Retconning gospel doctrine (and reality in general)

[Vort]

In sci-fi and comic books, continuing story lines sometimes introduce new material that seems to contradict something established earlier in the series. "Retroactive continuity", or "retcon", is making up creative (or sometimes not creative) explanations to make the "old" story fit reasonably well with the "new" facts.

 

This is a perfectly acceptable pastime with fictional stories -- a rather fun game, in fact. But I see what look to me like similar attempts often made to explain how Elements X and Y of the gospel work together. For example, the many early explanations of why blacks could not be ordained to the Priesthood or participate in temple work (besides baptism for the dead) were, in effect, a retcon attempt to explain how the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the higher law that went with it could fit together with the doctrine prohibiting African blacks (but not those black-skinned people of other origins) from receiving these authorities and blessings. In reality, we don't know what those reasons are; any of the "old" explanations that have been openly disclaimed as LDS doctrine might indeed be true. The same principle applies to the "explanations" offered by many putative Latter-day Saints today to explain away the Priesthood ban as "racism" or some other leadership vice. It's all retconning, and in the end, it's probably all nonsense.

 

I would think it obvious to any believing Saint that such things should be avoided. Sadly, they are not. The previous situation is but one example (going in both "directions", as it were) of exactly this phenomenon taking place among those who should have known better, or at least should have been much wiser. But the same thing happens every Sunday in gospel doctrine classes around the world, where people come up with the most marvelous and inventive explanations for this or that scriptural teaching. I do not exempt myself from being guilty in participating in such nonsense. Along with many of you, I have done this very thing on this very forum. It seems one of our less tractable human weaknesses.

 

But we believe a REVEALED religion! That means that, unlike those early "Christian" philosophers of the first few centuries AD, we have something far more reliable to depend on than reheated Platonic philosophy and inventive but hollow explanations about things we just can't understand so let's make something up.

 

How would it be if, when we had a question or deep concern, we took it humbly to our Lord in fasting and mighty prayer instead of whining about it and making sure everyone else knew all about our oh-so-perceptive concern? How would it be if, instead of finding some way to say what a pervert Joseph Smith was or what a racist Brigham Young was or what hidebound ignoramuses the prophets have all been, we kept our mouths shut and went to God with our questions, assuring him that we could be trusted with important information and certainly wouldn't blab it all over the place if given such revelation?

 

I don't know, but I have a guess. My guess is that we would have a whole lot more personal understanding of the gospel than we actually have. My further speculation is that there are many among us, perhaps not as a percentage but still surprisingly numerous, who already do exactly this, and who as a result have great knowledge given them that is withheld from the rest of us because we don't ask in faith.

[Palerider]

Excellent thread.....I have wondered the same thing before. I do wonder why people don't get on their knees and pray and ask for answers.

I can remember telling investigators that if Joseph Smith is a prophet and the Book of Mormon is true everything falls into place and if you pray about it and find out it's true the it's important to you. If you pray and feel like your answer a no...then do nothing.

Can't tell you how many people I sat with and listened to their concerns and things and questions that bothered them and when I asked them if they prayed about what was troubling them , their answer was no. If we pray we will get answers, may not be right away but we will get answers to our prayers.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't know how on-point it is, but as I was reading the OP I thought of the following quote from Joseph Smith (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 194-195):

 

The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because we do not keep them but reveal them; we do not keep our own secrets, but reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord? I can keep a secret till Doomsday.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't know how on-point it is, but as I was reading the OP I thought of the following quote from Joseph Smith (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 194-195):

 

 

 

The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because we do not keep them but reveal them; we do not keep our own secrets, but reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord? I can keep a secret till Doomsday.

 

This is an interesting thing, and something that conflicts a bit in my own understanding of teaching, helping others, sharing the gospel, etc.  Where, I suppose, do we draw the line of sharing our faith building experiences to help build others faith, and keeping our mouths shut? That's a tough one methinks.

 

Goes along with the paradox of let-your-light-so-shine and do-not-your-alms-before-men I suppose.

