Should We Change Doctrine Or Practices To Please Critics?

[Jeff K.]

Let us now decode Cobalt's boilerplate anti-Mormon falsehood.

In 1879, two old men who were distantly related to Emma came forward with a wonderful story: that Joseph's first vision was a dream in which he saw the bleeding ghost of a murdered Spaniard. Nobody had ever heard of this story before Joseph and Hiel Lewis came forward to tell it. They subsequently claimed that Joseph had tried to join the local Methodist Church, but that one of them had objected on the grounds of Joseph's "bleeding ghost" story.

The problem is that their father, the Reverend Nathaniel C. Lewis, had given an affidavit about Joseph more than forty years earlier. He knew nothing of the "bleeding ghost" story, or of any other "necromancy" Joseph practiced. He reluctantly admitted that he had no firsthand knowledge of Joseph doing anything wrong, but assumed that Joseph must have been being careful when he was around the Reverend.

To sum up: the "bleeding ghost" story is a complete fabrication that has been utterly discredited.

That said, people are still free to believe it if they really, really want to.

Like Cobalt does.

Regards,

Pahoran

Wow, Judas Iscariot all over again.

[cinepro]

.cinepro:

I believe it was you that said " It should change because sometimes the critics are right." in post #234. If I am misunderstanding your post please clarify.

In post #234 I used the word "policy" twice and "doctrine" not at all, so hopefully it's at least implied I was referring to policy changes.

I certainly don't think the Church should change "doctrine" in response to anything other than revelation which, I hope, is the original source of the doctrine. If it isn't, than we have bigger problems to worry about than the critics.

And from what I've seen, the problems "critics" have with the Church are usually related to policies and non-doctrinal teachings, both things that can be changed.

As an example of when critics have been "right" in the past, I would say that all the pre-1890 critics who wanted the Church to stop practicing polygamy were "right", and all the pre-1978 critics who thought worthy men of presumed African descent should have the priesthood were "right".

[Ares]

Judas Iscariot was the epitome of criticism for policy. Whether it was in regard to the "waste" of oil, or other positions. He did it all under the guise of wanting to "improve".

Some follow his same steps with unerring rectitude.

Saying Judas Iscariot is the "epitome of criticism for policy" is like saying John D. Lee is the epitome of pioneer Mormonism, or a certain 20th century fascist, mass-murdering dictator is the epitome of vegetarianism.

Tone it down, both of you.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Thank you.

[Ares]

DaddyG has asked me to remind posters that this thread is about those who openly advocate the church is not true or that its leaders are not inspired. It is not about all types of critics. Please stay on topic.

[cinepro]

No, Judas was well known for his criticisms and practice of criticizing. John D. Lee was not well known or known for the practice of mass murder prior to the act.

In other words, your attempt to go extreme misses the point entirely. Like so many critics of the church, they follow Judas in lock step, and many of the critical posters here have some of the same goals in mind. They want to crucify the church in some way.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.

You seem to be referring to this account, but the New Testament specifically says that Judas complained about the oil because he was a thief, not because he was a critic:

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,

5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

Can you find even a single reference to Judas being a "critic"? Biblically (and in modern times), he only seems to be called a "thief" and "betrayer". And that being the case, it's pretty low to say "hey, Judas also criticized something once, so critics are like him!"

[Jeff K.]

Critics who criticize for ulterior motives are themselves thieves. They steal and undermine the truth for their own advantage. They have forgotten or have decided against the truth of the church.

Had Judas been of another faith or sect he would have been more honest in his attacks. The criticism of Judas reflects someone within the church who has outside motivations against the church but refuses to acknowledge as much. We do not know "when" it was know that Judas was a thief, one presumes after the fact since it is logical he would be dismissed otherwise.

Anti Mormons who are not members of the church are not like Judas, since they do not profess to be members and then seek to steal the church's work and credibility. They are simply enemies of the church who wish to destroy it, theirs is an open warfare but with deceptive means.

[KevinG]

You seem to be referring to this account, but the New Testament specifically says that Judas complained about the oil because he was a thief, not because he was a critic:

Or you could say he criticized because he was a thief. But that would be an unfair case of accusing critics of harboring secret sins wouldn't it?

