The John Dehlin Quiz In Support Of A Change Within Lds Regarding Ssa And Ordaining Women

[Tramper]

"Several people have contacted me in respond to my "Oaks Fail" post to say: "If you believe in this church, then you believe in revelation and in following your leaders. Consequently, it is inappropriate for you to be speaking openly about wanting LGBTs to be more accepted in the church, supporting gay marriage, or for women to receive more responsibility in the church. Either the leaders of the ...church get their direction from God, or they don't. If you choose to be a part of this church, then it's either get in line and follow, or get out."

My response: A quiz for you.

1) What were the conditions/environment/personalities involved in Joseph Smith receiving the Word of Wisdom revelation? Was it purely direct revelation, or at least partially a response to people and situation?

2) What were the conditions/environment/personalities involved in the 1890 Official Declaration renouncing the practice of polygamy? Was it purely direct revelation, or at least partially a response to people and situation?

3) What were the conditions/environment/personalities involved in the granting of priesthood to black males? Was it purely direct revelation, or at least partially a response to people and situation?

4) What were the conditions/environment/personalities involved in the LDS church's changing stance regarding oral sex (first forbidding it, then rescinding that forbidding)? Was it purely direct revelation, or at least partially a response to people and situation?

5) What were the conditions/environment/personalities involved in the LDS church's change in stance regarding LGBT people, going from a) telling LGBT people that SSA was a result of sin, b) that being LGBT was a choice/non-biological, c) that LGBT folks should "get married, not tell their spouse, and it will go away," or d) to try reparative therapy......vs. the church's current position (http://mormonsandgays.org/) -- abandoning all of those positions? Was it purely direct revelation, or at least partially a response to people and situation?

6) Rinse and repeat with other issues like the use of contraception, women working outside of the home, apostolic denunciations of evolution, the cessation of publishing Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, etc.

7) In fact, are you aware of ANY significant changes in the church that were NOT made in response to conditions/environment/personalities ?

What is the value of continuing revelation, if it is not used....and what do you think precipitates revelation? Does it happen in a vacuum?

9) Finally, if conditions/environment/personalities can lead to change in all of these other scenarios, why couldn't/shouldn't it be so with gay marriage and the role of women in the church?"

 

How would you respond to John's quiz?

[DBMormon]

Frankly I think he is right on the grounds that most changes occur because a situation has arisen and someone is asking a question.  I also agree as Elder Uchtdorf said, our leaders make mistakes from time to time.  That said I am not agreeing with his decision to be critical of Elder Oaks publicly.

Edited October 8, 2013 by DBMormon

[thesometimesaint]

Nothing occurs in a vacuum. Even the First Vision was in response to a question by a young man.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sorry the quiz is misguided. The main issue is that the church has already claimed repeatedly that neither women getting the priesthood or gays gettting married is ever going to happen. That position has never changed and I have never once heard that at some future date it would change like I have with polygamy and blacks and the preisthood. This is a total wishful thinking campaign.

[Duncan]

I think too with revelation, traditions sprout up from time to time. Like the WOW wasn't on the Temple Recommend question list until what like 1930 or something? Just the way revelation has been interpreted

[Storm Rider]

There is a difference between revelation and church policies; the two more often than not fail to make a nexus. 

 

Requesting the Brethren to seek revelation is not done in the media; that is done for a completely different reason and motivation than asking the Brethren to consider an issue.  Trying to dress a pig up in pink dress and lace does not make the pig a lady; the forced need to call a pig a lady is silly.  It is wiser and more honest to just be frank and direct; you want something, send a letter to the prophet.  You want to fight a battle in the media, don't tell me it is because you want the Brethren to talk to God about a topic. That just makes "you" look like an idiot for thinking we are so gullible to believe you just because you prefer to lie about it.

[stemelbow]

Sorry the quiz is misguided. The main issue is that the church has already claimed repeatedly that neither women getting the priesthood or gays gettting married is ever going to happen. That position has never changed and I have never once heard that at some future date it would change like I have with polygamy and blacks and the preisthood. This is a total wishful thinking campaign.

 

Ordaining women tot he priesthood is not mentioned in the quote he's responding to.  It talks about women getting more "responsibility" in the Church.  I'm all for it.  Women need a larger role in Church whether priesthood is given or not. 

 

Also, the Church can't stop gays from getting married.  The Church tried that and failed and the Church came off looking poorly to many because of their efforts to force it.  Its happened and whether the rhetoric of leaders are going to support the laws of the land or not is irrelevant on this point. 

