Diversity In The Church

[annewandering]

In your opinion, was the Church's support for Prop 8 inspired by God or not? I'll not comment on a simple yes or no answer.

it would be a lot easier if everything from the mouths and pens of general authorities was automatically doctrine. but its not so we have to decide for ourselves once again.

[MormonMason]

i like the spiritual sense of diversity, being that man is so full of amazing and wonderful differences. different isnt bad. until we have a perfect form of government we have to cob together the best we can from bits and pieces.

the two general sets of thought now in this country are not all that great, but they each have good and bad.

one thing i worry about with lack of divergency is how it spills over into other areas. an example is something that happened in a former ward in oakland. the 1st councilor in the relief society was my visiting teacher. we got along fine and liked to have nice chats. one day she brought up an interesting subject. it was how she thought it was disgraceful that the polyonesians in our ward took off their shoes in church. she was greatly offended at their lack of respect to God.

she never realized that they thought it was disrespectful to wear shoes in a house of God. and didnt bother to find out.

she was a wonderful lady, but it is this lack of even thinking others might be different but still right that worries me.

Wow! Even Moses was commanded to remove his shoes in a holy place.

[BCSpace]

The Church's support for Prop 8 is published by the Church itself, therefore, it is doctrine by it's own definition of doctrine.

find me a reference to that because it is my understanding that is completely not true.

Didn't the Church send out a letter?

There are quite a few others published on the Church's web site here.

[BCSpace]

In your opinion, was the Church's support for Prop 8 inspired by God or not? I'll not comment on a simple yes or no answer.

it would be a lot easier if everything from the mouths and pens of general authorities was automatically doctrine.

It's not of course, but the Church has given the clear standard for it's own definition of doctrine found in the link in my siggy.

but its not so we have to decide for ourselves once again.

Not true at all. Seeing as how the Church as clearly defined what is and is not doctrine, what we have to decide is how much of the doctrine we will believe.

[MormonMason]

find me a reference to that because it is my understanding that is completely not true.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World is something of a doctrinal nature. Proposition 8 is in keeping with both the spirit and letter of this proclamation, signed by the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, as well as current doctrine of the Church regarding the practice of marriage, in this life, in this time period.

The Church leadership had little choice but to encourage members of the Church to get out and encourage others to vote for legislation that is in keeping with moral doctrines of the Church. To sit back and do nothing is to allow others to decide for you the definition of marriage and what the law will allow others to do to the Church in the near future. Such possibilities have now been averted and delayed--at least for now.

[Jason]

"Embrace diversity". What exactly does that mean?

"Diversity" is a nice buzz word, I guess, but what's the real substance behind the word? How exactly do we "embrace" it? What exactly would change in the Church if we did "embrace diversity"?

Do you suppose when Jesus prayed "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me," that he was really praying to have his apostles "embrace diversity"?

[oats]

Gospel culture should be the backbone of any ward. It is important everywhere.

Secondary cultures become less significant, though a wonderful spice, when the members embrace the gospel and change their habits that do not help them in pursuit of eternal goals.

[annewandering]

It's not of course, but the Church has given the clear standard for it's own definition of doctrine found in the link in my siggy.

Not true at all. Seeing as how the Church as clearly defined what is and is not doctrine, what we have to decide is how much of the doctrine we will believe.

so do you have a reference that says the letters asking for support in california are doctrine?

[talisyn]

it would be a lot easier if everything from the mouths and pens of general authorities was automatically doctrine. but its not so we have to decide for ourselves once again.

Agreed, totally. If everything was automatically doctrine we wouldn't have to raise our hand to sustain people, we wouldn't have to study, ponder, pray, and sometimes even fast in order to understand the truthfulness of a gospel principle. There are some things that took years for people to get their heads around (i.e. why did Brigham Young discontinue priesthood for black members, why did the Church discontinue polygamy if we still hold it to be a gospel principle, why did the Church support prop. 8 but didn't do much that I could see about Mass. gay marriage) but I have faith God knows the members of His Church better than we do. A time and a season for all things, and most importantly order in all things.