Edited December 2, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

By the way, great OP Vort!

[2ndRateMind]

Well, despite the obviously good intentions of this post, I have to submit two possible objections for your considerations.

 

1. Our prayers may not all meet with the same answers. How are we to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' answers? Whose answers should prevail?

 

2. I am suspicious of any attempt to close down 'the Great Debate', the debate in which we may all take part, all contribute to, and all learn from. I am particularly suspicious of such attempts when they suggest there are divinely approved answers to which only a select few are privy. I'm not suggesting this was the motive of the OP, only that we should guard against such a temptation.

 

So, I suggest we pray, if we want to, and discuss, if we want to, and let reason and conscience be our guides.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 2, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Vort]

Well, despite the obviously good intentions of this post, I have to submit two possible objections for your considerations.

 

1. Our prayers may not all meet with the same answers. How are we to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' answers? Whose answers should prevail?

 

Whether or not our prayers meet with the same answer is unimportant, as long as we are all receiving bona fide revelation from God. Truth is large and we are small. If you and I ask God the same question, both in faith, and we each receive an answer according to our level of understanding, we may be assured that each answer is correct. But since we are not identical people and are likely at different levels of understanding, your revelation and mine might be somewhat (or very) different in content. Thus, my revelation is mine, private, not generally shared, and the same with yours.

 

2. I am suspicious of any attempt to close down 'the Great Debate', the debate in which we may all take part, all contribute to, and all learn from.

 

Then you probably do not understand what I'm talking about. Or maybe I don't understand what you're talking about; you refer to 'the Great Debate' as if it's a thing, a known quantity, an understood and ongoing concern, but I am not familiar with the term in the present context.

 

My concern is not philosophy. All philosophy is foolishness, however much I personally may engage in it. What I ultimately care about is divine truth, and divine truth is not discovered through philosophical meanderings. It is discovered through revelation, and only through revelation.

 

I am particularly suspicious of such attempts when they suggest there are divinely approved answers to which only a select few are privy. I'm not suggesting this was the motive of the OP, only that we should guard against such a temptation.

 

If you read the OP carefully, I think you will see that its motive was actually quite the opposite of that suggested by your warning. The "select few" who are privy to divinely approved answers are those who seek the Lord in sincerity, humility, and mighty faith. God is no respecter of persons, so this is a self-selecting "select few".

 

So, I suggest we pray, if we want to, and discuss, if we want to, and let reason and conscience be our guides.

 

Two siblings were discussing the birth of their younger sister.

 

Billy: Sally came from the cabbage patch.

Bobby: No she didn't! The stork brought her!

Billy: That's ridiculous. A stork's wings aren't large enough to generate the necessary lift to carry an infant human. She's clearly from the cabbage patch.

Bobby: Don't be naive. Does Sally look like she's full of chlorophyll? Soft tissues are not generated by plants, which have rigid cell walls.

Billy: Hey, I know! Let's go ask Mommy!

Bobby: Shame on you for attempting to shut down our useful and informative debate.

 

My suggestion is not that inquiry cease. Rather, I suggest that we go to the fount of knowledge and drink deeply of the pure water, rather than drink downstream after the cattle have waded through it.

[PolarVortex]

Some might argue that the apparent knots in our gospel doctrine are rather more serious than continuity conflicts or reboots.  I really, really don't mean to be snarky or disrespectful, but when I first learned about the history of polygamy in the Church, it reminded me a bit of the TV show "Dallas," in which the death of an important character at the end of Season 8 was reversed by revealing at the start of Season 10 that another important character had dreamed all of Season 9.  It took me a long, long time to get comfortable with the idea that rejecting polygamy in the 19th century would lead to damnation, but that practicing it in the 20th would lead to excommunication.

 

But then I reversed my own thinking.  On matters of faith I tend toward pointillism, in which "small, distinct dots of color are applied in patterns to form an image," and which rests on "the ability of the eye and mind of the viewer to blend the color spots into a fuller range of tones" (Wikipedia).

