Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

A (Potentially) Interesting Thought Exercise


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand what you're saying but I was responding to Calm who stated that the main issue is because the person erred in doctrine and therefore would lead the child to err in doctrine. Because like I've said, a gay parent isn't going to teach a child to be gay and be in a SSM the same way a polygamist would create additional polygamists.

No, I didn't say it was the main issue.  I was challenging the reasoning that the two policies were not comparable.

And it is not just about teaching one false doctrine, but the implication of that false doctrine as well, which opens up rationalizing pretty much any false doctrine or justification of sin based on if the prophets can be so wrong as to call something so important and good as my parents' marriage a sin, they can be wrong on anything.

This is not the only issue, imo.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The handbook definition of apostasy in this regard is simply formally joining another church and advocating its teachings. Baptism isn’t mentioned, because it isn’t relevant. While the Church member indeed breaks his baptismal covenant, his apostasy is not in that but in joining another church and advocating its teachings. Members break their baptismal covenants all the time; that is not apostasy as defined in the handbook. As I already pointed out the applicable covenant vis-à-vis children is their parents' marriage or other social relationship and the resulting custodial relationship for the children, not the parents' baptism, religious affiliation or alignment with Church worthiness standards.

 

But aren't you suggesting that SSM and polygamy are essentially counterfeit covenants, thus the individual is apostate to the true covenant? (I hope I'm not misrepresenting- just not quite sure how to phrase)

If that is the case, then wouldn't someone being baptized into another church also be tantamount to the individual accepting a counterfeit covenant of baptism, thus being apostate on the issue of the ordinances/covenants? Then IF that is the case, that person has essentially become apostate to the covenant just as someone who engages in SSM or polygamy, thus their children also should be refused baptism. Does that make sense?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are there examples of apostasy on the issue of covenants that would also apply and thus restrict the child of the apostate from being baptized? For example, if a member of the church chooses to officially join another church and is baptized in that church. The church defines that as apostasy. It seems to be related to a misuse of the baptismal covenant. Would that person's children be forbidden baptism?

That's true of most polygamists. An employee of mine wanted to get baptized but because his parents were polygamists it required a lot of special interviews and first presidency approval. He got it, but it really was quite a process that included the Stake President meeting with his parents and seeing what their views were and then reporting back to the First Presidency. He went on a mission though and was approved.

47 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

For a church that claims to be the ONLY true church on earth, I think it makes them (leaders) look insecure and desperate when they have to worry about what members are posting on their social media accounts or blogs, especially if the criticism is true.  Criticism, IMO, can be a powerful tool for any institution to help it and its leaders grow.

It can also be destructive particularly if the aim of the criticism is to undermine other members' social connections.

I find odd the idea that it's always constructive and helpful rather than a mix of good and bad that has to be balanced in judgments.

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But aren't you suggesting that SSM and polygamy are essentially counterfeit covenants, thus the individual is apostate to the true covenant? (I hope I'm not misrepresenting- just not quite sure how to phrase)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect the reason polygamy and SSM are viewed differently is due to there being a bigger threat to the church itself. That is in both cases proponents want the church to change its structure. Yes there are some who don't but there's many more who do, and I think with both the brethren see them as existential threats in certain ways. Polygamy for obvious reasons related to Church history - both schisms in the 1840's and 50's but also what happened in the 1890's through 1920's. People forget, but Monson was an apostle when the debate about whether to restore blessings to the last excommunicated apostle. While the history is a bit complex and muddy the main issue was polygamy as were the excommunication of two apostles before. So while that seems like the very distant past to us, it's not to Nelson who came to manhood in an era when many wards still had polygamists in them and even apostles were being excommunicated for it.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But aren't you suggesting that SSM and polygamy are essentially counterfeit covenants, thus the individual is apostate to the true covenant? (I hope I'm not misrepresenting- just not quite sure how to phrase)

If that is the case, then wouldn't someone being baptized into another church also be tantamount to the individual accepting a counterfeit covenant of baptism, thus being apostate on the issue of the ordinances/covenants? Then IF that is the case, that person has essentially become apostate to the covenant just as someone who engages in SSM or polygamy, thus their children also should be refused baptism. Does that make sense?

I don’t think they have been identified as conditions for apostasy because they are “counterfeit” covenants, but because they rather openly and publicly defy the ways the sealing keys are exercised by the First Presidency, including how they have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Committed relationships are recognized as akin to marriage insofar as the raising of children is concerned, and so same-sex relationships are included with polygamy since neither, albeit committed relationships, is a legal/lawful marriage. Similarly, a cohabitating or otherwise committed mother and father relationship is not apostate.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's true of most polygamists. An employee of mine wanted to get baptized but because his parents were polygamists it required a lot of special interviews and first presidency approval. He got it, but it really was quite a process that included the Stake President meeting with his parents and seeing what their views were and then reporting back to the First Presidency. He went on a mission though and was approved.

It can also be destructive particularly if the aim of the criticism is to undermine other members' social connections.

I find odd the idea that it's always constructive and helpful rather than a mix of good and bad that has to be balanced in judgments.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect the reason polygamy and SSM are viewed differently is due to there being a bigger threat to the church itself. That is in both cases proponents want the church to change its structure. Yes there are some who don't but there's many more who do, and I think with both the brethren see them as existential threats in certain ways. Polygamy for obvious reasons related to Church history - both schisms in the 1840's and 50's but also what happened in the 1890's through 1920's. People forget, but Monson was an apostle when the debate about whether to restore blessings to the last excommunicated apostle. While the history is a bit complex and muddy the main issue was polygamy as were the excommunication of two apostles before. So while that seems like the very distant past to us, it's not to Nelson who came to manhood in an era when many wards still had polygamists in them and even apostles were being excommunicated for it.

