Originally Posted By ecdc >>Keep in mind that Mormon doctrine is that the Bible is NOT the unerring word of God, but is the word of God only to the extent that it doesn't conflict with the Book of Mormon and other Mormon texts, and that only the Mormon texts are actually unerring.<< Quite true, so let's quote the Book of Mormon. According to Mormonism, after he was crucified and resurrected in the Old World, Jesus descended from heaven to visit the Nephites (the principle characters in the Book of Mormon) in the New World in their capital city of Zarahemla. Jesus gave an almost identical sermon as the Sermon on the Mount called the Sermon at the Temple. Here's part of what he had to say: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother: Let me pull the mote out of thine eye—and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou ahypocrite, first cast the bbeam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Originally Posted By Mr X I love how the thing stuck in the eye is always a log or a beam or something. Hyperbole much? Wouldn't a twig have been just as apt an analogy while making a tad more sense?
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster SuperDry: "Keep in mind that Mormon doctrine is that the Bible is NOT the unerring word of God, but is the word of God only to the extent that it doesn't conflict with the Book of Mormon and other Mormon texts, and that only the Mormon texts are actually unerring. So, if a Mormon's belief is based on something in the Book of Mormon or other Mormon text, the fact that it's the opposite of what's taught in the Bible is irrelevant, as on that particular point, the belief is that the Bible is wrong." The Book of Mormon never addresses homosexuality even once. I guess it's not so important a topic to God?
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster Again, nothing. Never mentioned once. Every character in the B of M is monogamous.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster Thank goodness for modern-day prophets who can tell us all the things God forgot to mention in ancient texts.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Thank goodness for modern-day prophets who can tell us all the things God forgot to mention in ancient texts. >>> Because of the somewhat unique hierarchy of infallibility in the Mormon faith, does this mean that the current prophet doesn't even need to go through the guise of coming up with Biblical support for whatever position he says God now wants? That is, if the current prophet says something that conflicts with what's plainly stated in the Bible, is it LDS doctrine that the prophet is correct and the Bible is incorrect, in the same manner as would be the case if the Book of Mormon said it?
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster That's the thing. Current prophets say nothing of substance. It's been decades since a Mormon prophet has had anything he taught canonized into Mormon doctrine. They are more CEO's now than anything else.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Because of the somewhat unique hierarchy of infallibility in the Mormon faith, does this mean that the current prophet doesn't even need to go through the guise of coming up with Biblical support for whatever position he says God now wants?<< Correct. I think it's truly difficult to understand just how revered and almost worshipped the Mormon prophet is unless you are a Mormon or grew up in it. I'll give you a tiny glimpse. My wife's friend is a photographer and she was employed to take pictures this weekend of the grand opening of a new business. Many LDS church leaders, including the Mormon prophet, Thomas Monson, were there. She did her job and took the pictures, and afterwards posted them on her blog. It's a common practice today for photographers to have a blog, and my wife's friend did not mention who she had photographed because she has many non-LDS clients. Immediately her blog was FLOODED with comments from her LDS friends and family, with comments such as, "Oh my GOSH! You got to meet the Prophet and take his picture! I'm SO jealous!" Or, "Oh wow that's so amazing! I got teary-eyed just looking at these pictures. What was he like?" I'm not exaggerating. It's a bit like he's a rock star or a famous actor in Mormon circles. I think my wife's friend may have deleted some of the more extreme ones, like those I mentioned.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Current prophets say nothing of substance. It's been decades since a Mormon prophet has had anything he taught canonized into Mormon doctrine. >>> That's interesting. Based on the 60 Minutes segment on the LDS Church, the previous prophet Gordon Hinckley, who died in January of 2008, had this to say about the Church's involvement in politics: <<< Unlike the Religious Right, the Mormon Church does not have a political agenda. "We urge our people to exercise their franchise as citizens of this nation, but we do not tell them how to vote" >>> I guess God changed his mind sometime between January and November 2008, as the subsequent prophet certainly had no problem with directing the LDS church's resources into politics.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That's the thing. Current prophets say nothing of substance. It's been decades since a Mormon prophet has had anything he taught canonized into Mormon doctrine. They are more CEO's now than anything else.<< Also true. For all this talk of "continuing revelation" and God having a prophet on earth, 98% of Mormon canonical revelations were received by 1847 over a 25 year period. In reality, Mormon prophets simply reinforce the traditional and conservative moral standards of the times they live in. In the Victorian era, they preached against dancing. During prohibition, against alcohol. In the 50s, against Communism. In the 60s and 70s, they were silent about Vietnam and instead railed against the ERA. Today, it's homosexuality. Someday, it'll be something else.
