On September 3, 1855 a massacre occurred, through no fault of the LDS, and no LDS had been involved. The military leader who did it was an enemy of Utah. Why does the LDS website still call it a “significant victory?”

The LGT approach to location certainly makes it easy to ignore yesterday’s events on the overland trail.

Instead of worrying about two Cumorahs, look at yesterday and make things right. Or don’t the Sioux matter? Is it because they opposed human sacrifice? They are quite different than those who practiced the blood rituals of Meso America.

I agree entirely with your statement. But the conflict is that the historical record is full of examples where Prophets have authoritatively declared things which modern leaders disagree with. Unless we know which statements are opinion and which are revelations at the time of pronouncement, the “Prophets are also human” retort sounds like a convenient excuse for evidence which challenges their Prophetic call.

But, I don’t believe in the “all revelation all of the time” model. I believe that God gives us revelation when we ask for it, when we are able to understand it, and when he feels it will help us.

So, the prophets and church leaders give us many things by direct revelation and by inspiration, and then give us other things by scriptural understanding–which is probably used as good council but may not be the original meaning of the scripture, and finally give us counsel based on their best understanding.

“When the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do, Sir?”

This is a perfectly acceptable thing for Keynes to say, given that his authority comes from human intelectualism and science. He does not claim divine knowledge, neither do many spiritual leaders from other faiths, at least not in the same way Mormons do. We claim that Prophets speak as ambassadors of the Savior and possess special Priesthood keys which make them authorities of God to act/speak in that capacity. The risk of making these types of claims under these premises is that their words are rightly subject to scrutiny. The logical question is, if a Prophet was wrong about the universal flood, for example and regardless of whether the Church accepts that in 2008, are they ever right about anything. So, 1) issues like the universal flood, location of the Garden of Eden, Adam-God, etc. are vastly important. 2) The price we pay for making the claims we do, is that we are accountable for everything we do.

[ /sarcasm ]

In case anyone cares, I can’t think of a single colleague [I'm on the faculty at BYU Geol. Sciences] who believes in a literal flood, creationism, or a young earth.

If it doesn’t bother us, why should anyone else care?

I understand that, as you say, “we are not all the same, and many LDSs seem to have a hard time understanding this.” I would only expand the “community” by saying that this is a human condition, not an LDS condition.

On the topic of cognitive dissonance, have you read the excellent presentation by Wendy Ulrich at a FAIR Conference a few years ago? She is a trained professional (and, yes, LDS), so her take on the issue was particularly interesting to me.

-Allen

This is too bad, though, especially when it comes to religion because for me political parties come and go (and let’s hope Bush’s party ‘goes’ — sorry, couldn’t resist getting that in there), but it seems that religion should be far more sacrosanct and secure (at least for me it is) and possesses totally different kinds of implications.

I understand what you are saying about ‘approaches’ in questioning, but all the same I think many members of the church need to ‘act’ (in a loving and understanding way) instead of ‘react’ when something is said, even in a perceived caustic or critical manner, in a way that does not infuriate, malign or ostracize the person making the comment. We are not all the same, and many LDSs seem to have a hard time understanding this. If you want to retain current members you don’t stand up in a priesthood meeting, point a shaking finger at another ‘brother’ and state. “You…you…are an emissary of Satan! You…you…just repulse me with your presence!” notwithstanding the person making these comments is a codger. That actually happened to me. I later found out that this same fellow almost didn’t get his temple recommend renewed because he started to argue with the stake president about something during his interview. I digress, but incidents like this are not uncommon in the LDS church in all its various forms, degrees of intensity, and actors.

About the cognitive dissonance, you may be of the opinion that it happens “in quiet times” and no doubt this is, in part, its locus, but I do feel that it is constantly just below the conscious surface of many members of the LDS church, especially since the advent of the Internet and its flow (flood, actually) of ‘new’ information about the church. I think a lot of LDSs are feeling angst even though it may not be totally obvious to them at all times. You mentioned teaching “taboo” subjects in certain church classes without any repercussions, but you don’t (and never will) know how those discussions really affected the members of that class later on when the content of these subjects begin composting in their minds over time in tandem with reinforcers from other sources. That’s why I am of the opinion that there may be more cog. dis. at the subconscious level than many people realize, or care to admit to, or consider as very plausible, if indeed, even likely.

I have experienced the “old hardline TBM” reaction to which you speak. In my experience, however, the reaction often varies according to how the “mention” of the taboo subject is brought up.

I’ve been in priesthood meetings where someone says “Did you know Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by sticking his head in a hat? What’s up with that?” The reaction is entirely different than the one that occurs if someone says “I read the other day that one method Joseph used to translate the Book of Mormon involved placing a seer stone in a hat to block out light so he could see what God wanted him to see in the stone. Has anyone else heard anything about that?”