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Elder Oaks is right. Same sex marriage/relationships are incongruent with the doctrines of the church regarding heavenly parents, eternal families, and deification. Consequently, the church's policy on SSM cannot change. Period. It's not even close to the same relm as the priesthood restriction or the other changes that have happened. Progressive Mormons need to get over their obsession with the church's stance on SSM. It isn't going to change. If it does, the church would have to abandon some of it's most basic doctrines.

[cursor]

Sorry the quiz is misguided. The main issue is that the church has already claimed repeatedly that neither women getting the priesthood or gays gettting married is ever going to happen. That position has never changed and I have never once heard that at some future date it would change like I have with polygamy and blacks and the preisthood. This is a total wishful thinking campaign.

 

Never say "never."

Consider Brigham Young's very firm stance with respect to the seed of Cain:

• "How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.”
  —Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, pp. 290-291, 1859

   

• "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
  —Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.110, 1863

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ordaining women tot he priesthood is not mentioned in the quote he's responding to.  It talks about women getting more "responsibility" in the Church.  I'm all for it.  Women need a larger role in Church whether priesthood is given or not. 

 

Also, the Church can't stop gays from getting married.  The Church tried that and failed and the Church came off looking poorly to many because of their efforts to force it.  Its happened and whether the rhetoric of leaders are going to support the laws of the land or not is irrelevant on this point. 

In the context of what has going on during GC and his quiz about things changing, what do you think he was talking about? Just getting some more callings and nothing more?

Edited October 8, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Storm Rider]

It would be easy to accept women having more influence in the Church without having the priesthood; that is a policy change that I don't see would require a revelation.  I remember reading a comment complaining about women using the same lesson manual that men use (seems like a complaint that can go both ways, but I digress); if women feel that need an exclusive manual, then let them write their own material that uses only women for quotes and uses only pictures of women; whatever they feel would improve the message about the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

 

I generally have problems when assignments or decisions are made strictly for gender reasons. If there is a man speaker then there must be a female speaker; if one gender gets one thing then the other gender must get another thing of equal value.  My wife's mom and dad used to add up the value of gifts given to each child to ensure that each child received the same dollar value of gifts.  The problem is that most years some of the gifts given were really strange, a wig to a young teen, cooking utensils for a pre-ten year old, just some really bizarre choices.  Make decisions that are best for the saints and ignore the consequences.  

 

I detest whining.  If the wheel squeaks constantly, get a new wheel rather than constantly tending the same old wheel that is never helped. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Never say "never."

Consider Brigham Young's very firm stance with respect to the seed of Cain:

• "How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.”
  —Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, pp. 290-291, 1859

   

• "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
  —Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.110, 1863

 

 

 

Were have we been told that gays will marry in the temple at a future date? Were have we read that women will get the priesthood at a future date? Were has that even been hinted at? No were.

 

Even in your quote from BY he even acknowlages that at a future date the blacks would recieve the priesthood. Were have we heard the same for gay marriage or women getting the priesthood?

 

BY might be wrong about somethings but again even he said they would get it eventually.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Elder Oaks is right. Same sex marriage/relationships are incongruent with the doctrines of the church regarding heavenly parents, eternal families, and deification. Consequently, the church's policy on SSM cannot change. Period. It's not even close to the same relm as the priesthood restriction or the other changes that have happened. Progressive Mormons need to get over their obsession with the church's stance on SSM. It isn't going to change. If it does, the church would have to abandon some of it's most basic doctrines.

I agree and I thought Elder Oaks made this very clear. IT just is not going to happen and it is just wishful thinking.

[Damien the Leper]

The LDS church is not a spiritually conducive home for LGBT persons. IMO, those persons identifying as such should find a better spiritual home where they can respond to God in full authenticity without the sacrifice of who they truly are.

As for women having more responsibility, go for it. If it's priesthood or not it doesn't matter. There is much more to the divine place of womanhood than only bearing children and being a homemaker. I'm not demeaning such roles but there is much more to women than that and they should be recognised as such. I would love to see a LDS female POTUS. That would be revolutionary!

ETA: especially if the woman has 3 or 4 kids under 18 years of age that still live at home.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Valentinus

[cursor]

BY might be wrong about somethings but again even he said they would get it eventually.

 

Actually, BY said that the seed of Cain would not get the priesthood, until "all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof." If that were to be true, then the right of priesthood would not have been extended to blacks in 1978. Since serious and firm policy issues have evolved in LDS history, what is there to suggest that other policy issues won't be adjusted or modified?

[Avatar4321]

The LDS church is not a spiritually conducive home for LGBT persons. IMO, those persons identifying as such should find a better spiritual home where they can respond to God in full authenticity without the sacrifice of who they truly are.

