Stone holm Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 I do not believe that church policy is determined by cultural trends as much as anything else, I do believe that cultural trends do influence church policy in a variety of ways. No I believe the adoption of the "American middle-class white culture" was strategic in nature, because if the Church was going to expand its base in America it had to effectively combat the barrage of anti-Mormon attacks from the Christian Right and the Evangelical/Fundamentalists that we were a "cult" and that we were not "Christian." So we consciously sought to be super-normal apple pie, etc. And to further that we called Dalin Oaks on a special assignment to figure out an effective ecumenical outreach program which was very effective and resulted in a considerable amount of "tweaking" of things -- some of the trivial being the elimination of the old bright blue paperback covered BofM's with the Angel Moroni on them, the addition of the subtitle to the BofM, etc. Back in the late 60's/70's we went with the facial hair ban in order to distance ourselves from those associated with the communist revolutionaries, etc. In the histories coming out with respect to the "extension", it is very clear that the progress of the civil rights movement caused members of the First Presidency to start looking more closely at the policy, etc. starting in particular with President McKay.What do I make of President Packers statements, sigh....I disagree....the greatest dangers to the Church is if the Christian Right were to somehow get control of the government, because they would turn on us like a hammer on an anvil...he is entitled to his opinions.
DJBrown Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 I do not believe that church policy is determined by cultural trends as much as anything else, I do believe that cultural trends do influence church policy in a variety of ways. No I believe the adoption of the "American middle-class white culture" was strategic in nature, because if the Church was going to expand its base in America it had to effectively combat the barrage of anti-Mormon attacks from the Christian Right and the Evangelical/Fundamentalists that we were a "cult" and that we were not "Christian." So we consciously sought to be super-normal apple pie, etc. And to further that we called Dalin Oaks on a special assignment to figure out an effective ecumenical outreach program which was very effective and resulted in a considerable amount of "tweaking" of things -- some of the trivial being the elimination of the old bright blue paperback covered BofM's with the Angel Moroni on them, the addition of the subtitle to the BofM, etc. Back in the late 60's/70's we went with the facial hair ban in order to distance ourselves from those associated with the communist revolutionaries, etc. In the histories coming out with respect to the "extension", it is very clear that the progress of the civil rights movement caused members of the First Presidency to start looking more closely at the policy, etc. starting in particular with President McKay.What do I make of President Packers statements, sigh....I disagree....the greatest dangers to the Church is if the Christian Right were to somehow get control of the government, because they would turn on us like a hammer on an anvil...he is entitled to his opinions.What was the greatest threat to ancient Israel- foreign armies or apostasy from within? No question there.And as we know very well from Isaiah and Christ, "what was shall be." In other words, modern Israel (the church) is prone to the same influences as ancient Israel. As long as the saints are faithful in following the prophet, no influence or army could really change the course of progress in the church. It is internal strife, pride, and doubt that is the greatest thread.Do you think you know more than President Packer, the President of the Twelve Apostles, about the threats facing the church?