 

If the big picture makes sense, I don't get distracted by a few points that seem odd or wrong from my current perspective.  I think the big LDS picture makes a lot of sense, even though that polygamy dot still seems very odd to me.

[2ndRateMind]

Dear Vort, by the Great Debate I simply mean the ongoing dialog (should that be multilog?) that occurs between and within societies, in literature, drama, and other arts, in colleges and universities, in politics and commerce, and, not least, between ourselves in interweb formats, where we can all get to understand, and, hopefully, appreciate, each other's points of view.

 

Best wishes, 2RM 

[Vort]

Dear Vort, by the Great Debate I simply mean the ongoing dialog (should that be multilog?) that occurs between and within societies, in literature, drama, and other arts, in colleges and universities, in politics and commerce, and, not least, between ourselves in interweb formats, where we can all get to understand, and, hopefully, appreciate, each other's points of view.

 

Excellent. In that case, my answer stands as written. Divine truth is not like "literature, drama, and other arts, in colleges and universities, in politics and commerce". Divine truth is revealed from God. If not, it is unknown. There is no other way to receive divine truth except through revelation.

 

Understanding and appreciating the viewpoints of others is a worthy goal, but don't confuse such understanding with knowing divine truth. The two areas are unrelated. If you want divine truth, polling your friends and trading syllogistic arguments won't get you any closer.

[The Folk Prophet]

...the apparent knots in our gospel doctrine...

 

I would argue that there are no knots. But...obviously it's perspective.

 

It took me a long, long time to get comfortable with the idea that rejecting polygamy in the 19th century would lead to damnation,

 

Not to get snarky either...but rejecting it in the 20th century is still highly problematic.

 

Practicing it...yeah...different matter.

 

I do think it highly interesting (and this isn't necessarily directed at you...just using your post as a springboard for a thought) that we struggle SO much with issues that are 100% absolutely cultural as if they have any bearing whatsoever on eternal truth. Polygamy being a prime example, of course. The wrongness of polygamy as a theory is entirely cultural. Entirely. And yet so many cannot look past their own obvious cultural bias in that and similar things.

 

Interesting.

[2ndRateMind]

 

 

My concern is not philosophy. All philosophy is foolishness, however much I personally may engage in it. What I ultimately care about is divine truth, and divine truth is not discovered through philosophical meanderings. It is discovered through revelation, and only through revelation.

 

 

 

Dear Vort, again, I think (that is, I hope) we are all engaged in the pursuit of truth. And I think that any truth, however small,  is 'divine truth'. Even if all our philosophical meanderings serve only to inform us how ignorant we are, as Socrates thought, then that is not an insignificant finding. It leads to a certain humility of attitude that is refreshing to find after one has spent one's time discussing with those who think they have immediate access to big 'divine truth'. 

 

I suggest to you that revelation is capricious, and varies from recipient to recipient, and that this idea is affirmed by all the various religions, schisms, denominations, sects and cults that exist in the world, all convinced they have access to divine truth. I have far more faith in the Great Debate, as a democratic process that, however gradually, converges on truth, whether that be divine, or otherwise. If revelation feeds into the Debate, that's fine by me. But I think revelation needs to be tested by being debated.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 2, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[The Folk Prophet]

...that is refreshing to find after one has spent one's time discussing with those who think they have immediate access to big 'divine truth'. 

 

Why do I suddenly feel highly insulted? Hmm. Could it be the disparaging of a key LDS principle on an LDS forum.

 

If you don't want to spend your time discussing with those who think they have immediate access to big 'divine truth' then you're in the wrong room buddy. :)

[Vort]

I suggest to you that revelation is capricious, and varies from recipient to recipient, and that this idea is affirmed by all the various religions, schisms, denominations, sects and cults that exist in the world. I have far more faith in the Great Debate, as a democratic process that, however gradually, converges on truth, whether that be divine, or otherwise.

 

And herein is the crux of the matter: The difference between 'Mormonism' and the rest of the world is that the world puts its faith in the reasoning of men, while those in the Lord's kingdom put their faith in Jesus Christ.