And I do believe gay marriage is a bad thing because the family as put forth by the family proclamation is an eternal unit, required by God. I just don't see how the truth of that is gonna help us in a court of law lol. It's hard to be religious and liberal sometimes, but that's only cause you're almost constantly explaining yourself to both sides of the issue.

[annewandering]

"Embrace diversity". What exactly does that mean?

"Diversity" is a nice buzz word, I guess, but what's the real substance behind the word? How exactly do we "embrace" it? What exactly would change in the Church if we did "embrace diversity"?

Do you suppose when Jesus prayed "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me," that he was really praying to have his apostles "embrace diversity"?

i dont see anywhere that jesus said we should become mindless robots all seeking to be clones of each other.

it is quite possible to be one in Christ but not be clones of one another. i am totally floored that this is even debated by anyone in the church.

edited to be a better person.

[Avatar4321]

i like the spiritual sense of diversity, being that man is so full of amazing and wonderful differences. different isnt bad. until we have a perfect form of government we have to cob together the best we can from bits and pieces.

Been sitting here thinking about this line and there was something that was bothering me about it. I think it was the "until we have a perfect form of government" line.

The sense I get from reading is that we are supposed to just hang with what we can until something better comes along. And that seems completely contrary to what we've been taught. We arent supposed to be waiting around. We are supposed to be actively seeking it. Brigham Young taught that if we want Streets of Gold in Zion, we had to start paving the roads. We are supposed to build Zion. Not wait around till it comes.

Is this what we are seeking? Is it really? Sometimes I wonder.

[annewandering]

Agreed, totally. If everything was automatically doctrine we wouldn't have to raise our hand to sustain people, we wouldn't have to study, ponder, pray, and sometimes even fast in order to understand the truthfulness of a gospel principle. There are some things that took years for people to get their heads around (i.e. why did Brigham Young discontinue priesthood for black members, why did the Church discontinue polygamy if we still hold it to be a gospel principle, why did the Church support prop. 8 but didn't do much that I could see about Mass. gay marriage) but I have faith God knows the members of His Church better than we do. A time and a season for all things, and most importantly order in all things.

And I do believe gay marriage is a bad thing because the family as put forth by the family proclamation is an eternal unit, required by God. I just don't see how the truth of that is gonna help us in a court of law lol. It's hard to be religious and liberal sometimes, but that's only cause you're almost constantly explaining yourself to both sides of the issue.

i would for once like to see anyone explain why we have to defend being liberal in anything. it is not synonomous with satan worship although i was told pretty much that by someone not long ago. i would be more than happy to give my views on different political issues as they pertain to gospel standards. but once the label of satanist, or in other words liberal, is attached it is not likely to be read and considered.

[talisyn]

i dont see anywhere that jesus said we should become mindless robots all seeking to be clones of each other.

it is quite possible to be one in Christ but not belong to the same poliical party. i am totally floored that this is even debated by anyone in the church.

lol no politics, mom. It's diversity of thought. I find it fascinating that people can come from all sorts of places, all sorts of thinking, and come to the same conclusion: the Church is true. I love the gospel, I love the Church, I love the people in the Church. The diversity in Christ's church is a wonderful thing.

[annewandering]

lol no politics, mom. It's diversity of thought. I find it fascinating that people can come from all sorts of places, all sorts of thinking, and come to the same conclusion: the Church is true. I love the gospel, I love the Church, I love the people in the Church. The diversity in Christ's church is a wonderful thing.

lol ok. and it is exciting to see that diversity. i sometimes think about all the people who will start their own worlds and wonder how they will be the same and different. of course the gospel is the same always but God sure has a lot of creative people for children.

[koakaipo]

Diversity is full of epic win.

We all come from different places and backgrounds and cultural upbringings.

We are diverse.

We all unite under the gospel.

In that respect, the universal nature of the gospel unites us and binds us.

How our faith manifests though, because of our diversity?

Will come in all different shapes and forms.

And those different shapes and forms aren't deviations at all.

They are an opportunity for us to strengthen our testimony, by seeing the multi-faceted nature of faith in action.

