Jump to content

Is There A Difference Between The Teachings Of Barb Young And Denver Snuffer?


BCSpace

Recommended Posts

"One of the most beautiful things about this church is that it can evolve," she said. "It may not go as fast as everyone wants, but it is evolving."

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/56872665-80/affirmation-barb-jesus-conference.html.csp

 

 

In his book, "Passing the Heavenly Gift," Snuffer used the faith’s signature scripture, the Book of Mormon, and founder Joseph Smith’s "divine revelations" to analyze LDS history from Smith’s death in 1844 to the present. He concludes that every Mormon prophet, starting with Brigham Young, caved to social, political and legal pressures to accommodate mainstream American society — starting with giving up polygamy, then becoming more corporate and eventually yielding to "social progressives" by softening language on same-sex attraction.

 

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56835902-219/church-snuffer-mormon-book.html.csp

 

 

Frankly, I don't see any difference between what either one is publicly teaching.  Do you?

Link to comment

Looks to me like both are teaching that the Church is not guided by revelation.

 

I would agree. Also, Denver's assertion is not entirely complete as per your citation. The LDS Church resisted ended polygamy until the revelation came to change it. Many times the LDS Church was granted statehood of the Utah Territory constituted that polygamy was abolished. The Mormons, particularly the women,  resisted the deals despite the strong desire to obtain statehood.

 

http://www.ilovehistory.utah.gov/time/stories/statehood.html

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/struggleforstatehood.html

Link to comment

Looks to me like both are teaching that the Church is not guided by revelation.

Don't really get that, here is what she says:

 

"One of the most beautiful things about this church is that it can evolve," she said. "It may not go as fast as everyone wants, but it is evolving."

 

Assuming she means evolving is receiving revelation to change, that must mean that revelation is coming, just not as much as frequently as "everyone" wants.

 

There also seems to be anticipation that change will eventually come which would indicate a belief that God is guiding the Church through revelation even if the revelation may be sparse in comparison to what they want...at least in the area they are concerned about.  Perhaps they see church leaders like a stubborn mule resisting the guidance of the mule driver, God, but the guidance is there and eventually the mule follows the path desired.

 

If you feel that something else in the article indicates a lack of belief in ongoing revelation, please quote it.

Link to comment

Looks to me like both are teaching that the Church is not guided by revelation.

To equate Sister Youngs statement, with Denver Snuffed's direct, open, and deliberate attack on the Leaders of the Church, is absurd. Are you suggesting a disciplinary council be held for Sister Young?

Link to comment
Don't really get that, here is what she says:

 

I think she's far more coy than Snuffer, but the message is the same.  Do you realize that for a repenting homosexual, attendance/association with a conference such as this would be considered a step backwards in the process?

Link to comment

I think she's far more coy than Snuffer, but the message is the same. Do you realize that for a repenting homosexual, attendance/association with a conference such as this would be considered a step backwards in the process?

CFR please. As a homecoming homosexual the only action that would be considered a step backward is breaking the law of chastity. Affirmation is not considered an apostate group and membership nor attending their functions affects my worthiness issues.

Link to comment

CFR please. As a homecoming homosexual the only action that would be considered a step backward is breaking the law of chastity. Affirmation is not considered an apostate group and membership nor attending their functions affects my worthiness issues.

 

I am unfamiliar with the label, "homecoming homosexual". Could you explain what that means?

Link to comment

I am unfamiliar with the label, "homecoming homosexual". Could you explain what that means?

 Probably because it's not a label but a self description.  :) I am not a repentant homosexual. At a certain point in my life I made certain decisions based on certain information with the strength that I had. I do not repent of any of my past actions or deeds in an Alma the Younger way. I accept that Heavenly Father wishes me to correct certain behaviours & I have corrected those behaviours, not because I necessarily want to but because He has made it clear to me that He wishes me to. I have returned to the bosom of the church, come home if you will, I do not repent of being gay, I am what God made me. I am out at church to some people, and my Bishop is aware of everything I feel & believe and has no problem with it so as such I am not a repentant homo, but one that has come home.

Link to comment

That is a good position to be in. It is not any different from any other disciple of Christ that must come to a conclusion that we are sinners on a path to emulate the Savior and we cannot be anything different than what we are, sinners.  You are just the way God made you; just as us all and you have responded to his voice. We cannot repent for who we are; only what we do.  Welcome to where we all stand as those who have learned to approach our Father with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. 

Link to comment

I noticed the mods locked the other thread in Gen. Discuss. because there is this thread, I apologize if the OP isn't ok with me posting this, but here is Steve and Barbara Young's talks if anyone is interested. 