 

You are mistaken, by the way. Revelation is not capricious, though of course it's not easily handleable like policy. As a highly respected LDS scholar named Hugh Nibley once said:

 

That was the classical education which Christianity embraced at the urging of the great St. Augustine. He had learned by hard experience that you can’t trust revelation because you can’t control it—the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, and what the Church needed was something more available and reliable than that, something, he says, commodior et multitudini tutior—“handier and more reliable for the public”—than revelation or even reason, and that is exactly what the rhetorical education had to offer. [Emphasis in original speech]

 

(Outstanding address, by the way, possibly the best given by a man known for giving amazing lectures. Worth your while to read it in full.)

 

If we want to know God, we must go to God. All the discussion and philosophizing will never, ever, under any circumstances, bring us to a knowledge of God. Only God can do that.

[2ndRateMind]

Why do I suddenly feel highly insulted? Hmm. Could it be the disparaging of a key LDS principle on an LDS forum.

 

If you don't want to spend your time discussing with those who think they have immediate access to big 'divine truth' then you're in the wrong room buddy. :)

 

Absolutely no insult intended. Absolutely not.

 

I have said before, and will say it again, that I like this forum particularly for it's willingness to debate, for it's openness to discussion. It is far and away the best religious forum I have so far discovered, for a seeker such as me.

 

If I have touched a raw nerve, I apologise. I merely suggest that sometimes nerves are raw, because they are important.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Traveler]

It is always amusing to me the trend of many of religious thinkers - that bash rhetorical logic and empirical evidence in one breath and then in the next attempt to prove their point with rhetorical logic and references to empirical evidence. 

 

What is worse is when the rhetorical logic is obviously flawed - you would think that someone using flawed logic would like to know their mistake to correct it.  Many years ago I worked in the Engineering Analysis Center at BYU - helping other students find problems in submitted computer programs.  If someone has spent hours looking and not finding a problem - strange as it may seem they hated to have the problem quickly found and pointed out.  Often I would see the problem and instead of pointing it out - act as though the solution eluded me and then start dropping clues and hints - like putting my hand on their printout pointing to the error or taping the paper on the error.

 

But with religious thinkers - it is sad that rhetorical logic is employed to analyze one scripture and refused on another then thinking there is no flaw in their thinking.  The truth is that it is human nature to hate anyone that points our any flaws to our religious or political thinking.  I do not know what it is about those to parts of our humanity - but regardless of any internal contradiction we will not appreciate any efforts to correct any flaws.

[The Folk Prophet]

Absolutely no insult intended. Absolutely not.

 

I have said before, and will say it again, that I like this forum particularly for it's willingness to debate, for it's openness to discussion. It is far and away the best religious forum I have so far discovered, for a seeker such as me.

 

If I have touched a raw nerve, I apologise. I merely suggest that sometimes nerves are raw, because they are important.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

More feigned offense to make a point.

 

You're not going to get very far in reaching common ground while making efforts to tear down what may be the core tenant of our belief system.

[2ndRateMind]

Dear The Folk Prophet. I have no interest in tearing things down. Only in constructive comment. If the idea of debating revelations is a difficult one for you, I am quite content to leave it alone and move on to a less controversial area,

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[The Folk Prophet]

Dear The Folk Prophet. I have no interest in tearing things down. 

 

And yet....

 

Only in constructive comment. 

 

And yet...

 

If the idea of debating revelations is a difficult one for you, I am quite content to leave it alone and move on to a less controversial area,

 

It's not difficult for me. But thanks for trying to make this out to just be my weakness and/or issue. It is not. What I'm pointing out is the uselessness of trying to convince Mormons that revelation is...how did you put it? ....capricious.  What I'm pointing out is that this is not a debate that can go anywhere. We believe in revelation. It is a core tenant of our belief system. We believe in the...how did you put it? ...big 'divine truth'.