Sometimes, I think people confuse the cultural manifestation of their faith with faith itself. I think that's where a lot of mischief comes in honestly.

And that goes for political diversity too, if that's the main point of this thread. It seems the idea that there is a one true party is very americana, because non-American Mormons tend to be somewhat confused by our tendencies within the states to fuse political affiliations with religious devotion.

[koakaipo]

There is a distinct Mormon culture, and some things I'd be very hesitant to change. For example our music. It's distinct from the black Southern Baptist style. For some converts our style lacks soul. Should we change to that other style in the name of diversity? I don't think so. When I was young, I thought our music was boring, but I've grown to love it, finding in it a great deal of spirituality, and I would very much miss it if it was replaced with the style I've heard in some other churches. I don't think we need bass guitars, drums, electric guitars and swaying choirs in bright uniforms. That style while exciting and praise worthy in many ways would steal reverence from our meetings. Some I'm sure would find the it easier to feel at home in our meetings, but I still wouldn't welcome that change. But I do welcome those members from diverse backgrounds, and feel that long time members should go out of our way to help new members feel loved and appreciated.

Risingtide a crunchy conservative

Culture is not static though, it changes. What is considered distinct Mormon culture in this day and age is very situational.

I've been in wards in Southern California and Hawaii and Northern California, where distinct Mormon culture is not so distinct...where regional culture will dictate in many ways. For instance, Polynesians tend to arrange their music with more gospel oriented styles, heavy on acapella and multiple harmonies. I've been in other wards that are ethnically very diverse and what you got musically would literally be a grabag of different styles, even if the music itself may be a traditional Mormon hymn.

And that's okay too, because bishops basically can decide with discretion what is allowed musically in sacrament and what isn't now.

And that fact that the decisions are made at the local level shows the foresight of our leaders that what is considered central or kosher in one place, won't necessarily be what is central in another place.

[BCSpace]

so do you have a reference that says the letters asking for support in california are doctrine?

Yes. I gave you the link.

[annewandering]

Been sitting here thinking about this line and there was something that was bothering me about it. I think it was the "until we have a perfect form of government" line.

The sense I get from reading is that we are supposed to just hang with what we can until something better comes along. And that seems completely contrary to what we've been taught. We arent supposed to be waiting around. We are supposed to be actively seeking it. Brigham Young taught that if we want Streets of Gold in Zion, we had to start paving the roads. We are supposed to build Zion. Not wait around till it comes.

Is this what we are seeking? Is it really? Sometimes I wonder.

its very interesting you should say that. i will explain in a minute. first though. by cobbing together the best till we get a perfect government i am referring to what we do till we have Christ as the head of the government. till then it is the best we as mankind can put together. yes we have to do the very best and we can do a pretty good job. if not perfect. it wont be perfect until Christ is the head of it.

i have been pushing my family to think about the millenium. we know it is going to come. the question i am asking is do we wait for it? or start building it now? mankind wont just change over night even with Christ here. we have to be changed and ready for Him. we have to do all we can to bring about a millennial society now. we know how it is supposed to be in at least generalities. the very least we can do is to make our own lives in keeping with what we would need to be there.

what are we waiting for?

[annewandering]

The Family: A Proclamation to the World is something of a doctrinal nature. Proposition 8 is in keeping with both the spirit and letter of this proclamation, signed by the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, as well as current doctrine of the Church regarding the practice of marriage, in this life, in this time period.

The Church leadership had little choice but to encourage members of the Church to get out and encourage others to vote for legislation that is in keeping with moral doctrines of the Church. To sit back and do nothing is to allow others to decide for you the definition of marriage and what the law will allow others to do to the Church in the near future. Such possibilities have now been averted and delayed--at least for now.

everything in the Proclamation is doctrine and was long before the proclamation was written as far as i know.

how does this make the request for support of prop 8 doctrine? there are other views on how prop 8 affects us. even in good members of the church. i support it but do not see it as a commandment.

