are taught what plagerism is, and taking quotes out of context...I'm a journalism major...it's what the media gets blasted for...it's the political spin....we just do it as a church with religion. How polygamy was practiced in their day, is what we would call adultery in ours. Times change, culture changes....doctrine does not...god does not. but even the doctrine vs. principles debate is another manipulation....now we're saying...oh but that wasn't a doctrine...it was just a principle....it's the church trying to cover its butt and blame members for following things they were taught to but shouldn't have. It's like bill Clinton saying...define "is"....we say...define what was taught,...doctrine, principle, or just some old guys opinion.
Your kind of proving my point.The story of Lot is interesting because there is a Joseph Smith Translation that he did not offer his daughters to the men of the city, they demanded the girls and he refused. Secondly, Lot did not consent to his daughters actions with him, they tricked him. How is he to blame?
A little research answers a lot of questions.
If you are simply stating that your teacher tried to hide the story. That is on her, not the whole church. Did you not have your own scriptures? Search and know for yourself.
I still disagree about who is responsible with regard to learning. I cannot change anothers actions, only my own. It is not on them to spoon feed us, it is on us to just look. It almost seems it is because of the easiness of the way that so many refuse to learn. The church has already made the info available, it is on us to learn. I think they bend over backwards to meet people where they are at and make it as easy as possible, througout history with the various technologies available, for us to learn and know for ourselves. We literally have people visit our homes to teach us, we have church that is long enough each Sunday to cause people to complain, they print magazines for the various age groups, they make available lesson manuals for free online and they will even give you a hard copy of the books we use at church each year for our study. Not to mention with modern technology they have invested in printing the Joseph Smith Papers, something that would have been harder to do in the past, and even made videos of the Bible and are working on the Book of Mormon for those to lazy to read. This is not even a comprehensive list. The resources the church provides for us to learn are so extensive it would be hard to "consume" all the media they create just for the purpose of learning and making it as easy as possible.
I was actually referring to the part of Lots daughters getting their father drunk and sleeping with them....and yes....I read it in my own scriptures at 16 years old...you do realize that Christ descended through these daughters children bloodline..this was the chosen bloodline...it's not what you think, .my point also wasn't to diss my seminary teacher...my point was to say there are things we don't discuss because in our day, because it's adultery or pedophilia....there are explainations but they require spirit led revelation and a willingness to acknowledge that men are flawed and they err...even when their name is written in scripture...and it's not what we perceive outwardly.
It's interesting that you say their job is not to spoon feed us.....why all the lesson manuals, conference talks, church programs, and handbooks if they aren't spoon feeding us already....it's what they are spoon feeding us that matters, at least to me anyway.
I think you're ignorant or just plain bias....journals of discourses was made available, and it doesn't take 20 years to get the Joseph smith papers online,..,the Internet has been around for a long time. You're making excuses....you just won't acknowledge it. The church has printed and complied vast manuals with detailed quotes from historical documents...and we couldn't get the Joseph smith papers online until now?
I'm not trying to argue with you...the facts are obvious, information has been withheld deliberately. I don't need you to accept this.......so what if you acknowledge that what I say may be true? How would this change you and your understanding? Would it be painful to acknowledge this? If you did, you would have to change your testimony, or understanding of the church? It's not as painful of a process as you might think....but the adversary would have us believe it's much worse than it is.
I suppose we have just had different witnesses of the Spirit in this regard. I am very comfortable with the state of the Church leadership, it is the general membership that worries me. It seems most problems stem from having to meet weak members where they are at more than weak leaders. When I refer to the leaders I do mean the First Pres and 12. Outside of that many are just members in positions administering and doing their best.
I actually have no problem with the First Pres and 12 not being perfect either. The scriptures are full of accounts of the prophets of old struggling with their callings. They are just people, but the best people God has to work with. I often think of Lehi and Daniel and how heavy their burden was.
1 Nephi 1:7 And it came to pass that he returned to his own house at Jerusalem; and he cast himself upon his bed, being overcome with the Spirit and the things which he had seen.
Daniel 8:27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the aking’s business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.
I guess with people so critical of their efforts, it must be hard to decide when to speak and when to stay silent on issues that are so easily misunderstood. But I also believe they are led by the Spirit to sometimes speak and sometimes stay silent. Think of Elder Oaks talk from the last General Conference where he said,
The inspiration identifying the need for a proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement.
8 Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng
I have had similar experiences where the Spirit has given me direction I was suprised by, but not opposed to. Only after I acted did I receive the witness of "why."
Is it so hard to believe they share such experiences of acting of faith instead of the foolishness of flesh and then being criticized by those who should
be able to receive the same witness.
There were times when Christ himself answered his critics, times when he directed his comments to the crowd and not the critic, times when he stayed silent.
Was Christ willfully, wickedly and deliberately withholding information when he spake in parables that even his apostles had trouble understanding? Or was he speaking in a way that those with ears to hear and eyes to see would understand?
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Edit: I just thought I'd add that my dad is a serious anti-mormon and has been much of my life (even though in his younger years he served as a bishop.) He has a website to help people leave the church and at least in the past has spent time harrassing missionaries at temple square. Really, I don't think there is much left that I haven't heard as "evidence" for either the church not being true or the brethren being terrible or any other version of anti-mormon rhetoric. Still, I know this is God's church on the earth at this time, the brethren are inspired and whatever the weakness of men, the work will roll forward and I know which side I choose.