Is the Church sometimes influenced by the philosophies of men?

[Bikeemikey]

It would be rather disconcerting if it was not. Aren't the prophets men?

[daz2]

Homosexuality however will never change. It's clear the scriptures on this issue.

You may be right that the teachings on same sex relationships will never change. However, to which scriptures are you referring? The only passages that condemn homosexuality of which I am aware are in Leviticus and some of Paul's epistles--I don't know of any such passages in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants or Pearl of Great Price. I am not disputing whether your interpretation and prediction is correct, just asking what Restoration scriptures in the standard works address this issue.

[Pahoran]

It is not a matter of correcting incorrect beliefs, but actually giving us some real information so these beliefs never propagate. Take blacks in the priesthood. Why would God not give some small tidbit of information on the subject when the church was founded, considering it was going to affect a large part of the world population exaltation.

Really? How?

No instead of being on the leading edge of doing what was the right, which you think inspired men would do, the church had to be dragged into doing what was right.

"Dragged" how? Having established that the old caved-under-pressure chestnut is a canard, in what way can the Church be said to have been "dragged" anywhere?

And who is to say that what it did previously was wrong?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

instead of being on the leading edge of doing what was the right, which you think inspired men would do, the church had to be dragged into doing what was right.

Lots and lots of assumptions in that comment.

I don't seem to share any of them.

[Walden]

That's precisely my sense of the situation at the time.

I do believe that one "external" event was influential in bringing the question of blacks and priesthood acutely to the mind of President Kimball. But that was the impending dedication of the S

[Pahoran]

Lots of assumptions in that comment.

Care to name a few? Dan reports his observations and his awareness of relevant events. Which of those are "assumptions?" Was Dan merely assuming that the Church built the Sao Paolo Temple at the time?

I don't seem to share any of them.

Like that's a surprise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

Lots of assumptions in that comment.

Yes, indeed. I assume that my senses provide reasonably reliable access to a real world, that my memory represents an actual past (and not merely, say, the input of electrodes implanted into my brain, which was created only three days ago and is lying in a vat of chemicals in the laboratory of Professor Frankenstein), that there is an actual relationship between causes and effects, that my reading and my experiences in southern California and Utah and Europe during that period were not wildly atypical, that Pahoran and Calmoriah (whose separate perceptions from Australia and New Zealand and northern California and Utah seem to match mine very accurately) are actual people who aren't lying, and so forth.

I don't seem to share any of them.

Good luck with that.

[Scott Lloyd]

The story of Jesus refusing, and then relenting, reveals that the Lord can change His view based upon some externality -- there, a mother pleading for the life of her child.

I don't see it as a foregone conclusion that this was a matter of Jesus relenting. I offer the opinion that Jesus knew what he was doing the entire time, that it was a test enabling the mother to demonstrate the necessary faith for her child to be healed.

Often in life, blessings are delayed. I believe this is by design, giving us a space of time to exercise and strengthen our faith. That, in fact, is the message of of the parable of the unjust judge: "that men ought always to pray, and not to feint" (Luke 18:1).

[Scott Lloyd]

That's precisely my sense of the situation at the time.

I do believe that one "external" event was influential in bringing the question of blacks and priesthood acutely to the mind of President Kimball. But that was the impending dedication of the S

[Scott Lloyd]

Lots of assumptions in that comment.

I don't seem to share any of them.

Are you old enough to remember how things were in 1978? Were you even alive then?

[Daniel Peterson]

I will corroborate it as being my perception as well. I clearly remember thinking at the time that if it were a matter of the Brethren caving under pressure, it would have happened in the late '60s, when the Church was taking heat and we were in the heyday of student demonstrations, protests, sit-ins, etc., not just on the subject of civil rights but on a host of outer counter-culture causes, including anti-war activism.

The pressure on the Church over its priesthood policy had definitely quieted down during the mid- to late 1970s.

I'm going to make the wild and daring assumption that Scott Lloyd, whose experience tallies very exactly with mine and Pahoran's and Calmoriah's, really exists as a separate center of consciousness and is not pointlessly lying.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm going to make the wild and daring assumption that Scott Lloyd, whose experience tallies very exactly with mine and Pahoran's and Calmoriah's, really exists as a separate center of consciousness and is not pointlessly lying.