 

And it's not really up for debate so to speak. Just disagreement if you don't see it that way. It's not like our believing it convinces you or your disbelieving it convinces us. It's not like either of our minds are expanded by simply adamantly disagreeing back and forth at one another.

 

If you want to debate it, of course, that is up to you. I'm not shutting you down. Go for it. But you need to be aware of your opponent's views on the matter. Revelation is a precious thing to us. It is the reason we are what we are. It is the very foundation of being LDS.

[Blackmarch]

In sci-fi and comic books, continuing story lines sometimes introduce new material that seems to contradict something established earlier in the series. "Retroactive continuity", or "retcon", is making up creative (or sometimes not creative) explanations to make the "old" story fit reasonably well with the "new" facts.

 

This is a perfectly acceptable pastime with fictional stories -- a rather fun game, in fact. But I see what look to me like similar attempts often made to explain how Elements X and Y of the gospel work together. For example, the many early explanations of why blacks could not be ordained to the Priesthood or participate in temple work (besides baptism for the dead) were, in effect, a retcon attempt to explain how the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the higher law that went with it could fit together with the doctrine prohibiting African blacks (but not those black-skinned people of other origins) from receiving these authorities and blessings. In reality, we don't know what those reasons are; any of the "old" explanations that have been openly disclaimed as LDS doctrine might indeed be true. The same principle applies to the "explanations" offered by many putative Latter-day Saints today to explain away the Priesthood ban as "racism" or some other leadership vice. It's all retconning, and in the end, it's probably all nonsense.

 

I would think it obvious to any believing Saint that such things should be avoided. Sadly, they are not. The previous situation is but one example (going in both "directions", as it were) of exactly this phenomenon taking place among those who should have known better, or at least should have been much wiser. But the same thing happens every Sunday in gospel doctrine classes around the world, where people come up with the most marvelous and inventive explanations for this or that scriptural teaching. I do not exempt myself from being guilty in participating in such nonsense. Along with many of you, I have done this very thing on this very forum. It seems one of our less tractable human weaknesses.

 

But we believe a REVEALED religion! That means that, unlike those early "Christian" philosophers of the first few centuries AD, we have something far more reliable to depend on than reheated Platonic philosophy and inventive but hollow explanations about things we just can't understand so let's make something up.

 

How would it be if, when we had a question or deep concern, we took it humbly to our Lord in fasting and mighty prayer instead of whining about it and making sure everyone else knew all about our oh-so-perceptive concern? How would it be if, instead of finding some way to say what a pervert Joseph Smith was or what a racist Brigham Young was or what hidebound ignoramuses the prophets have all been, we kept our mouths shut and went to God with our questions, assuring him that we could be trusted with important information and certainly wouldn't blab it all over the place if given such revelation?

 

I don't know, but I have a guess. My guess is that we would have a whole lot more personal understanding of the gospel than we actually have. My further speculation is that there are many among us, perhaps not as a percentage but still surprisingly numerous, who already do exactly this, and who as a result have great knowledge given them that is withheld from the rest of us because we don't ask in faith.

but like nature our brains abhor a vacuum....

in this I tend to go with brigham young on this one- (majorly paraphrasing) when we can keep our basic covenenants consistently we'll get more revelation.... and until then he basically says he's going to stop asking God for deep doctrine to reveal for the church.

 

[Crypto]

OP, Today on the forum/internet in general, I'm seeming to get a great deal of corrections for some of my personal flaws. Not too long ago, I noticed something very similar to what you stated, and said to myself to work on it, but I had forgotten it. 

 

For whats it's worth, I appreciate the post.

[Vort]

In my hurry to respond to the "revelation is capricious" comment, I neglected to respond to what came before and after.

 

Dear Vort, again, I think (that is, I hope) we are all engaged in the pursuit of truth. And I think that any truth, however small,  is 'divine truth'.

 

I used to believe both of these things, and I am certainly willing to believe the first with regards to those engaged in this particular conversation. But it has been a revelation (so to speak) to me that many people are not engaged in a search for truth at all, but rather a search for gratification and pleasure. And such people appear not to constitute a mere tiny minority of the populace.