The differences in reaction have absolutely nothing to do with cognitive dissonance. Instead they are often a reaction to the perceived intent of the person broaching the taboo subject. If the person is perceived as somehow wanting to (1) criticize, (2) stir the pot, (3) tear down sacred beliefs, or (4) run down some bizarre tangent to the subject at hand then the reaction is often swift and not terribly friendly.

If, however, the person is perceived as simply (1) someone wanting to contribute to the discussion appropriate, (2) someone with a sincere question, or (3) someone that the hearers trust as a faithful believer, then the reaction will be entirely different.

Cognitive dissonance normally happens on an individual level in quiet times, not in the hubbub of an active group setting.

I’ve also taught classes, in a Church setting, where I brought up “taboo” subjects and discussed them with the class as a whole. I’ve sensed no trouble (and gotten in no trouble) for having done so.

Just my thoughts.

-Allen

You see, this is what happens: A member mentions something that is regarded as TABOO and all the old hardline TBM’s get defensive and start throwing stones called ‘anti’ or ‘heretic’ or ‘wolf’ or even insinuate ‘idiot’ etc. What’s really happening, INHO, is that cognitive dissonance sets in, fuses start blowing, and they start grasping at the straws of weak arguments and retorts, or in some unfortunate cases, hurl insults.

Why not just reply with something simple like, “I can offer some explanations that satisfy me, and that I can share with you, but in the end I really don’t have an absolute answer to these issues, which can certainly be regarded as troubling (and perhaps rightly so) to some people. I just have a belief that the JS was a true prophet and the LDS church is what it claims to be notwithstanding these controversial issues.”? And even preface this comment to me, and others like me, with something like, “I can UNDERSTAND where you are coming from.”

You catch a lot more flies (and semi-actives, like me) with honey than with vinegar and poorly reasoned retorts.

Do you still believe popcorn grows on apricot trees, or did you learn that this is a reference to the beauty of the white apicot blossoms?

You could make an argument about whether the church really teaches this, but why would you find the belief “comical” or without “a clue?”

I continue to marvel at FAIR’s acceptance of the idea that humans were here 13,000 years ago. That is truly an anti-Mormon position. Do they really believe there are a lot of Mormons who are willing to accept what they are claiming? Thirty years ago the Mormons I knew were adamently against any idea that humans inhabited the earth before 4000 B.C.

Now FAIR has accepted “anti-Mormon positions.” Fascinating.

-Allen

If the flood wasn’t universal then it isn’t a part of mormonism.

Now, doctrine is teaching. If the Church teaches something then it is doctrine; if the Church stops teaching something, then that thing is not doctrine.

Truth is independant of doctrine.

Now, correct practice is more important than correct thinking. When I am interviewed for a temple recommed interview no one asks me about the flood, Adam_God, Cain, Garden of Eden, the kinderhook plates or the semetic redaction/adoption of egyptian motifs.

I am asked what I do; do I have children i am not supporting, do I keep covenants etc.

If the flood wasn’t universal then it isn’t a part of mormonism.

Now, doctrine is teaching. If the Church teaches something then it is doctrine; if the Church stops teaching something, then that thing is not doctrine.

Truth is independant of doctrine.

I never said the church should or shouldn’t change, should or should be more or less consistent, or anything. I never criticized the church at all. And I never even said what my personal view on the flood is.

I merely assert that a universal flood has, in fact, been a consistent teaching of the church (not a central teaching, but a teaching nonetheless). Therefore saying that people who think it is a “doctrine” of the church are “comical” and “just don’t have a clue” is grossly unfair to those people.

Does Kodos think we should keep believing the same old things, even if the evidence doesn’t support it, and the Church doesn’t require it?

If Kodos does want that consistency, why? Is it that he wants it to be easy to dismiss us?

The Apostles and Prophets never claimed infallibility, except under strictly controlled circumstances; why must people insist that Prophetic infallibility be our doctrine?

As I elsewhere quoted John Maynard Keynes, “When the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do, Sir?”

So I’m just supposed to take the word of some anonymous web designer at the Church Office Building as authoritative?

I was taught about the universal flood in primary, Sunday school, and seminary. I’ve read about it in the Ensign. If I search the church website I find this:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/f/21

And against this you provide….an anonymous statement on the FAIR wiki??

Of course, everyone is free to believe whatever they want about this and most other things–it’s not of central importance. But it’s just dumb to deny that the church taught and has continued to teach in recent decades that there was a universal flood. So how is it not doctrine?

I find it comical because people try to hold the LDS to teachings, no matter how esoteric or obscure, that they absolutely know must be followed in order to be a good, believing LDS. Just like it would be strange (or, indeed, comical) for me to tell you what you must believe, it is just as strange for others—particularly those who have ostensibly left the faith—to tell me what I must believe.

Does that help?

-Allen

-Allen

People’s beliefs about what the church teaches are often too simplistic, but they don’t come out of nowhere.

(This is not a criticism of FAIR in general…I hope you guys keep it up.)