Actually, I am an android created by Daniel Peterson and endowed with his own consciousness, memories, perceptions, etc. He got the idea from an old "Twilight Zone" episode.

[Deborah]

That's precisely my sense of the situation at the time.

I do believe that one "external" event was influential in bringing the question of blacks and priesthood acutely to the mind of President Kimball. But that was the impending dedication of the S

[Deborah]

Everything that leads you to Jesus Christ is vital to your salvation, not just ordinances and outward manifestations of obedience.

So what is the issue with a certain people not being able to participate in certain ordinances? Certainly those members of the church who were part of that group exhibited exceptional faith and there was no doubt that they would receive every blessing they were entitled to either in this life or the next.

[Questing Beast]

While I believe the church has been steadfast in its mission of proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, it seems that it has a history of adopting philosophies and ideas from other peoples in society. For Example:

-The the adoption of the popular idea that all black people are descended from Cain through Ham.

Actually, this was brought into the Church by its converts; nothing about that originated with Joseph Smith. In fact, he allowed the very first Black male members to be ordained; but by then the Missourians were getting all angry over the Mormons trying to persuade their slaves to leave their masters for Mormonism. So in effect Joseph Smith adopted a middle of the road policy vis-a-vis the Blacks, which stayed fixed until 1978.

- The priesthood being given to blacks conveniently following the civil rights movement.

How is this a philosophy of men thing though? More political than philosophical. Mormons had been told for generations that the Blacks would get the priesthood when "God" said so; even Brigham Young taught that, but erred when he asserted that every "white Gentile" would get the opportunity to receive the priesthood before a single Black man would.

- Anti-scientific ideas from the Young Earth Creationist movement perpetuated by Bruce R. McKonkie and Joseph Fielding Smith.

But these ideas are fundy "Abrahamic religion" concepts, not the philosophies of men adopted by the true faith. The reason why McConkie and Smith were so adamant about biblical literalness was because they felt that belief in the Bible was being eroded BY the philosophies of men, i.e. science.

-The idea that all native americans descended from lost tribes of Israel (A popular belief in the 19th century).

Again, how is this a bad philosophy of men? It was widely believed as a theory; Joseph Smith bought it hook like and sinker. And now the Church is stuck with it, sans DNA evidence, sans linguistic evidence, sans EVIDENCE period. The adoption of the philosophies of men would be to reject the BofM entirely as a historical book about the real world.

It makes me wonder if they'll ever give in and let women have the priesthood or allow gays to marry. Maybe. Maybe not.

I expect that women will someday hold the "priesthood". But I would be very surprised if GLBTQs could ever be "members in good standing" while being married to each other....

[Pahoran]

Again, how is this [The idea that all native americans descended from lost tribes of Israel] a bad philosophy of men? It was widely believed as a theory; Joseph Smith bought it hook like and sinker.

Did he? What evidence do you have for that?

And now the Church is stuck with it, sans DNA evidence, sans linguistic evidence, sans EVIDENCE period.

How is the Church "stuck with it?" I've never heard or read where the Church has advanced that idea.

The adoption of the philosophies of men would be to reject the BofM entirely as a historical book about the real world.

Oh, you think the idea that all native americans descended from lost tribes of Israel has something to do with the Book of Mormon, do you?

How do you come to that conclusion?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

This thread reminds of an occasion back in February 2004 on the old Zion's Lighthouse Message Board (ZLMB). A cynic and de facto apostate going under the screen name "Brianspro" predicted that within the next decade, the Church would drift toward the "mainstream," becoming virtually indistinguishable from any Protestant sect. He even predicted that women would be given the priesthood within that period of time, a prediction he later removed when he edited his post.

I said I was going to hold him to that prediction, to the point of recording it in my Palm PDA and setting an alarm for Feb. 20, 2014. I had a Palm 505 at the time. I have since gone through several models of Palm PDAs, migrating my record of his prediction and the associated alarm each time I changed. Palm has now quit making and supporting PDAs, so I am on the verge of retiring my Palm TX and moving to an iPod Touch, but I will be sure to again migrate the record to the new device.

It is now February 2011, seven years since I recorded Brianpro's prediction. We are just three years out from it falling due. Are we any closer to the Church having "mainstreamed" to the point of being indistinguishable from any ordinary Protestant sect?