Originally Posted By Mr X That sort of begs the question, what if you have two prophets that directly contradict each other? I mean, sure it's unlikely but with them being so old and all they could certainly say something bizarre in a fit of dementia. If a prophet claimed that God told him or her that Jesus, in fact, never existed at all; would the Mormons all collectively throw away their Bibles and Book of Mormons?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I mean, sure it's unlikely<< It's not only not unlikely, it's fairly commonplace. This his decreased significantly in recent years as the church has grown and has become deeply concerned about public relations and presenting a united front. But in the past LDS leaders frequently contradicted each other. And newer prophets would contradict older ones. Sometimes on bits of theology, sometimes on policy. In one amusing example, Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture under Dwight D. Eisenhower, stated that it was impossible to be a good Mormon and a socialist. Literally the next day, Mormon apostle Hugh B. Brown got up and said, "It is possible to be a good Mormon and a socialist. Benson was not amused. In-fighting and power struggles exist everywhere, my friends. This group is no exception.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'm sorry, I know people are tired of hearing about all this. I can't help myself But you cannot understand why Prop 8 happened and how a small religious organization that makes up a tiny percentage of the population (roughly 2%) wields so much power in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment or getting Prop 8 passed unless you understand the devotion these people have to a man none of you had ever heard of before last summer. This man spoke and Prop 8 passed; had he kept silent it would have failed rather easily. Do not underestimate that level of devotion.
Originally Posted By wendebird Ahem, lol, getting back on topic. A homeschool friend just posted this link on Facebook. It's written by a dad about why they're homeschooling their twins. he states they are on the left. Their views are what I typically see within my old homeschool stomping grounds: <a href="http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/09/28/confessions_homeschooler/index2.html" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/mwt/featu...ex2.html</a> "Looking at the bigger picture, being a home schooling freak isn't what it used to be. We aren't Bible-thumping Christians or off-the-grid hippies, and we definitely don't feel isolated. You certainly encounter both of those groups in the home-school universe, a fascinating realm in which social dissidents from the left and right margins of society struggle to communicate and coexist. But home schooling has become a broad and diverse phenomenon found at all socioeconomic levels and in all regions of the country, and it can't be summarized with easy demographic labels. At the time of the 1970 census, there were a reported 15,000 home-schoolers in the entire United States, nearly all of them presumed to be members of religious minorities who objected to the contents or method of public education. By 2007, the Department of Education estimated that there were 1.5 million home-schooled children in the country -- almost 3 percent of the school-age population -- but admitted that the real number was likely higher. Furthermore, in the same DOE survey, only 36 percent of home schooling parents picked a desire to provide "religious and moral instruction" as the No. 1 reason for their decision." It's a long article, but I found it a very easy read.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Furthermore, in the same DOE survey, only 36 percent of home schooling parents picked a desire to provide "religious and moral instruction" as the No. 1 reason for their decision."<< Maybe so, but I think politics enters into this as well. A few seconds of talk radio will tell you that many people viewed the President's "stay in school, wash your hands frequently" address to school children as "indoctrination." If THAT'S controversial stuff, imagine what happens when world history is taught, let alone science. So while "only" 36% say it's for religious reasons, there's a deep political component for some parents that is every bit as important as religious reasons. There is a huge variety of home school styles, some that follow guidelines to cover educational standards and then there is some very nutty business going on as well. We homeschooled my son for 2 years. He was not ready to move on to the next grade but the school and advisors thought holding him back would be a mistake. Between a rock and a hard place, we opted to homeschool through a charter school that works with our school district. There was no religious component to this at all. My son's goal was to get caught up and get back into public school by 9th grade. It was not an easy 2 years for my wife, who did 99% of the home schooling. But we were fortunate to have a great, creative advisor teacher who had all sorts of different ways to teach math, science, language arts. If something wasn't working, she had a whole different approach. He is now in 10th grade, had a very good freshman year, is holding up pretty good this year. There is also something called "Unschool" which is a rather extremist wing of homeschooling. This is basically a structureless "Let's see what Billy is interested in today" freeform thing. I was at a conference where many of these folks attended, and observed that the children, even middle school aged, had a very difficult time filling out a simple contest entry blank.
Originally Posted By wendebird I know a lot of "unschoolers" & believe it or not, the ones that I know are home schooling for non-religious, anti-establishment reasons. It's also refreshing to hear stories like yours 2ooney. Far too many crazies make it into the news, not many success stories like yours seem to get noticed.
