Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rockpond

  1. That's incredible! So nice to hear that about the UU church.
  2. The last paragraph of 6.13.4 (the section on annotation of membership records) states that the annotation can only be removed with FP approval upon request of the SP. It does not provide any guidance for why an SP would make such a request.
  3. You don’t think there could be other scriptural interpretations of the biblical practice of polygamy? Did you look at the outline of the argument in the New Testament section of the Wikipedia entry I linked to? The Book of Mormon condemns the practice with the exception of when the Lord commands it to raise up seed.
  4. The non-LDS Christians that I have spoken with see polygamy as being condemned by the Bible. So I would argue that they don't see the scriptural support that you do. I can't explain where they see that, just passing along what I've been told. I have no evidence for this, but my impression is that both among LDS and non-LDS Christians, there is far more support for church acceptance of gay marriage than polygamy. ETA: The wikipedia entry on Polygamy in Christianity gives some insight. Look at the "New Testament" section. I'm not saying I agree with these, just sharing them for reference.
  5. Yes, I definitely think it has changed over the history of the Church, that's why I prefaced my comment with "in today's church". I don't know how much Joseph Smith consulted with the quorum. He seemed to receive direction directly as if the Lord was speaking to him. I agree that Brigham Young was likely more autocratic -- maybe a necessary quality with the challenges that faced the church under his leadership. Some (most?) of his unique doctrinal teachings seem to be disavowed now -- maybe that's related. David McKay seemed want both revelation from the Lord and unanimity among the apostles (based on my reading of his biography). Today, we've had a few public statements from the prophet and apostles indicating that prayerful unanimity among the 15 is key and is indicative of the will of the Lord having been reached.
  6. In today's church, a change requires unanimity of the FP and Q12. So, it can't be just what the current prophet wants. I suppose the salient question is: has the Prophet (President) ever made a statement of change to his counselors and the Q12... and had them not unify behind him?
  7. Your logic is spot on. I don't disagree. I'm just thinking of the publicity that such a policy reversal would generate. In the eyes of the world, we would be returning to polygamy. It's not insurmountable, but it would be an institutionally painful decision to make.
  8. Nope, not impossible. And I'm not saying that they shouldn't. I wouldn't be opposed to the church, once again, accepting the practice of polygamy. I was more trying to acknowledge the problems it would create and the very tough spot that the Brethren are in. If they allow it where it is legal, then they are indicating that the Lord approves of it as long as the state does.
  9. I could see church leaders wanting to do that but not knowing how to allow it because if polygamy were to become legal here in the US, they wouldn't have the grounds to prohibit it. And then there would be those among our members practicing polygamy and maintaining membership in the church.
  10. According to the handbook, it needs to have been repeated homosexual activities by adults and the Bishop and SP need to submit the report of the disciplinary action to headquarters for the annotation to be added (has to be a proactive decision on their part to seek the annotation). I've been a bishop's counselor and an executive secretary and I know of no way to annotate a members record locally. This could, however, just be my lack of knowledge about MLS. Anyone here know if it is even possible to annotate a member's record at the local level and have it "stick" when the member moves to their next unit? My reading of the handbook indicates that such annotations can only be added/removed by church headquarters.
  11. While I could see the US Gov't or SCOTUS legalizing polyamorous marriages in the next few decades, I don't see the Church bringing back polygamy. It seems to me that the general direction of the church right now is moving more towards mainstream Christianity. Practicing polygamy again would take us out of that realm forever. And, I believe, it would also cause another schism just like when the practice was ended a century ago.
  12. If you are someone who finds the Church worthy of adulation for its role in the 2015 “Utah Compromise”, then I would anticipate you would also see the Church’s statement on the Equality Act as worthy of praise.
  13. Great point, @california boy. I've been told quite a few times on this site that using "gay" implies that the individual is "acting on it". I was shocked the first time I heard that. I've always thought of gay as describing one's sexual orientation.
  14. Is it every FBO or every faith-based FBO? Just wondering. Either way, like I said, I don't find it to be particularly impressive. Support for a law that offers you the same protections as it offers the other guy doesn't give you any moral high ground. And they only came around to it after losing a hard fought battle against marriage equality.
  15. I don’t share in the great adoration that many have for the Church’s support of the 2015 “Utah Compromise”. It granted basic civil rights protections to the LGBTQ population while protecting the Church’s right to discriminate against them. I don’t see that as particularly impressive.
  16. I believe that. I seem to recall MormonLeaks showing emails that showed the policy was being recommended (at the area authority and SP level) during the summer of 2015. But I don’t know where to find the emails. What makes me think that significant changes are coming in the next handbook revision is not just the how long the change is taking, since the 4-April announcement, but also the letter telling local leadership to stop using the printed copies.
  17. I agree that it’s more involved than changing the text on a webpage. It needs to be published across multiples platforms: the website as well as the gospel library app on multiple platforms. But, revisions to the handbook aren’t rare. The last one was two months ago. If it takes multiple months to publish a change, that means the Nov 2015 policy would have been decided in August of that year or earlier.
  18. Thanks. And, WRT the handbook, I think if it was just the changes to the two sections impacted by the Nov 2015 policy, we would have seen it already. I'm anticipating more large scale changes with the next revision but, who knows, they could just be busy with other things. Although, it seems like they would have agreed on new handbook language before announcing the reversal.
  19. Just curious -- where was the reversal called a "revelatory event"? I thought all we had on this was from the 4-Apr news release. Was three something else said? FYI... still no change to the policy in the online version of the handbook. Given the lack of an update and the letter recently sent to local leaders (instructing us to get ride of paper copies), I am wondering if the next revision will be dramatically different. Hopefully they'll ditch the concept of two handbooks - one public and one with limited distribution. At this point they might as well let all members have access to everything.
  20. Since @The Nehor's last thread on this subject was dubbed "dubious" ... I'll add a second witness -- the information cited in the OP was sent out as an official communication to Bishops and a host of other stake/ward/branch leaders. Can't wait!
  21. While I would assume that the PR statement was approved by at least some of the Brethren, I'd challenge anyone who believes it was inspired or revealed of God. The headline proclaimed the Church's support of "fairness for all" but the writing of the statement revealed such a bias against the LGBTQ population and their supporters that it immediately threw the fairness claim into question. It reads more like a propaganda piece meant to rally the base.
  22. I think the fact that the Prophet and Apostles claimed the words as their own is an important distinction. But, I believe it contains great counsel and I'll continue to live by its precepts.
  23. How do you define revelation? If it was revelation from God, you would think that President Hinckley might have stated such when he introduced it and that the FP and Q12 would not have taken credit for it: "In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation: “We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim..."
  24. Well, the switch to released-time seminary and hiring full-time CES instructors definitely increases the formalities. I think what you've mentioned is mostly the reason for seminary "credit" -- consideration when applying to church schools and visas for missionaries. And, if I'm being honest, I am proud of the fact that I completed four years of early morning seminary. Although, all we really had to do was show up.
  • Create New...