In Mormonism that only applies for matters that make sense within the box of Mormonism thinking. Anything else gets "put on the shelf" to never be resolved honestly. For example, what ever happened to the rock solid teaching that some of my cousins whose mom is an Native American are Lamanites? These cousins were in the Lamanite Generation group at BYU and proud of their heritage of being descendants of Father Lehi. Now the experts at FARMS say this isn't so. The Angel Moroni must have been one very clueless resurrected being. Its amazing how Mormon scholars put more faith in the theories of non-Mormon scientists than they do in the words of a supposed resurrected angel of the Lord who grew up in the Nephite civilization and was a prophet amongst them before he buried up those plates and appeared to Joseph Smith 1400 years later. Just look at the words of Joseph Smith and early Mormon leaders on the origins of the Native Americans.
Hmmmmmmmm. I'm amazed by the ignorance or hardheartedness that is so often found in Mormonism apologists.
Didn't you get the memo?
No, “Mormon doctrine” is a principle - we are OBLIGATED to accept whatever is true and whatever is right regardless of the source. It does not mean we never make mistakes. It does not mean we’ve never had false doctrine or false assumptions. What it does mean is when we come to the conclusion, in the fact of irrefutable evidence, that our earlier beliefs were wrong; we are obligated to abandon them and accept whatever is true.
It does not justify a superficial examination of the issues. Only what is demonstrably provable.
Why is it “ignorant” for a Mormon apologist like myself to change my mind when faced with incontrovertible proof a previously held belief is wrong?
Christ never promised his Bride will be perfect and inerrant.
My loyalty is to Christ, not his church. Since he is a God of truth and righteousness, I will always cling to truth and righteousness regardless of the source. Is this “ignorant”? Why?