NOM

A few months ago the pastor at a Presbyterian church I attend brought up some uncomfortable history. He spoke of when John Calvin was in Geneva, several people, among them Michael Servitus, were burned at the stake with Calvin's approval. The pastor clearly denounced such action, and no one in the congregation seemed upset the the pastor was discussing the faults of a church figure. I found it refreshing to be in a church that was so honest with its history. It made me wonder, are all churches dishonest? I suppose the answer might depend on one's world view, or one's view of honesty. What do you think?

I attended a Lutheran Church here in my town that on this particular Sunday were discussing the early Lutheran Church coming from Germany to America near Michigan? Or Wisconsin?

Anyway, their leader went astray with a woman in the congregation and was a bit of a dictator and not inclusive in his decision making process. He was finally defrocked and someone else had to take over. I was impressed with how open and honest they were and even mentioned this case on Mormon dialogue and Discussion.

WOW! I was immediately attacked as supporting the Lutheran Church and they went on and on about how Luther was horrible and an anti-semite etc.,etc.

I thought, "You guys aren't getting it here at all. I'm not saying anything about the validity of the Lutheran religion. I'm saying that this particular congregation that I attended seemed to be facing fearlessly the mistakes and foibles of their early leadership and doing it quite openly."

But the ad hoc attacks just continued.

Pretty sad.

That's pretty interesting Pale. I was thinking how Mormon history seems to be an account of making the same or similar mistakes over and over again: mixing church and state, underestimating the opposition, slavishly following authority. etc.
Good to hear there are some Lutherans that are open to real history.

This is one of the things I admire about the COC. They seem to be able to accept the reality of the early history, evaluate the evidence, and move forward in maturity and make the necessary changes. It has cost them in terms of membership and growth, but they seem to have done what's right and let the consequence follow.

I see what you mean, M. They seem more Truth/Christ based rather than authority based.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:06 pm It made me wonder, are all churches dishonest? I suppose the answer might depend on one's world view, or one's view of honesty. What do you think?

I'm just wondering if one's world view can change the definition of honesty?

deacon blues wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:06 pm It made me wonder, are all churches dishonest? I suppose the answer might depend on one's world view, or one's view of honesty. What do you think?

This is a good topic. I think the advantage of nearly all other Christian churches over Mormonism is that their mortal founders were men trying to do their best as led by the Holy Spirit. John Calvin, Martin Luther, Peter, John Wesley, and many other were not "prophets" in the Old Testament sense of Elijah, Moses, Noah, and Abraham. The Sunday School stories about ancient prophets had them talking to GOD, not just led by the spirit based on their own conscience and inspiration.

On the other hand, LDS history has Joseph Smith talking to GOD, and not just GOD, but GOD, our Heavenly Father and his son, Jesus The Christ. This is straight out of missionary discussion numero uno. Ironically, the only people I can think of that would nuance this description would be apologists like Richard Bushman. We are told that we must be righteous and live worthily of the Holy Spirit, or we could fall into error and apostasy like those slackers back at the Council of Nicaea.

On behalf of the LDS prophets, I might grudgingly accept Hanlon's Razor:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

But based on the oft mentioned list of LDS historical scandals it keeps looking like the logical corollary:

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice

Neither option speaks well of a prophet that is supposed to act with the highest of integrity and holiness. Other faiths have mortal men and women that did their best and regularly acknowledge the contributions of their fellow Christians. But Mormons claim the "One True Church" with a modern prophet that talks to GOD. We are expected to obey LDS prophets like they are talking to GOD, yet forgive them as if they are only talking to themselves.

Given that churches are run by humans and humans are dishonest, yes. I agree that there is less pressure to be dishonest about a church's history when it was founded by a philosopher using Christian teachings as first principles, as opposed to one which is allegedly founded by divine inspiration. All are subject to fault, but the purpose of philosophy is to refine understanding and correct fallacies. The purpose of the other seems undermined when failure is admitted.

Palerider wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:50 pm ... mentioned this case on Mormon dialogue and Discussion.
WOW! I was immediately attacked ...

Possibly some of the Mormon D&D participants flew off the handle because they were geared up after a round of defending the Mountain Meadows Incident.

Nah, they are not all dishonest. Although many religions are not tied to history as much as mormonism, so that helps.

I do think all churches tend to be hypocritical though, to varying degrees.

I suppose different organizations having varying degrees of honesty about different aspects or their doctrine, history and organization. Some might be more honest about their history but less honest about their allocation of funds. Some are unwilling to be honest about weaknesses in their own doctrine, while others look for opportunities to fine-tune their beliefs. For example, The Dalai Lama has said that if Buddhism teaches things that are disproven by science, then Buddhism must change.

Unfortunately, we come from a faith tradition that seem to be very reluctant to admit any wrong and seems to find easy justification in obfuscating truth in favor of the party line. I'm sure someone like Boyd Packer would not call this dishonesty, he would call it emphasizing faithful information while de-emphesizing less-faithful information for the good of an institution that transcends mortal ideals, or something like that.

When a kid claims he's Batman is he lying? Maybe we should just accept that all churches are pretending. When I'm in a church meeting where people seem to be taking everything a little too seriously I like to imagine that we're all just pretending.

Yeah, maybe I should have titled this "are all churches just pretending."

Mad Jax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:52 am Given that churches are run by humans and humans are dishonest, yes.

Good point here. Let go of the infallibility idea and people are inherently dishonest at some level which makes the church they run dishonest. That's life.

LaMachina wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:34 am Nah, they are not all dishonest. Although many religions are not tied to history as much as mormonism, so that helps.

Also a good point. If the "truth" of a church isn't shackled to history then honesty gets a lot less complicated. But this is where mega churches come from and that is a whole nother category of honesty.