Now please stop derailing my thread and get back to the issue of why clear Apostates (openly denying the athority of the church or its leaders) stay with the church and criticize instead of forming a new branch or seeking to establish a new dispensation.

Edited February 8, 2012 by DaddyG

[Jeff K.]

And from what I've seen, the problems "critics" have with the Church are usually related to policies and non-doctrinal teachings, both things that can be changed.

As an example of when critics have been "right" in the past, I would say that all the pre-1890 critics who wanted the Church to stop practicing polygamy were "right", and all the pre-1978 critics who thought worthy men of presumed African descent should have the priesthood were "right".

That is a pretty big assumption. We don't know if they were "right" earlier since much occurred prior to the pre-1890 decision in which the church was persecuted. Some of which was the development of tithing as a more central position within the church in order to keep the finances sound. Or the practice of sound financing due to the persecution, and so on..... I would say much good came from polygamy which you might discount. So no, to pin the idea of such criticism being positive to the church because of a potential "what if" does not hold water.

The pre-1978 criticism regaridng male priesthood is a better example. We are left to speculate how it might have helped or not since we cannot be sure of the ramifications, even today. It certainly hasn't hurt church development in Africa and other places. I too have my questions regarding it, but by and large the criticism from people has almost never been helpful and usually motivated by the church's destruction, not its betterment.

[Bob Oliverio]

Blueadept has already spoken up in support of the Catholic practice of excluding non-Catholics from the Eucharist, but he doesn't seem to want to grasp the parallel case in excluding non-Latter-day Saints from the Temple.

Having grown up in a Catholic environment,  I would have to conclude this is not a very good comparison.  And in some ways would hurt the very argument we attempt to make in defending the exclusionary practice of the Temple.

First, the celebration of the Eucharist is no less sacred for Catholics than the temple ceremony is for the Church.  And because it is a sacred celebration, they believe it should be shared and open for any to witness.  And while they do restrict the taking of the host to those who are members having received their communion ordinance, they don't require any test of worthiness nor identification for the taking of the host. They leave the worthiness between the individual and God.  If the presiding presenter of the host knows one is not a member, they may refuse serving of the host, but that is rare.

I've had this discussion many times w siblings and friends in the Catholic Church.  They will always point to the gospel of John where Jesus claims - "in secret I have said nothing".  And while I am familiar with our arguments, we really have no doctrine, revelation nor scripture to support the exclusionary practice of the temple - especially when it comes to the joyous celebration of marriage.  

But just my honest thoughts, respectfully.

[KevinG]

If the church were only responding to criticism we would have stopped polygamy in the 1850s and had the declaration on the priesthood in 1960.

The constructive pleas from West African and Brazillian Saints went much further in turning the hearts of Church leaders to petition the Lord about race than any vocal critic of the church.

The persectutions that came with polygamy and threatened to end the church altogether resulted in the Lord releasing us from the practice. This is a very ugly case of how critics can become persecuters.

[why me]

Blueadept has already spoken up in support of the Catholic practice of excluding non-Catholics from the Eucharist, but he doesn't seem to want to grasp the parallel case in excluding non-Latter-day Saints from the Temple.

Regards,

Pahoran

This is always interesting to observe. As you know because you have been there on the catholic site where they attack mormonism at will they cannot seem to understand the strangeness of their own faith for outsiders. Nor can they accept criticism. But for libs to speak positively of her son being married to a catholic and being allowed to see the wedding without realizing that her son can never take communion with his wife because of an exclusion policy and yet, see nothing wrong in it, just shows something that resembles cog dis. And blueadept is not that much different in not recognizing the exclusion.

[blueadept]

Having grown up in a Catholic environment, I would have to conclude this is not a very good comparison. And in some ways would hurt the very argument we attempt to make in defending the exclusionary practice of the Temple.

First, the celebration of the Eucharist is no less sacred for Catholics than the temple ceremony is for the Church. And because it is a sacred celebration, they believe it should be shared and open for any to witness. And while they do restrict the taking of the host to those who are members having received their communion ordinance, they don't require any test of worthiness nor identification for the taking of the host. They leave the worthiness between the individual and God. If the presiding presenter of the host knows one is not a member, they may refuse serving of the host, but that is rare.