 

http://rationalfaiths.com/barb-and-steve-young-speak-to-lgbt-mormons/?fb_action_ids=10200585140819209&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210200585140819209%22%3A439383016181014%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210200585140819209%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

Link to comment

That is a good position to be in. It is not any different from any other disciple of Christ that must come to a conclusion that we are sinners on a path to emulate the Savior and we cannot be anything different than what we are, sinners.  You are just the way God made you; just as us all and you have responded to his voice. We cannot repent for who we are; only what we do.  Welcome to where we all stand as those who have learned to approach our Father with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. 

 

Thank you, I'm finding it a good place to be.  :)

Link to comment

I humbly submit that Sister Young has done a great disservice to LDS who struggle with this issue. I understand her motivation, I am sure she loves her brother, and certainly there is no problem with that. And of course, we need to be Christ-like to all-and I do mean all-of God's children. But when Sister Young asks gay couples to be patient, that the church may not evolve fast enough to please them, but it is coming around, the message she sends, at least to my imperfect understanding, is that if they can just hang in there, eventually practicing, sexually active gays can find full, calling-holding, temple attending-and being sealed to their gay partner-fellowship in the church,

In contrast to LordUther, who understands that God requires obedience to his commandments, whether gay or straight, Sister Young sends the message that the church will eventually get rid of commandments that certain groups find onerous to obey. 

And while I  think a message to gays or anyone that God loves them is certainly appropriate, I think that Affirmation is the wrong forum to address this issue. This is the same organization that has in it's mission statement:

"

  • We believe that our lives and relationships can be compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Plan of Salvation, and that LGBT individuals are a special part of God's Creation
  • We reject the concept that orientation and identity can be changed and believe that same sex relationships are entitled to the same recognition and blessings as heterosexual relationships"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I have yet to see any church authority give any wiggle room at all to those concepts. I'll stick with the brethren over an NFL quaterbacks wife, thank you very much. 
Link to comment

Looks to me like both are teaching that the Church is not guided by revelation.

It "caved" in the past to political pressure it will do it again. And there are a great deal of many Saints that believe the church will change its stance on gay marriage.

 

I should be clear. I am not suggesting that the church opperates this way. Just that there are many people both in and out of the chruch that think this way.

Link to comment

CFR please. As a homecoming homosexual the only action that would be considered a step backward is breaking the law of chastity. Affirmation is not considered an apostate group and membership nor attending their functions affects my worthiness issues.

There isn't anything credible or definitive for bcspace to provide. Repentance is an individual process.

Link to comment

There isn't anything credible or definitive for bcspace to provide. Repentance is an individual process.

 

If that is indeed bcspace's stand then he should've kept it as a subjective statement such as "I feel going to conference such as this would..." rather than make an authoritative statement such as "do you realise...would be..."

Link to comment

If that is indeed bcspace's stand then he should've kept it as a subjective statement such as "I feel going to conference such as this would..." rather than make an authoritative statement such as "do you realise...would be..."

 

I chalk it up to this, what is to be expected from a person who equates Sister Young (who made a benign statement) to Denver Snuffer who openly and directly attacks the Church and the Leaders of the Church. By claiming there is no difference between Sister Young and Denver Snuffer, bcspace is necessarily calling for Sister Young to be excommunicated like Denver Snuffer. 

 

In my opinion, publicly calling for someones excommunication -  having no semblance of Priesthood Authority over the person - is worse than trashy, unbecoming, and I would add an attack against the Priesthood Leader(s) of the alleged heretic. It is solely to Sister Young's Priesthood Leaders to pass judgment on Sister Young's standing in the Church or whether she should remain in the Church.

Link to comment

 

I humbly submit that Sister Young has done a great disservice to LDS who struggle with this issue. I understand her motivation, I am sure she loves her brother, and certainly there is no problem with that. And of course, we need to be Christ-like to all-and I do mean all-of God's children. But when Sister Young asks gay couples to be patient, that the church may not evolve fast enough to please them, but it is coming around, the message she sends, at least to my imperfect understanding, is that if they can just hang in there, eventually practicing, sexually active gays can find full, calling-holding, temple attending-and being sealed to their gay partner-fellowship in the church,

In contrast to LordUther, who understands that God requires obedience to his commandments, whether gay or straight, Sister Young sends the message that the church will eventually get rid of commandments that certain groups find onerous to obey. 

