On Jun 9, 9:10=A0am, Bruce in alaska <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> =A0Jeff <jeff_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Why does the LDS Church print and distribute books such as Gospel
> > Principles, Gospel Fundamentals, and Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of
> > the Gospel Student Manual and not put disclaimers in them to the
> > effect that "this part is true", "this part is false", and "this part
> > is a speculative opinion"? Or does the LDS Church expect its members
> > to read them and pray to God to know if it is true like they pray to
> > God to find out if the Book of Mormon is true?
> The answer to the above questions is: Absolutely, it is up to each
> individual, to ask for, and receive, his own Personal Revelation,
> as to the truth of ANY, Statement, pronouncement, publication, or
> other information, disseminated by ANYONE, and this includes Bishops,
> Stake Presidents, Seventies, Apostles, and Prophets. =A0
Mormonism speaks of the Bible having been adulterated by apostates
eliding many plain and precious things, but then when unplain and
unprecious speculations are claimed by some LdS to inhere in their own
publications (Father was once a man, etc), the excuse is trotted out
that source materials aren't as im****tant as how they are received by
discerning believers.
The upshot of your answer to the concern, however, is that any
authoritative publication could be disseminated without regard for its
verity, because the "veritas filter" is always effective on the
receiving end. It's odd, though, that a church so concerned with how
the lack of Mormon doctrine in the Bible is evidence for apostate
redaction of its contents, should fail to see that presence of bogus
content (things in GP that aren't discerned to be true) in its own
continuing publications is of a kind.
Why would a Holy Spirit apparently concerned to include material in
the Bible that apostates would later purge (putatively), be
unconcerned to prevent inclusion of flatly wrong material in official
church publications that have long been vetted by those with prophetic
discernment (we are asked to believe)? In other words, why aren't the
publishers at least as discerning as the readers are claimed/enjoined
to be?
Couldn't one publish a booklet of gospel doctrine far more riddled
with errors than GP, if the reader's discernment were the genuinely
im****tant thing? Why have official publications at all? Why not just
have a huge mailing list, and let LdS promulgate all kind of ideas in
their heads -- counting on their readers to spiritually discern what's
true?
This sense that authoritative sources of doctrine are not properly
accountable for what they publish because the reader is responsible
for discerning content, rightly promotes caution by the recipient but
mysteriously poses that authorities needn't be cautious at all -- not
even up to the standards of academic or news publi****ng, where
retractions and corrections are just normal business as usual.
> That is the
> PRIME JOB for the Holy Ghost, to testify to the Truth in ALL things,
And the job of the publishers is not to eliminate spurious speculation
from their texts?
How does the Holy Spirit having a job discount the need for integrity
by those with the publi****ng job?
Here's a simple test. How many LdS read GP and believe that Father was
once a man? How many do not? If Father actually WAS once a man, then
those who do not believe this are clearly not exercising spiritual
discernment as readers of GP. If he was NOT once a man, then those who
believe he was likewise are not exercising spiritual discernment as
readers of GP.
In the first case, the publishers are being responsible and at least
some readers are not exercising spiritual discernment. In the second
case, the publishers seem to be leading immature believers astray by
occasioning failures of discernment.
So what should a publisher do if the publisher himself discerns that
Father was not once a man -- that the GP text is in error? As
publisher of an official teaching instrument of the church -- indeed,
offered to the world as such -- are any duties with regard to this
enjoined? Should the publisher, like the apostates of old, be
indifferent to the incomplete/erroneous status of the text he is
responsible for maintaining? Should he not trouble his conscience with
the potential of such erroneous teaching for leading believers astray
into error?
If church leader****p someday discerns that the effect of such
erroneous teaching is not benign, should the publisher be held
accountable for having so long tolerated the presence of error he was
aware of -- should responsibility for the deleterious effects of such
error be laid at his feet?
These and numerous other questions emerge when one considers that all
members of the church -- not just readers of texts -- might justly be
considered responsible for their behavior. A reader's job is to
discern the truth of a thing, true enough. But this is not an excuse
that permits publishers to shrug off THEIR job.
Two cents.
|