You're right that this history really isn't that far back when we consider the age of our church's leaders. Polygamy still occupies a good deal of real estate in many of our brains.

I think polygamy and SSM are viewed and treated differently than other instances of apostasy, even cases of apostasy related to covenants. Thank you for stating there is a difference in treatment based on the perceived threat the church perceives. I totally agree with this. And it's not surprising that they would treat greater threats more harshly. But I think it illustrates what is perhaps the driving motivation on these policies; protection of the church.

The policy is not about doctrinal necessity or ethical consistency in adhering to moral principles. I believe that the many reasons the church as expressed (protecting the children etc) may have played a part in their consideration, but I believe the expressed reasons are secondary and primarily used to justify the policy that was put in place to protect the church from what they perceived to be significant threats.

 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I totally agree with this. And it's not surprising that they would treat greater threats more harshly. But I think it illustrates what is perhaps the driving motivation on these policies; protection of the church.

The policy is not about doctrinal necessity or ethical consistency in adhering to moral principles. I believe that the many reasons the church as expressed (protecting the children etc) may have played a part in their consideration, but I believe the expressed reasons are secondary and primarily used to justify the policy that was put in place to protect the church from what they perceived to be significant threats.

I don't think you can make that opposition. After all keeping the Church from apostasy is a doctrinal and ethical necessity in many people's views. My own included.

I also think that even if this is the main issue, it's not the only issue. Further if they see this as an existential threat to the Church, then it's quite reasonable they see the danger of children being used as pawns with the Church. Again the history of polygamy is likely the concern here.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think polygamy and SSM are viewed and treated differently than other instances of apostasy, even cases of apostasy related to covenants.

There are no other definitions of apostasy that have to do with covenants. These two are over just one, the marriage covenant for reasons i suggested above. The policies regarding the children have to do with the one marriage covenant also.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Don't talk about or share historical facts publically that might cast the church in a negative light?  For a church that claims to be the ONLY true church on earth, I think it makes them (leaders) look insecure and desperate when they have to worry about what members are posting on their social media accounts or blogs, especially if the criticism is true.  Criticism, IMO, can be a powerful tool for any institution to help it and its leaders grow.

Yet people whine when I criticize them here. You yourself have. I am not convinced you actually believe this except when it comes to the Church because you are a critic and want to weep about how important you are.

 

You are not.

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

IMO, you are only really free to express your true beliefs in the church publically (without any repercussions), as long as they align with what the church wants; I think the overarching theme is, follow the leaders...and let them do the thinking for you. 

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done."

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

Amazing, that whole stupidity is based on one written instruction by the Church back at the end of World War II and the Prophet specifically disagreed with it and said it is not the church's position. Your link makes that clear.

Yet critics hold it up as damning proof? Are they stupid? If you want to argue that criticism is healthy I would think you would make a minimal effort to offer factual and intelligent criticism but you have not so far so why should I expect a change now?

"When this critic speaks no thinking has been done."

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yet people whine when I criticize them here. You yourself have. I am not convinced you actually believe this except when it comes to the Church because you are a critic and want to weep about how important you are.

I question everything in life...it's not just the LDS Church.  I question things political/religious leaders, bosses or even family members and friends say...100%!  Of course I think it's important to question things...I want to look at life with my own lense, not with some narrow view the church or anyone wants me to see it through.  I guess I am not afraid to express my own views and come to my own conclusions.     

I don't think there is much freedom of thought and expression within the LDS Church (and in other religions), especially publically.  I know members who are afraid to publically admit they don't believe a certain historical claim (that the church wants them to believe) because their might be consequences. The moment you don't align publically with what the brethern want you to believe (even if what you believe is true), then you could be reprimanded. 

CarlinQuestionEverything.png

Link to comment

 

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I think the overarching theme is, follow the leaders...and let them do the thinking for you. 

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done."

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

 

  

You do realize that link is disavowing that idea, not supporting it, right?

Link to comment

I think the reason polygamy and SMM, both opposing the Church on the marriage covenant, are "singled out" is because sealing people up unto eternal life and exaltation requires couples entering the marriage covenant and children being born into or sealed into that covenant, resulting in the multi-generational linkage back to Adam and then to God. The generation of both physical/temporal life and spiritual/eternal life c0omes from this priesthood order. The policy for children follows that priority and related principles.

Link to comment
On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 4:32 PM, CV75 said:

There are no other definitions of apostasy that have to do with covenants. These two are over just one, the marriage covenant for reasons i suggested above. The policies regarding the children have to do with the one marriage covenant also.

That's cool, and I agree. I've been responding to the claim that SSM and polygamy are specifically more egregious because of covenant apostasy (I don't recall who originally made that claim). It was a phrase I'd never heard before.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's cool, and I agree. I've been responding to the claim that SSM and polygamy are specifically more egregious because of covenant apostasy (I don't recall who originally made that claim). It was a phrase I'd never heard before.

I think I brought it up, unless someone else did first ("apostasy against the covenants") and I was referring to the marriage covenants in particular. I agree that "egregious" is not a good descriptor because there are yet more abominable sins for which people are excommunicated without being considered apostasy per the handbook definition.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...