And while I  think a message to gays or anyone that God loves them is certainly appropriate, I think that Affirmation is the wrong forum to address this issue. This is the same organization that has in it's mission statement:

"

  • We believe that our lives and relationships can be compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Plan of Salvation, and that LGBT individuals are a special part of God's Creation
  • We reject the concept that orientation and identity can be changed and believe that same sex relationships are entitled to the same recognition and blessings as heterosexual relationships"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I have yet to see any church authority give any wiggle room at all to those concepts. I'll stick with the brethren over an NFL quaterbacks wife, thank you very much. 

 

So what part of Affirmations statement do you disagree with?  Do you think that God's gay children are not part of the plan of salvation?

 

Do you think that orientation and identity can be changed?

 

 

Has there been a revelation from God to his modern prophet about the question of gay marriage??  We certainly have revelation on straight marriage,   Is it not possible for God to reveal His will on gay marriage?  So far, the brethren have just been using their best  understanding on this subject.  But, as in times past, that is not necessarily the will of God.

Link to comment

 

I humbly submit that Sister Young has done a great disservice to LDS who struggle with this issue. I understand her motivation, I am sure she loves her brother, and certainly there is no problem with that. And of course, we need to be Christ-like to all-and I do mean all-of God's children. But when Sister Young asks gay couples to be patient, that the church may not evolve fast enough to please them, but it is coming around, the message she sends, at least to my imperfect understanding, is that if they can just hang in there, eventually practicing, sexually active gays can find full, calling-holding, temple attending-and being sealed to their gay partner-fellowship in the church,

In contrast to LordUther, who understands that God requires obedience to his commandments, whether gay or straight, Sister Young sends the message that the church will eventually get rid of commandments that certain groups find onerous to obey. 

And while I  think a message to gays or anyone that God loves them is certainly appropriate, I think that Affirmation is the wrong forum to address this issue. This is the same organization that has in it's mission statement:

"

  • We believe that our lives and relationships can be compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Plan of Salvation, and that LGBT individuals are a special part of God's Creation
  • We reject the concept that orientation and identity can be changed and believe that same sex relationships are entitled to the same recognition and blessings as heterosexual relationships"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I have yet to see any church authority give any wiggle room at all to those concepts. I'll stick with the brethren over an NFL quaterbacks wife, thank you very much. 

 

 

 

Hmmm...I suppose I should be keeping tabs on what Joe Montana's wife teaches about the Catholic Church.

Link to comment

Given that you are relying on The Salt Lake Tribune for your primary source . . . . uh, gee, I think that says it all.

A textbook example of ad hominem attack.

 

While I have no great love for the Tribune I don't readily see anything about this particular piece to find fault with.

 

I do wonder what Barb Young means by "evolving" in the quoted remark, but perhaps that is as explicit as she chose to be on this occasion. As BCSpace indicated there is some coyness that is apparent here.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here is the Deseret News report of the same event.

 

