bluebell

For sure, it's possible to explain and/or understand the gospel in a way that makes it very similar to the idea of ritual magic. Both outside of the church and definitely inside of it. But in terms of the gospel as it actually is (and the ordinances thereof), I still think the line between ordinances and ritual magic is pretty solid. Calm already brought up one obvious difference and that is that baptism and confirmation doesn't actually do anything. It's the sealing of the Holy Spirit of promise that provides the blessing, not the act itself. If an unrepentant sinner insincerely decided to be baptized, it would do absolutely nothing for them (and might even cause some spiritual harm). Same for temple ordinances. None of it happens "regardless". I think it was Elder Bednar that reiterated that point this last weekend in GC (but it might have been another apostle, I can't remember for sure). I think D&C 130 is one of those verses that gets us into trouble, probably because we so badly want the gospel to be transactional sometimes (speaking mostly for myself). Who hasn't wanted to believe you could guarantee the outcome of an event or experience by saying the right combination of words, or doing a certain number of good deeds, or paying a certain amount in tithing? But I think deep down we know it doesn't work that way. Maybe not at first but the pool gets pretty deep the further you go (to steal Elder Christofferson's? pool analogy from GC) and eventually it becomes crystal clear. We can only A) obey God's laws because of the Atonement and B) we have no say over what or when the blessings will be. From my perspective D&C 130 is just another example of the teachings in Mosiah 3:19. Follow Christ, submit to His will and leave your will behind, and He will bless you to become like He is. He provides the way and He chooses the blessings. We exert no control over anything, not the doing and not the getting.

Could the dividing line be one of control? It seems like religious ordinances are a symbolic act used to replace our will with that of the supernatural while ritual magic is a literal act used to exert our will over the supernatural? It seems like religious ordinances are centered on giving up personal control while ritual magic is about gaining personal control. For sure though, many a religious person has attempted to exert control over God. I would guess almost all of us have subconsciously tried to make religious observance and worship into ritual magic on occasion. That's why we keep getting the 'God is not a vending machine' talks. The dividing line between the two is definitely there but we struggle with it because following a "recipe" that could ensure a specific outcome is a lot easier than Mosiah 3:19.

Yes, if there was someone who was determined to subvert a parents authority they could probably do it and not technically be breaking any rules, but it wouldn't do them any good What would be the point? They couldn't baptize the minors and most leaders would be the kibosh on it as soon as they found out since the handbook also says that parents should know what their children are learning about. In the past there were missions that did some unethical (and non doctrinal) things with baptism and I'm so glad the church has put a stop to it. I've never known of a missionary that was teaching minors that didn't go out of their way to involve the parents as much as they could.

Can you provide the references you are using? That would make it easier to have a discussion.

It looks like according to the church handbook that Missionaries are not required to get parental consent to teach or speak to minors about the gospel. Of course they must have parental consent to baptize them. Nowhere are Missionaries instructed to subvert parents.

Elder L. Tom Perry taught this in GC in 2006 and in that talk he quoted Elder Delbert L Stapley teaching the same thing in 1965. It's a little controversial because there is nothing really in the standard works that backs up the claim, and Christ never says that about taking the sacrament either. We've discussed it at least once on this board and probably more. I think it's one of those things that certainly could be true but no member is under any obligation to believe it just because it was taught a few times. I don't think there is any harm believing or not believing it. (I'm curious where is the church now teaching that we renew temple covenants in the temple?) I think the real question isn't about renewing covenants though it's about what doctrine is and how so many members (active and not) really don't have a good base understanding of that concept and that's why it causes consternation whenever our leaders understanding of something theological changes.

Yes, it is terrible

Exactly. Like the author said, of course it's not all men. But it would not be the incredibly number of men that it is if all the 'good' men actually stopped enabling, celebrating, deflecting, and excusing the bad ones. We need more guys like this author who recognize that when someone responds to these crimes with 'it's not all men', it's a sign that person has lost the plot.

It’s what we do. But like I said, our ward only does teacher training once a year so we’ve only had to do it once a year for primary as well. It will be interesting to see if that changes with the new directions.

Agreed. The Susan B Anthony Project has a Survivor's Art Gallery that shows what actual rape survivors were wearing when they were raped. If you follow this link and scroll down a tiny bit, you can see it. It's heartbreaking and shows that rape has nothing to do with clothing. https://sbaproject.org/what-were-you-wearing/

Another addition--written by Adam Cam in response to breaking news about a gang rape that was reported in 2024 at Cornell--to the 'not all men' discussion: It's been reported that the text that was sent out went to 57 other men. None of them did anything about it. It's also been reported that the guy who sent that text was pre-med at the time of the rape.