I've had this discussion many times w siblings and friends in the Catholic Church. They will always point to the gospel of John where Jesus claims - "in secret I have said nothing". And while I am familiar with our arguments, we really have no doctrine, revelation nor scripture to support the exclusionary practice of the temple - especially when it comes to the joyous celebration of marriage.

But just my honest thoughts, respectfully.

Very well said and sums up my POV. Thank you.

[cinepro]

If the church were only responding to criticism we would have stopped polygamy in the 1850s and had the declaration on the priesthood in 1960.

The constructive pleas from West African and Brazillian Saints went much further in turning the hearts of Church leaders to petition the Lord about race than any vocal critic of the church.

The persectutions that came with polygamy and threatened to end the church altogether resulted in the Lord releasing us from the practice. This is a very ugly case of how critics can become persecuters.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

I wasn't saying that OD1 or OD2 were in any way brought about, hastened or otherwise affected by "critiscism". I was only citing two examples of things that people may have criticized, and were later changed.

This is relevant only to point out that it is okay to not like the way the Church does certain things (even big things), and to hope that it will be changed in the future.

Obviously, there are different ways to deal with that dissatisfaction (and varying degrees of visibility we could give to our criticism). For example, it would be prudent for a critic who felt the Church should start practicing polygamy again to be more tactful (and quiet) than a critic who felt the 3-hour block meeting schedule should be shortened by 30 minutes.

[Calm]

But for libs to speak positively of her son being married to a catholic and being allowed to see the wedding without realizing that her son can never take communion with his wife because of an exclusion policy and yet, see nothing wrong in it, just shows something that resembles cog dis.

I don't really understand this reasoning. There is a difference between being a witness and partaking of the communion. The issue of the son sharing in communion is different than the issue of who can be a witness where and when. Equating all forms of exclusion is inappropriate. It would be better to compare this example to a baptism where all are allowed to witness, but are excluded from participating in a baptism themselves unless they are judged worthy to do so in much the same way, I understand, Catholics are judged to be worthy to partake of communion.

We don't need to compare ourselves with others if we believe that our practices are a result of revelation. And if we do compare for the purpose of showing allegedly hypocritical positions, then we need to make sure we are accurate in our representations and choose the most precise comparison out there.

[why me]

Many of the sealing rooms, if not most, are actually quite small in size and can really only accomodate close family. An LDS sealing is not an event for all friends and family of the couple; it is a rather solmen, sacred ordinance that is observed by few. The focus is the couple's covenants to one another and to God. A secular wedding or any wedding outsdie the temple has little in common with it. In fact, most would find the sealing to be all to brief and rather quick.

I was trying to explain this to Libs but I don't think that she understood it. Most do not see the wedding and besides it is rather fast and over very quickly. The real celebration occurs outside the temple when the bride and groom meets all the friends and relatives. And then a ring ceremony can happen if the couple wants to have it.

[Bob Oliverio]

We don't need to compare ourselves with others if we believe that our practices are a result of revelation.

Agree, but where is the revelation on the temple ceremony exclusion?

[why me]

I don't really understand this reasoning. There is a difference between being a witness and partaking of the communion. The issue of the son sharing in communion is different than the issue of who can be a witness where and when. Equating all forms of exclusion is inappropriate. It would be better to compare this example to a baptism where all are allowed to witness, but are excluded from participating in a baptism themselves unless they are judged worthy to do so in much the same way, I understand, Catholics are judged to be worthy to partake of communion.

We don't need to compare ourselves with others if we believe that our practices are a result of revelation. And if we do compare for the purpose of showing allegedly hypocritical positions, then we need to make sure we are accurate in our representations and choose the most precise comparison out there.

If you were a catholic and understood the importance of the eucharist in the catholic faith and knew that your partner could not share in it because that partner was not catholic would understand that attending church together would never be complete. I am all in favor of catholics refusing noncatholics to take the communion. But the policy is still exclusionary as the lds temple wedding ceremony is exclusionary to most relatives, friends, etc of the couple getting married. But in the lds faith, one can have a ring ceremony to make the wedding more complete for parents who cannot attend the wedding.

Most of the people in this wedding video were excluded from the lds ceremony as in the picture. However, I didn't particularly like the video.