 

As for your supposition that all truth is divine truth, I will grant that in the largest and most comprehensive sense. Brigham Young, the second president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, expressed a similar sentiment, saying that all truth of every type ultimately formed a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But such a sentiment is surprisingly useless in actual application. For example, the particular size, shape, location, and mineral makeup of a small stone resting on the surface of a rocky planet orbiting a star in a galaxy 100,000,000 light-years away from us is a piece of truth, yet it has not the least relevance to us and never will, nor to our descendants. Much closer to home, there are any number of facts that constitute "truth" in this broad view, and yet are of no consequence whatsover to us. For example, many and perhaps most scientific models and "facts" fall into this category.

 

We are specifically concerned with truths that lead us to God, or in other words, that help us to be happy now and in the eternities to come. In my experience, the Spirit of God rarely or never testifies to the truthfulness of such useless and mundane facts, unless they happen actually to be relevant to something important.

 

 

Even if all our philosophical meanderings serve only to inform us how ignorant we are, as Socrates thought, then that is not an insignificant finding. It leads to a certain humility of attitude that is refreshing to find after one has spent one's time discussing with those who think they have immediate access to big 'divine truth'.

 

Yes, humility is indeed a virtue, and in our world it seems in short supply. But I am willing to bet you that no one undertakes philosophy for the purpose of being humbled by ignorance. On the contrary, the purpose of philosophy is to try to systematize, understand, and explain the world around us.

 

In this sense, philosophy is not unlike the gospel. It is, in fact, an ersatz "gospel", and is popular solely because its practitioners do not recognize a better way to achieve what they imagine their goal to be. (Okay, not "solely". There are those who practice philosophy in order to further their personal, social, and/or political agendas, with little regard to "the truth". But such people are not worth discussing further than to mention their existence and warn against them. I am speaking only of basically honest people, which many of a philosophical bent are.)

 

One important message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is that every honest and humble seeker after God has access to this "big divine truth" of which you speak. It is not limited to the educated elite; on the contrary, the educated and proud are very often the blindest and least susceptible to such truth.

 

BUT -- This does not mean that everyone gets an equal say in what God teaches. As has often been noted, truth is not established by majority vote. We all have access to divine truths, and thus we all may (note the word!) become prophets. But we are prophets to ourselves, not to the world. You cannot work your way into being a prophet who speaks to others in God's name. God himself, and only God himself, chooses such prophets. Volunteers are not accepted. In fact, you may not even teach in God's name without being duly called and authorized to do so by one with God's authority to call you as such a teacher.

 

I suggest to you that revelation is capricious, and varies from recipient to recipient, and that this idea is affirmed by all the various religions, schisms, denominations, sects and cults that exist in the world, all convinced they have access to divine truth.

 

I have already addressed this, so I won't say more than to repeat: I very strongly disagree. This statement shows a lack of understanding of what constitutes divine revelation.

 

I have far more faith in the Great Debate, as a democratic process that, however gradually, converges on truth, whether that be divine, or otherwise.

 

The problem is that such scholarly philosophical debate cannot find any but the most self-evident of truths.

 

 

If revelation feeds into the Debate, that's fine by me.

 

Again, this betrays a lack of understanding of what revelation is. Divine revelation does not "feed into" a debate; it ends the debate. When God speaks, it becomes senseless to suppose that maybe he's wrong.

 

But I think revelation needs to be tested by being debated.

 

A perhaps sincere but ultimately cynical (and futile) point of view. In fact, I suggest that no true theist who understands what "revelation" means would propose such an idea, which is why I believe you don't understand what revelation means.

[The Folk Prophet]

The problem is that such scholarly philosophical debate cannot find any but the most self-evident of truths.

 

I would suggest that this is dwindling as we march ever steadily closer to the end of days. In other words, things that once seemed self-evident to most, are suddenly, somehow, not self-evident at all. I've said it before. What one might call "common-sense" has become anything but common.