wenglund Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 What was the greatest threat to ancient Israel- foreign armies or apostasy from within? No question there.And as we know very well from Isaiah and Christ, "what was shall be." In other words, modern Israel (the church) is prone to the same influences as ancient Israel. As long as the saints are faithful in following the prophet, no influence or army could really change the course of progress in the church. It is internal strife, pride, and doubt that is the greatest thread.Do you think you know more than President Packer, the President of the Twelve Apostles, about the threats facing the church?Well said.What I find interesting is, from what I can tell, the people most concerned about the influence of the external culture on the Church, tend to be the one's, themselves, who are most influenced by that culture, and who seek, unwittingly or otherwise, to interject the external culture all the more into the Church. I suppose that this to be expected of interlopers and ark-steadiers who imply that they know better than Christ and his chosen leaders what is best for Christ's Church.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Stone holm Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 What was the greatest threat to ancient Israel- foreign armies or apostasy from within? No question there.And as we know very well from Isaiah and Christ, "what was shall be." In other words, modern Israel (the church) is prone to the same influences as ancient Israel. As long as the saints are faithful in following the prophet, no influence or army could really change the course of progress in the church. It is internal strife, pride, and doubt that is the greatest thread.Do you think you know more than President Packer, the President of the Twelve Apostles, about the threats facing the church?The greatest threat to ancient Israel was that they might not recognize the Savior when he appeared on the scene. No question about that.The occupied nation of Israel got very concerned about being very rigid in their application of what the established powers thought was doctrine. Which resulted in their not recognizing the Savior when he appeared.Christ understood that it was unnecessary to rock the political boat with the Romans in order to complete His mission. Thus "render onto Caesar what is Caesar's..."Don't know about that as I am not charged with running the Church, I think that I am probably as aware of the threats facing the Church as any other member...I may not be as aware on the various agendas that are being worked on though.I really don't buy into the idea that every time the Church has had a set-back that it was because the Saints were not faithful in following the prophet, simply not born out by history as much as we would hope it was. It wasn't because of unfaithfulness of Church members that the safety society failed in Kirtland, it wasn't because of unfaithfulness of Church members that it was necessary to abandon the United Order, it wasn't because of unfaithfulness of Church members that Brigham Young had to stop work on the Salt Lake Temple and bury its foundations. We live in a world of struggle and strife, I believe that God does fight our battles, do I believe that every President and Apostle always nails it right on? No I don't.
DJBrown Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 The greatest threat to ancient Israel was that they might not recognize the Savior when he appeared on the scene. No question about that.The occupied nation of Israel got very concerned about being very rigid in their application of what the established powers thought was doctrine. Which resulted in their not recognizing the Savior when he appeared.Christ understood that it was unnecessary to rock the political boat with the Romans in order to complete His mission. Thus "render onto Caesar what is Caesar's..."Don't know about that as I am not charged with running the Church, I think that I am probably as aware of the threats facing the Church as any other member...I may not be as aware on the various agendas that are being worked on though.I really don't buy into the idea that every time the Church has had a set-back that it was because the Saints were not faithful in following the prophet, simply not born out by history as much as we would hope it was. It wasn't because of unfaithfulness of Church members that the safety society failed in Kirtland, it wasn't because of unfaithfulness of Church members that it was necessary to abandon the United Order, it wasn't because of unfaithfulness of Church members that Brigham Young had to stop work on the Salt Lake Temple and bury its foundations. We live in a world of struggle and strife, I believe that God does fight our battles, do I believe that every President and Apostle always nails it right on? No I don't.If you notice, I never suggested that all trials and struggles that the church faces are a result of a lack of faith on the part of the saints.What I did suggest is that the most dangerous threats will come from those within the church who feel they know more than the brethren and who stir doubt about their authority and leadership.By the way, Boyd K Packer was ordained an apostle 43 years ago next month. Over those 43 years, he has traveled the world countless times, seeing the church in countless countries and settings. He and the other apostles and members of the first presidency are constantly dealing with local problems in stakes and wards throughout the church. They receive a constant flow of letters from local leaders and members seeking guidance in resolving every conceivable problem. They are in new stakes every week, talking with members and leaders about local issues and church progress. I don't think there is a member of the church outside of those circles who comes remotely close to having the perspective that those fifteen men do on the worldwide church.