Sounds like the church thinks that the teachers are going to really struggle with this

In our ward we have only been doing teacher training once a year, and I've heard nothing new yet. But my ward is full of really old people who have been together since the dawn of time. They struggle with adapting to new stuff and tend to slide back into 1990s era church if they can get away with it. We've been late out of sacrament meeting (like 10 minutes over) every sunday but one so far.

Do you think she would hunt you down if you went rogue and didn't go sometimes?

How are they doing it with the primary teachers?

We haven’t heard anything about this in our ward.

I think you are right. Agreeing with everything the church does is different than consecrating our efforts to the kingdom of God.

There’s lots of things that don’t match the ideal though that the church does not label as needing to be discouraged. Adoption doesn’t match the ideal for example. I am uncomfortable with this gray area that this policy creates. Where it is implied to be bad, but not bad enough to tell people not to do it. it seems like it would be better to tell people to proceed with caution and to make sure that they take the decision to the Lord, or something like that.

One thing I don’t understand about the topic is what “discourages” actually means. Surrogacy is obviously not wrong or they would say that, so if it’s not wrong then why discourage him? Is it because they think it could be wrong but they don’t know for sure?

I strongly recommend this whole series on Race and Priesthood because it covers everything, has access to primary sources (including from the church vault) that many historians didn't have before, and though faithful to the church is good at not whitewashing the history and keeping biases to a minimum. It covers the sources and the context, which is essential in any study of historical issues. But here is the specific episode that deals with this point in history. The podcast isn't very long if you do podcasts but there is also a transcript if you want to read it. https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/podcast-episode/1852-and-the-beginnings-of-the-priesthood-temple-ban-in-the-church/

Those people all publicly criticized the church and publicly put forth their views as correct, seeking to convert others to their perspective. Charlie has shared his life publicly but never set himself up as a standard for truth on the subject. The comparison between discussing the morality of his personal choices and the morality of the arguments others have made against the gospel and the church falls apart real fast in my opinion.

In the notes for the 1852 meeting, he also says (in the back and forth between him and Orson Pratt, who adamantly disagreed with him), “I may vary in my views from others, and they may think that I’m foolish in the things that I have spoken and they might think that they know more than I do but I know more than they do.” He clearly believed he was right, but he never invokes the idea of any revelation from God as the source of his rightness. Pratt brought up many times in his arguments that they could not deprive blacks from the rights to the priesthood based on color because God had not directed them to do so, and BY never contradicts him on that. In true BY style he just says "I'm right". I agree that scripturally the arguments against SSM are not well supported.

There’s a difference between discussing doctrine and practices, and discussing whether a specific person is sinning, how they are sinning, and how God feels about their choices. I brought up Charlie’s activity in his ward because it was providing factual information. It was never meant to open up a discussion about his personal standing before God.

Was there a claimed revelation for the priesthood ban? I think Young, from the beginning, referred to it as his personal views, and then eventually there were others who claimed false memories about Joseph Smith saying it was wrong, but I didn’t think any president of the church actually claimed revelation on it? I think you are right though, in that the priesthood ban came from bias and prejudice, and that the prohibition against same-sex marriage could certainly be from a similar place. I think one of the issues that can’t be ignored when trying to compare the two is that from the beginning Brigham Young taught that someday, eventually, Black members would get the priesthood. There’s no equivalent to same-sex marriage in our theological history. That doesn’t mean anything in and of itself, but in a comparison, I think it’s relevant.

To you. That's an important part of the equation that I think probably needs to be said more. Not about your opinions specifically but about all of our opinions. Feeling strongly about something, and having arguments that show it's reasonable and which back us up, doesn't make opinions canon. You feel a certain way about their choices. 100% valid. Also 100% not fact. I don't think anyone is saying that you should be indifferent. I just think that it's good to remember that no one else should care about our indifference regarding their choices. You can think he's very much in the wrong and he equally can know that what you think (or what I think) doesn't matter. True words. I would guess that Charlie Bird also agrees with them. You can definitely advocate for whatever interpretation of the gospel that you believe is most correct. Charlie and everyone else can do the same.