[annewandering]

Yes. I gave you the link.

i am sorry but i think we are misunderstanding each other. i have no doubts about the marriage issue. and i support the efforts to keep the traditional definition of marriage.

some people in the church, good members, may well disagree about prop 8 while still agreeing with the doctrine of marriage. they may be wrong. in fact i think they are. that doesnt mean they are going against doctrine. it means they are going against prop 8.

i am not going to defend them except to say we are not robots. we have free agency to decide for ourselves if doctrine applies to a particular circumstance. clearly they feel it doesnt in this case.

one thing about it is it has helped us to solidify our own views on the subject. opposition has a tendency to make a person think and thinking is a good thing.

[MormonMason]

everything in the Proclamation is doctrine and was long before the proclamation was written as far as i know.

how does this make the request for support of prop 8 doctrine? there are other views on how prop 8 affects us. even in good members of the church. i support it but do not see it as a commandment.

The proclamation is doctrine and has been for some time. When the Brethren ask the Church to support something relative to the doctrine, it becomes part and parcel of the doctrine to the membership concerned with the issue. The Brethren will not tell us how to vote but we surely will be held accountable by God for how we vote, for how we vote can determine things which we often cannot see until it either is too late or the outcome is years off from what we might see initially.

Several Presidents of the Church have specifically asked and encouraged members of the Church to get involved in their communities. God wants us involved. The Brethren ask us to get involved consequently. I do not understand why you see a disconnect somewhere between what the Brethren have asked members of the Church to do and our responsibility as members of the Church. Please explain more fully your position.

[semlogo]

God's politics are monarchical in nature--it's the King's way or the "broad way."I have seen in several Wards in several states more an increase of those who truly believe that wickedness is happiness and that debauchery is freedom. Some comments made in the now dead thread seemed to reflect that stance--perhaps, unknowingly.

Debauchery meaning a reluctance to own guns, right?

It depends on what you mean by "diversity" if it means opposing the Kingdom of God (The Church's) stand on anything, whether social, political, religious or whatever, then it is "not of God." I think the Lord said the following:Also the following:In light of these scriptures I do not see a lot of room for the worldly concept of diversity.

Think of it this way: there is no political party that reflects all or even half of the gospel, but members are free to be liberal or conservative in their political beliefs, black or white, male female, even gay or straight as long as they (gays) remain celibate.

[MormonMason]

Debauchery meaning a reluctance to own guns, right?

...

Nope. And, you know it.

[Lightbearer]

Think of it this way: there is no political party that reflects all or even half of the gospel, but members are free to be liberal or conservative in their political beliefs, black or white, male female, even gay or straight as long as they (gays) remain celibate.

That is true, however there are some political movements that are in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church and run counter to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There some parties and factions that would overthrow our freedom and our liberty of these I am of the opinion that no member of the Church can be considered in good standing and affiliate with these groups. As for guns I do not and never have owned one, however I do not want a Totalitarian state coming in confiscating them from law abiding citizens who have the right to protect their persons and property as is stated in the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but that is a discussion for another time and another board (politics not being allowed here.)

[The Nehor]

Been sitting here thinking about this line and there was something that was bothering me about it. I think it was the "until we have a perfect form of government" line.

The sense I get from reading is that we are supposed to just hang with what we can until something better comes along. And that seems completely contrary to what we've been taught. We arent supposed to be waiting around. We are supposed to be actively seeking it. Brigham Young taught that if we want Streets of Gold in Zion, we had to start paving the roads. We are supposed to build Zion. Not wait around till it comes.

Is this what we are seeking? Is it really? Sometimes I wonder.

Building Zion has to do with strengthening the Saints and growing the Church and preparing for the time that our leadership will ask us to more fully live the principles of it.

If you're trying to establish Zion politically I think you're off your rocker. It's not happening because it can't happen. Until then governments should be maintained as best they can be with as many good people as we can find. I worry about anyone who feels they have a religious mandate to alter government. I don't want my leaders to have visions of utopian futures that they will sacrifice (and by necessity ask me to sacrifice to create) for. I want them to give me justice on a rough worldly level, keep the roads and police services working, keep my water clean, the post office running, and maintain a reasonable national defense. Put simply, I want a humdrum government that just chugs along.