Tacenda Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) Do you mean that the prophets are wrong with regard to the policy/doctrine of only men holding the priesthood?That's funny where do I say that? You apparently misread. What I was referring to is that women had more control in RS back then. And BTW, some things are policy vs. God given, IMHO. Edited March 20, 2013 by Tacenda
DJBrown Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Of all the non-spiritual speculations I have heard on this matter -- this one resonates with me the most. It intuitively makes a lot of sense to me. Based upon what I have read from the life of Joseph Smith and the founding of the Relief Society -- I believe you are correct.I think this is one area where the leadership of the Church might be open to some criticism with regard to how they have handled their stewardship -- but I will not join in to criticize. I would merely suggest that it would be a good thing to figure out how to achieve the vision that Joseph Smith seems to have had.Tacenda,You responded to this post with the folowing:"Having served in two RS Presidencies, I totally agree especially the last paragraph! Had we stuck better to JS's vision, we probably wouldn't have women vying for some sort of Priesthood authority.." Are you not suggesting in this statement that as a church, we have not "stuck to JS's vision for women?" How else are we to interpret that statement other than that the brethren have not "stuck to" Joseph Smith's "vision" for the relationship between priesthood and women?Where am I wrong?
Stone holm Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 That's funny where do I say that? You apparently misread. What I was referring to is that women had more control in RS back then. And BTW, some things are policy vs. God given, IMHO.Be careful Tacenda you are commenting in the presence of people who have "amore accurate grasp of doctrine" and who believe in the infallibility of GAs...lol...oh wait wasn't that the doctrine for the Pope? 1
CASteinman Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Are you not suggesting in this statement that as a church, we have not "stuck to JS's vision for women?" How else are we to interpret that statement other than that the brethren have not "stuck to" Joseph Smith's "vision" for the relationship between priesthood and women?Where am I wrong?I know you asked this of Tacenda, but I would like to reply also. It would seem to me that we have not exactly stuck to that vision by Joseph Smith.Having said that, I am not willing to agree to criticize what has happened instead. I am entirely open and accepting of the idea that we are doing exactly right according to the mind and will of the Lord. I am also open to the idea that we may have allowed some doctrines of men to creep in and affect our approach to things. (It would not be the first time). Its not my job to steady the ark. I won't try. But if I were in some position, I would definitely seek to look into this a bit.
wenglund Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Be careful Tacenda you are commenting in the presence of people who have "amore accurate grasp of doctrine" and who believe in the infallibility of GAs...lol...oh wait wasn't that the doctrine for the Pope?CFR that people here believe in the infallibility of GA's.Beware of straw men of your own making.Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
Tacenda Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Be careful Tacenda you are commenting in the presence of people who have "amore accurate grasp of doctrine" and who believe in the infallibility of GAs...lol...oh wait wasn't that the doctrine for the Pope?Funny, yeah I heard that quote today as a matter of fact. Something like "Mormons believe in a fallible prophet but don't believe it. And Catholic's believe in an infallible Pope but don't believe it.
Stone holm Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Funny, yeah I heard that quote today as a matter of fact. Something like "Mormons believe in a fallible prophet but don't believe it. And Catholic's believe in an infallible Pope but don't believe it.Great quote!
CV75 Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 We can only be certain that much has been lost of the historical record. Perhaps you are right. We know very little about the third Priesthood, the patriarchal priesthood, time I guess will tell whether this is a cultural or a Divine discrimination.I’m not sure if the patriarchal order is a “third” priesthood or just an order of the priesthood that requires a union of worthy men and women in an order of priesthood as described in D&C 131 and 132, and whose respective genders inherently express and manifest this fullness of the priesthood of God, even in an eternal environment (kings, priests, queens, priestesses), in different ways. That men must additionally hold an office prior to resurrection to enter into this order, while women do not need to, seems to pertain to these differences in expression rather than God using priesthood office as a form of discrimination against women, or allowing men to use it as a form of institutionalized discrimination against women as a rule in the dispensation of the fullness of times, where an institutionalized “…Amen to the priesthood…” would be anathema to His own purposes.