I wonder what ever happened to Brianspro and if he will be around in three years to answer for his prediction.

[Deborah]

Actually, this was brought into the Church by its converts; nothing about that originated with Joseph Smith. In fact, he allowed the very first Black male members to be ordained; but by then the Missourians were getting all angry over the Mormons trying to persuade their slaves to leave their masters for Mormonism. So in effect Joseph Smith adopted a middle of the road policy vis-a-vis the Blacks, which stayed fixed until 1978.

Whoa...where did this come from. Such a blatantly false statement needs to be supported by evidence. CFR.

[Daniel Peterson]

This is how I recall it at the time. I was living in North Carolina and we had black members of the church and I remembered how excited I was that the revelation came, totally unexpected because we had waited so long and already been persecuted and criticized for many years over this issue. At the time the revelation came there really wasn't any heat, but I know the issue of the multiracial cultures was of concern.

Deborah's experience seems to corroborate that of Dan Peterson, Pahoran, Calmoriah, and Scott Lloyd.

Rather recklessly, I'm going to assume that Deborah, too, is a genuinely separate and conscious human being who is honestly reporting actual experiences and perceptions, and that North Carolina (which I truly believe I've visited on at least three or four occasions) has been a real place since 1978, if not even earlier.

[Daniel Peterson]

It is now February 2011, seven years since I recorded Brianpro's prediction. We are just three years out from it falling due. Are we any closer to the Church having "mainstreamed" to the point of being indistinguishable from any ordinary Protestant sect?

Are you saying, seriously, that you've missed the several articles that have appeared over just the past few days about Mitt Romney's potential presidential bid and how his mainstream Protestantism may affect it?

I wonder what ever happened to Brianspro and if he will be around in three years to answer for his prediction.

He now operates this Website.

[Scott Lloyd]

Deborah's experience seems to corroborate that of Dan Peterson, Pahoran, Calmoriah, and Scott Lloyd.

Rather recklessly, I'm going to assume that Deborah, too, is a genuinely separate and conscious human being who is honestly reporting actual experiences and perceptions, and that North Carolina (which I truly believe I've visited on at least three or four occasions) has been a real place since 1978, if not even earlier.

Incidentally, among the four individuals named above, I have the unique characteristic of having been born and reared in the Salt Lake Valley, so I was living in the heart of Mormondom at the time in question, the late '60s and mid-to-late '70s. If there had been a resurgence of heated opposition just prior which brought about the 1978 revelation, I surely would have noticed it. Instead, it was precisely as we have described it: a dying down of hostility and the surprising announcement following an interlude of several years.

[Questing Beast]

Did he? What evidence do you have for that?

How is the Church "stuck with it?" I've never heard or read where the Church has advanced that idea.

Oh, you think the idea that all native americans descended from lost tribes of Israel has something to do with the Book of Mormon, do you?

How do you come to that conclusion?

Regards,

Pahoran

I know what you're doing here: making a distinction between "lost TEN Tribes of Israel", and a lost remnant, i.e. the "branch broken off" from the land of Jerusalem and transplanted in the Americas. Sorry, that won't work. The BofM is all about HEBREWS being the dominant (or even entire) source of Native American presence. If 20th century scholarship has debunked "View of the Hebrews" fascination that gripped Joseph Smith it has at the same time rendered the "history" asserted in the BofM to that of a fable, fantasy or religious myth....

[Duncan]

That's precisely my sense of the situation at the time.

I do believe that one "external" event was influential in bringing the question of blacks and priesthood acutely to the mind of President Kimball. But that was the impending dedication of the S

[Questing Beast]

Whoa...where did this come from. Such a blatantly false statement needs to be supported by evidence. CFR.

Even Wikipedia has it. This is nothing new. The whole origin of Black Africans was inculcated from generations of folk "doctrine". Mormons simply brought it with them. The Missouri furor caused by Phelps' hubris resulted in Joseph Smith eventually writing his views on slavery as permitted while God did nothing to alter it; Joseph Smith appealed to the OT as his "original source" and proceeded from there....

[Calm]

I had not heard of this case, and would like to know more.

Got smart and did a google on frank's quote, it was the Bob Jones U case he was referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States