[/media Edited February 8, 2012 by why me

[Calm]

Add-on to the above comment.

I think the main issue that should be discussed is something that appears not to be understood by many of those who are troubled by the policy in and out of the LDS faith and that is that temple witnesses are participants in the ceremony in a way that casual (nonofficial) witnesses of a civil ceremony are not plus the sealing itself involves ritual that is not supposed to be viewed by those who have not undergone the same ritual themselves....in other words, the sealing room and experience are sacred ritual territory---it is not just a location set apart for a private ceremony---and it would be as wrong for a nonmember to enter into it as it would be, in my understanding...correct me if I am wrong...for a nonCatholic priest to attire themselves in priestly clothing and attempt to officiate as a priest, handling the sacred tokens and implements of the Eucharist without authority.

There were reasons why Moses was the only one to go up all the way into the mountain to talk to the Lord and others were excluded. (Exodus 19)

Please don't ask me to demonstrate this at this time...got too much other stuff going on, but in my opinion this is what needs to be discussed in order to demonstrate why it is simply not just a matter of building our temples with a separate entrance for nonmembers to enter into sealing rooms bypassing other temple areas. We don't need to dwell on what others do, simply demonstrate why we do it ourselves.

[Deborah]

Agree, but where is the revelation on the temple ceremony exclusion?

The very fact that only church members who have a temple recommend can attend in the temple.

[Calm]

If you were a catholic and understood the importance of the eucharist in the catholic faith and knew that your partner could not share in it because that partner was not catholic would understand that attending church together would never be complete. I am all in favor of catholics refusing noncatholics to take the communion. But the policy is still exclusionary as the lds temple wedding ceremony is exclusionary to most relatives, friends, etc of the couple getting married. But in the lds faith, one can have a ring ceremony to make the wedding more complete for parents who cannot attend the wedding.

I am not arguing it is not exclusionary. I am saying that nonLDS see the temple ceremony as excluding witnesses to the act, they are not complaining about not being able to participate in the sealing itself. A correct comparison of the exclusionary aspect of the Eucharist would be either the sealing itself or the endowment or even more appropriate, imo, baptism. We exclude those who are not members from participating in such, Catholics exclude those who are not members from participating as well in the Eucharist. But they don't exclude anyone from being witnesses just as we don't exclude anyone from witnessing others being baptised or partaking of the Sacrament. We do, however, exclude nonmembers and unendowed members (no matter how worthy anyone is) from being witnesses of any temple ceremony...with good reason...but let's deal with those reasons rather than being sidetracked by trying to make comparisons where they really don't hold.

[cinepro]

The very fact that only church members who have a temple recommend can attend in the temple.

The point being that it might be a policy that can change.

[Calm]

The point being that it might be a policy that can change.

I see it highly unlikely that it will ever change. OTOH, what might change is making churchwide the policy that exists in countries that require a civil wedding and that is having a civil wedding and then having the sealing afterwards, which allows anyone who wants to view the wedding to do so while still keeping the sealing fully part of the sacred ritual space of the temple.

[Bob Oliverio]

The very fact that only church members who have a temple recommend can attend in the temple.

Don't follow this at all! Sounds like all it is then is policy. And what is the policy driven from? Divinity or control?

[blueadept]

If you were a catholic and understood the importance of the eucharist in the catholic faith and knew that your partner could not share in it because that partner was not catholic would understand that attending church together would never be complete.

It still seems like your comparing apples and oranges. Just as LDS partaking of the Sacrament is a personal thing between the individual and HF, it's viewed in the same way in regards to the individual and the Eucharist. I was fine with my LDS wife never partaking of the Eucharist and Mass always felt complete. The only thing I truly feared was her standing up during my priests homily and declare to everyone that we were going to hell if we listened to him. Hmmm....

But the policy is still exclusionary as the lds temple wedding ceremony is exclusionary to most relatives, friends, etc of the couple getting married. But in the lds faith, one can have a ring ceremony to make the wedding more complete for parents who cannot attend the wedding.

I've seen one of the sealing rooms during an open house at a Temple. I can appreciate the meaningfulness of being sealed. While I appreciate the policy that only Temple-worthy people should be in the Temple, it comes at a high cost in separating couples with parents that cannot witness the short but meaningful occasion.