Comments on: Reforming our Haditha

By: MikeInWeHo

MikeInWeHo — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:47:34 +0000

So then one can argue that in a sense the Mormon hadiths are “reforming,” albeit organically and slowly. Maybe that’s for the best.

By: Ray

Ray — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:08:07 +0000

To echo #44 – When religionists (including Mormons) started arguing that sexuality is a scientific issue (by claiming that everything but monogamous heterosexuality is “unnatural”), they lost the debate. Pure and simple – that contest is lost and cannot be won. It was flawed from the beginning and never should have been waged, and our current situation is a direct result of that botched battle.

The political battle in society at large is lost – and I can’t cry about that, given the deeply flawed reasoning and hypocritical stances employed by those who lost it. (Don’t get me started on the hypocrisy.) Well-intentioned ends don’t justify terribly flawed means and warped perceptions and mean-spirited, narrow-minded bigotry, and the current Church leaders appear to understand the overall issue better than their predecessors. There is a reasonable middle ground on this issue, and too few conservative Christians are willing to attempt it, but I see the Church moving there – and I am glad to see it.

By: MikeInWeHo

MikeInWeHo — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:54:56 +0000

“There is no civil right to rewrite the language of others…”

True enough, but the rhetorical battle in the public square was lost to gays and their supporters decades ago. When people in the bloggernacle (and in the Evangelical community) revert to these “special rights” arguments, I’m always struck by how completely out-of-touch they seem. Nobody is listening outside the echo-chamber of certain insular sub-cultures. There would need to be some brand new arguments to turn back the political tide at this point, and I don’t see those forthcoming.

By: C

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:40:43 +0000

#17 — that’s not “ambivalence” unless we accept your concept of what constitutes “civil rights.” There is no civil right to rewrite the language of others.

By: C

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:36:19 +0000

I think that a haditha tradition would screw up our church as badly as the hadith have screwed up Islam. Some of the ugliest stuff touted as Islam comes from the hadith, which is only what we might expect when hearsay is treated as prophesy.

A prophet’s only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet, and the Lord, in the D&C, requires us to use the procedure of common consent to identify scripture. If we’re not one, we’re not His. The worst debacles of our theology, the so-called Adam God mess, the so-called blood atonement mess, and the zany apologetics for certain racist former policies, are all examples of what happens when we fail to heed the section 50 procedures of common consent.

By: AHLDuke

AHLDuke — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:22:40 +0000

I don’t know much about how the hadiths are organized in Islam, or whether they are all gathered into one publication or not. Something like that would be useful for Mormons, though it would probably imply a systemization of theology that Mormons are generally uncomfortable with. The problem is now is that all quotes from GAs are fair game for use, unless obviously wrong (which is all in the eye of the beholder. Its all a matter of what you can find. Most members of the Church only have access to certain ones that are thought to be fit for repetition and republication. Others are more curious and have better resources and can construct opposing views out of more remote or well-hidden resources. You end up playing some kind of crazy infinite loop of a poker game with them- “I see your Hugh B. Brown and I’ll raise you a Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith!”

By: Christian

Christian — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:21:51 +0000

Why on earth does the church continue to publish that monstrosity of bad scholarship and rumor collection, “teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith” anyway? Particularly since even the ENSIGN denounces its contents (word search for “kinderhook” in the gospel library) as misauthenticated tripe?

By: Randall

Randall — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:04:57 +0000

LOL… It seems like the locals are more willing to give up Mormon prohibitions on gambling than on homosexuality.
#32 Queno, I’m a 35 year old father of 3.

#34 Voldie, I’ve staked out the entirely opposite position as you suggest. If I viewed the church’s leadership as bigoted old men, I would be foolish to bet on women getting the priesthood and homosexuals receiving full fellowship.

Quite the contrary. I’ve been very impressed with church leadership and their ability to reverse the prejudice that crept into the church through cultural influences.

Getting back to the original intent of this post, the trends from Hunter to Hinckley to Monson have been heart-warming. I have full faith that our prophets are leading us in the correct direction in mainstreaming the church. Yes, there was a time when I was bashful about my LDS faith, but not any longer. I like our vibrant, growing, progressing church.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 03:21:20 +0000

#34 – We’re all apostates. I better tell my Stake President. I’m sure he’ll want to know.

By: J. Nelson-Seawright

J. Nelson-Seawright — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 03:13:30 +0000

MikeInWeHo, there are the fundamentalist schisms, which are more or less organized but which do continue to emerge. And there have been at least a few third-world schisms, the best-known of which was the Third Convention in Mexico. So it does happen, even among the Brighamites.