I think it is more thorough and informative than the Trib piece, but I don't perceive that the Trib story is untrustworthy.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By blueglass
      Why do members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood were taken from the earth? 
      1)  Not all apostles were killed, John an apostle who held Apostolic keys was granted "apower over bdeath, that I may live and bring souls unto thee. " according to D&Cov7 Joseph and Oliver use the seer stone and receive a vision of a parchment of John and given power to translate it that they may obtain an answer to their question.   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/7?lang=eng
      2)  Paul teaches immortal church that the gospel of Christ Jesus would be upon the earth "throughout all ages, world without end." Ephesians 3:21
      3)  The letter of 1Clement (first century dated 80 - 140AD) says the Apostles themselves instructed the bishops and ordained them with power to call and ordain other bishops to retain succession and authority.  1Clem 44:1 And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. 1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.
      4)  Brigham Young teaches robust quorum succession in the event of catastrophe (see Wilford Woodruff journal July 28, 1860) that if either the first presidency or the twelve or both are killed the seventy can recreate the church and can re-organize the higher quorums - which matches the letter of Clement. 
      Quote:  "The President of the Church holds the keys of the sealing powers & his Council act in Concert with him [in] all things.  Should the Presidency die The Twelve Could organize another Presidency & should the Presidency & Twelve all be slain the Seventies being Equal in power & Authority to the Twelve or first Presidency Could organize both Quorums.   He also taught that a high priest is a primal seed and can re-organize the church if all authorities are dead (nuclear holocaust, alien uprising, voyages to new planets etc). Quote: "The High Priest Could organize the Church in all its parts if all other Authorities were dead for they have the Melchizedek Priesthood out of which grow all of the Higher offices of the Church."
      5)  John Taylor teaches of revelations received during the time of "darkness" which coincides with Ephesians 3
      John Taylor, 7-Sept 1873 "Say some—'Oh, we are so enlightened and intelligent now. In former ages, when the people were degraded and in darkness, it was necessary that he should communicate intelligence to the human family; but we live in the blaze of Gospel day, in an age of light and intelligence.'  Perhaps we do; I rather doubt it. I have a great many misgivings about the intelligence that men boast so much of in this enlightened day. There were men in those dark ages who could commune with God, and who, by the power of faith, could draw aside the curtain of eternity and gaze upon the invisible world. There were men who could tell the destiny of the human family, and the events which would transpire throughout every subsequent period of time until the final winding-up scene. There were men who could gaze upon the face of God, have the ministering of angels, and unfold the future destinies of the world. If those were dark ages I pray God to give me a little darkness, and deliver me from the light and intelligence that prevail in our day;"
      Just to be clear I believe in restoration - these points arose as I studied the matter more closely when I served as a ward mission leader and the update of Preach my gospel released. 
    • By nuclearfuels
      Y'all know that lesson with the cups?
      12 Disciples of Jesus - pics of them on one side - pics of the current 12 Apostles on the other side.
      Then you build the cups up into a pyramid / tower and the cups have labels on them like priesthood, tithing, scriptures, fasting, Temple, etc.
      Been wonderin' about the Sanhedrin - read somewhere that they were the literal/genealogical descendants of the quorum of the 70 from the time of Moses
      Was the Sanherin apostate?  
      Seems like they practiced what they were supposed to / followed the rules they had in place.
      If they got the Levitical priesthood from their elders (did they?), as did John the Baptist who followed his own path, clearly not the Sanhedrin's path.
      Seems like if the Sanhedrin didnt have authority , then how did John?
      https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/sanhedrin?lang=eng
      https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/john-the-baptist
       
       
    • By Navidad
      Good morning all: I have been absent from the board for a year and a half or so. I have a question with which I hope someone here can help me. I am wrapping up a book on Anglo influence on Mexican religion and have been reading a 1968 book by Ernest Lee Tuveson a former UC Berkeley professor on the history of the United States as a millenial kingdom. To my surprise I got to around page 150 and he has a whole section on LDS millenial beliefs as epitomizing the concept of the US and the future reign of Christ. In this section he talks about the LDS concept of the apostasy. He quotes the Pratt brothers in a way that is difficult to follow. Apparently in his writings, one of the brothers used the term "a terrible silence" to refer to the apostasy. I think that is a terrific phrase; one I would like to use. Dr. Tuveson doesn't provide a source for the quote. I am wondering if any of you gurus might have heard this term before and can help me with a citation? Is there a source where the writings of the Pratts could be searched to find that term?  I trust you all are doing well and that maybe someone has a way I might be able to track down this phrase?
    • By TOmNossor
      Hello!
      I enjoy reading Catholic thought and I wanted to share.  I believe the call for SSM and many other criticisms of the CoJCoLDS (primarily from those who still hold to some sense of its being “true”) is a product of lack of rigorous thought.  An emotionalism where we substitute how we feel about things for sound principles derived by seeking God with faith and reason.
      First two links:
      Article by Archbishop of Philadelphia:
      https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/03/believe-that-you-may-understand
      Faith and Reason by JPII:
      http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html
      I will admit that I have only read parts of Faith and Reason, but I hope to rectify this.
      I think the Catholic Church is in crisis partially because its highest leaders have left behind sound thinking on issues for a hoped pastoral love of all.  This is from First Things:


      More poignantly from an interview with Bishop Chaput:



      It is my opinion that there are many very concerning things coming for the Pope and the leadership around him.  I fear he has forgotten (and I think it likely that many around him have forgotten) the second half of: “Truth without love is imperious self-righteousness. Love without truth is cowardly self-indulgence.” With an organization so committed to preserving the “truth once delivered,” how (with or without God’s supernatural guidance) can such a thing happen.  How can it happen to the CoJCoLDS?
      Somebody who wrestles with issues like advocating for or against SSM will become a general authority (not me).  In my personal life, I feel the desire to embrace love without the restraining influence of truth.  In the name of love sometime not just self love, I can stray from God’s path.  As my attempt at my best self online, I feel the desire to embrace love without mentioning truth to those with whom I dialogue even though I do not face the same issues they do (I like to not speak of their sin or emphasize that I too am a sinner to eliminate or soften the truth).  How much tougher will this be for the future bishop who can clearly see the pain in those he loves and knows that speaking truth to them will make him a lone voice in a world that has ceased to care about truth.
      There are two things about the difficult and recent declaration concerning children of same sex couples.  First, is that it would be somewhat cruel to ask a child to explain the reason his/her parents have embraced a way of living out of alignment with God’s teaching.  The second is having not been cruel, those who likely believe that SSM is a wonderful institution that has blessed their lives will continue to grow and learn and progress in the church.  
      As I said in a recent thread, I think it quite possible that one day our church will embrace SSM in many and perhaps all ways.  IMO today this would be the love without truth result.  If this happens in the future, it will not be the end of the church, but too much of this love without truth could be (I have faith that God is in control and can steer away from this).  But, one of the ways God steers away from this is by calling us to THINK correctly.
      I believe that wrong thinking after Vatican II has lead to the place where the Catholic Church is today and while some of the things Pope Francis is doing may briefly increase the number of folks in the pews, I believe ultimately it will further water down truth and lead to more indifference to the things of God.
      I do not think the highest leaders of the CoJCoLDS have succumbed to the thinking Pope Francis has embraced.  And I believe that the highest leaders of the CoJCoLDS receive revelation and inspiration to guide God’s church.  That being said, I have little doubt that Bishops and Stake Presidents struggle with these issues.  Without a commitment to have both TRUTH and LOVE, I think errors can happen.  As these error permeate the church AND society, there may be one day when our God (who I think is pragmatic) will recognize that it does more harm than good to continue to teach the truth in certain ways.  Someday, the pain caused by the truth and the prevalence of societies tolerant arms willing to offer an ultimately cold loveless embrace, could make it better for the church to water down the gospel in certain areas (no more United Order comes to mind).  Alternatively, if the gospel understanding of these issues is correct and discussion and dialogue helps folks to find ways to love in truth, perhaps pragmatic solution will not be required.  
      Anyway, there is great value in learning from wise folks like JPII and Arch Bishop Chaput.  I believe God is in charge.  I believe the CoJCoLDS passed through its first 200 years in a way far more remarkable than the years 33-233AD were for New Testament Christians and evidence God’s continuing inspiration and revelation for the whole body of the church.  That being said, God’s hand is occasionally the wise and intelligent council of our brothers and sisters.  The society into which President Nelson held his first press conference is hostile to God’s truths.  I believe that the church is guided by God through President Nelson, but ALL of us imbibe inappropriately of the ideas evidenced in this press conference hostility (in the name of love or in the name of self-indulgence or in the name of …but we imbibe).  May right reasoning and truth from God provide a counter force to societies pull!  
      Charity, TOm  
      P.S.  In case it is somehow veiled by what I say above, I do not think I am superior in my thinking to all others.  I offer the above because it is what seems true to me.  If it didn’t seem true to me, my best self, would find something else to embrace that I think is true.  I desire to align my beliefs with what God believes to be true!  
      This also means I want to read and discuss thoughts about the above.
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.
      She wrote...
      Speaking as a straight, white, man, I recognize that I come to the traditional church teachings of priesthood, sealing, polygamy/polyandry, and SSM from a certain privileged position. The church's teachings and practices benefit me and they always have. Even though there is little to no evidence for how celestial families will actually be organized and function in the CK I used to think I had it all figured out. Obviously, I thought, marriage is essential to have legal physical intimacy which is necessary for creating offspring with one or multiple wives. Yet there is no firm teaching about how spirits are created. Are they born like a baby is born into mortality? There is no evidence or teaching for that, but it is widely assumed. That assumption then justifies polygamy while discrediting polyandry and even SSM. After all, if the entire purpose is to create spirit offspring and it is thought that it happens in a way similar to creating biological offspring, then it makes sense. But that is ALL based on assumptions.
      Based on these assumptions many are willing to condemn others to lives (and possibly even an eternity) of loneliness.
      So (we) don't even know what the afterlife looks like. It is unknown. Yet we think (we) have enough information to condemn and judge others, and since most of us come at it from positions of privilege, we are in the position to enforce our dogma upon the less privileged. The church is not unique in behaving this way. It is how society has always worked. But recognizing the assumptions for what they are and being humble about how much we really don't know, can help society improve.
      Julianne also stated...
      How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people. I agree with Julianne that the polygamy/polyandry topic is closely tied to the SSM topic and must be ironed out.
      So maybe this can be a thread that can be commented on instead of derailing other threads when this subject comes up.
       
      *Julianne, I hope I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent you. I really appreciated where you were trying to take the discussion.
×
×
  • Create New...