Stone holm Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 I’m not sure if the patriarchal order is a “third” priesthood or just an order of the priesthood that requires a union of worthy men and women in an order of priesthood as described in D&C 131 and 132, and whose respective genders inherently express and manifest this fullness of the priesthood of God, even in an eternal environment (kings, priests, queens, priestesses), in different ways. That men must additionally hold an office prior to resurrection to enter into this order, while women do not need to, seems to pertain to these differences in expression rather than God using priesthood office as a form of discrimination against women, or allowing men to use it as a form of institutionalized discrimination against women as a rule in the dispensation of the fullness of times, where an institutionalized “…Amen to the priesthood…” would be anathema to His own purposes.I will have to post later the various comments by GAs about the third Priesthood. But I do recall the Sealer at one of my weddings explaining about the third priesthood and the fact that the only ordinances we had right now which pertained to it were the sealing ordinances.
CASteinman Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) I just realized two things today that had escaped me until perhaps.. just the last hour and it makes me feel happier to have them sorted out in my head.1. The Big Folderol over women praying in General Conference is probably because people think it has something to do with Priesthood -- as in the Priesthood gives "benedictions". (I notice in wikipedia the sense of priesthood in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benediction) This hit me like the hot kiss on the end of a wet fist. When I realized this was what it was all about, the fuss all came together for me and made sense. Up until now all I could see was silliness -- and sort of "Why on earth is this a big deal to anyone?". Now I think I get it. I have a feeling that a lot of other people knew this and I am probably just catching up.2. The Moderators here think I am a lot smarter than I am. Another wet fist kiss. Now that I have that figured out I feel complimented and a bit giddy. But its tempered. If I figured this out, maybe I am smart? It turns into a strange loop that I cannot work out so I ignore it. Anyway, I go to bed feeling happier now. Edited March 21, 2013 by CASteinman
Stone holm Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 I just realized two things today that had escaped me until perhaps.. just the last hour and it makes me feel happier to have them sorted out in my head.1. The Big Folderol over women praying in General Conference is probably because people think it has something to do with Priesthood -- as in the Priesthood gives "benedictions". (I notice in wikipedia the sense of priesthood in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benediction) This hit me like the hot kiss on the end of a wet fist. When I realized this was what it was all about, the fuss all came together for me and made sense. Up until now all I could see was silliness -- and sort of "Why on earth is this a big deal to anyone?". Now I think I get it. I have a feeling that a lot of other people knew this and I am probably just catching up.2. The Moderators here think I am a lot smarter than I am. Another wet fist kiss. Now that I have that figured out I feel complimented and a bit giddy. But its tempered. If I figured this out, maybe I am smart? It turns into a strange loop that I cannot work out so I ignore it. Anyway, I go to bed feeling happier now.Take an aspirin and go to bed you will feel better in the morning.
CASteinman Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Take an aspirin and go to bed you will feel better in the morning.I felt better immediately upon "fixing" some questions in my head. And during the night I had a dream that solved one other problem I have but upon waking I have forgotten it. Grr..
Stone holm Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 I felt better immediately upon "fixing" some questions in my head. And during the night I had a dream that solved one other problem I have but upon waking I have forgotten it. Grr..Yeah, dreams are like that. Oh by the way, although we frequently disagree, I find your posts on point and interesting. What's with the grumpy face icon though?
CASteinman Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Yeah, dreams are like that. Oh by the way, although we frequently disagree, I find your posts on point and interesting. What's with the grumpy face icon though?Thank you. I notice we disagree *sometimes* but you are never *disagreeable* and I like that a lot. I hope I am like you in that regard but I may fail. Forgive me if I do but let me know so I can try to adjust.The avatar is a really interesting "secular" prophet. His name is William Blake. And he is grumpy because he is dead. Its his death mask.
Stone holm Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Thank you. I notice we disagree *sometimes* but you are never *disagreeable* and I like that a lot. I hope I am like you in that regard but I may fail. Forgive me if I do but let me know so I can try to adjust.The avatar is a really interesting "secular" prophet. His name is William Blake. And he is grumpy because he is dead. Its his death mask.Ah, hope I am not that grumpy in death -- my wife thinks I'm already too grumpy at times.
Recommended Posts