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.