As for women having more responsibility, go for it. If it's priesthood or not it doesn't matter. There is much more to the divine place of womanhood than only bearing children and being a homemaker. I'm not demeaning such roles but there is much more to women than that and they should be recognised as such. I would love to see a LDS female POTUS. That would be revolutionary!

ETA: especially if the woman has 3 or 4 kids under 18 years of age that still live at home.

 

or perhaps they could repent like the rest of us, put off the natural man and become a Saint through the Atonement of Christ. A faith that cannot ask for the sacrifice of all things, cannot produce the faith necessary to obtain Eternal Life.

[Damien the Leper]

or perhaps they could repent like the rest of us, put off the natural man and become a Saint through the Atonement of Christ. A faith that cannot ask for the sacrifice of all things, cannot produce the faith necessary to obtain Eternal Life.

Let's not make this thread about sexual "sin". Your regurgitated diatribe in less than 50 words holds about as much water as a bucket with a leaking bottom. You may not be willing to embrace who God created you to be and you may not embrace others for who God created them to be but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow in a self loathing and ungrateful lifestyle.

[cursor]

or perhaps they could repent like the rest of us, put off the natural man and become a Saint through the Atonement of Christ. A faith that cannot ask for the sacrifice of all things, cannot produce the faith necessary to obtain Eternal Life.

 

Excuse me, but is there a singular definition the "the natural man"? What is really meant by the term ... and what is not meant? How broad is that spectrum, and how individualistic is the body of factors that make up "the natural man"?

[CV75]

 

Never say "never."

Consider Brigham Young's very firm stance with respect to the seed of Cain:

• "How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.”
  —Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, pp. 290-291, 1859

   

• "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
  —Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.110, 1863

 

Consider how the conditions of this very firm stance might have been fulfilled in 1978:

 

1) "...all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof" once the "faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the flesh" were sufficiently organized and operational so that "they might carry the message of redemption unto all the dead, " which could have taken until 1978 to accomplish, that is, by catching up with giving all the other dead descendants of Adam the opportunity so that this could be done withotu a backlog of dead people waiting to hear the mesasge and receive the ordiannces from 1978 onward. It goes without saying that, since 1978, any descendant of Adam can receive the promises and enjoy the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof, whether living or in the spirit world.

 

2) The curse had been lifted for anyone alive on earth from 1978 onward, consistent with the assignment of spirits that are reserved for the last days.

 

3) "Always" refers to any part of the period of time prior to the curse being lifted.

Edited October 8, 2013 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

Excuse me, but is there a singular definition the "the natural man"? What is really meant by the term ... and what is not meant? How broad is that spectrum, and how individualistic is the body of factors that make up "the natural man"?

What do you mean by "singular definition"?

 

I think Abinadi wraps it up rather nicely with the descriptors "carnal, sensual and devilish" (see Mosiah 3:16).

 

If you need to drill down on what those terms mean, Scott Woodward has a pretty good commenatary here.

[daz2]

As others have pointed out, some things could change without a major restructuring of the LDS worldview as it is understood today--i.e., without "ordaining" women or giving LGBT people membership or full membership privileges.

 

Under the handbook, there is not currently a requirement that a person in a committed same sex relationship must be excommunicated or church discipline meted out.  Some stakes, therefore, welcome back to the fold LGBT in such relationships (whether in a same sex marriage or other partnership)--without the threat of excommunication (although they would not be given a recommend or called to a position).  That could be made a churchwide policy, without doing violence to how we see the hereafter.  (I would also note that many wards and stakes do threaten excommunication for individuals cohabiting with persons of the opposite sex.)  

 

As has also been noted, there are many ways for women to be given a greater say in church governance.  Recently mission leadership was restructured so that mission leadership councils now have two elders and two sisters on the council.  Ward governance has been restructured so that the ward council (which has female members) is the leading ward entity (under the bishopric--all male) instead of the priesthood executive committee (all male).  Perhaps similar changes could be made at the stake level.

 

The church could return to the positions of Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith that it was okay for women to offer blessings, including by the laying on of hands.  A statement that such nonpriesthood blessings are inconsistent with "unchangeable" priesthood principles would be very difficult to defend, given that Joseph Smith and JFS specifically encouraged it, and there is no revelation directing that the practice end.

[wenglund]

The LDS church is not a spiritually conducive home for LGBT persons. IMO, those persons identifying as such should find a better spiritual home where they can respond to God in full authenticity without the sacrifice of who they truly are.

 

This, of course, is true for LGBT who prioritize their LGBT over their spirituality--i.e. who identify themselves ("who they truly are") more by their sexual orientation than by their orientation to Christ, and who manifest their priorities in their behavior. It is false where their priorities and self-identification are reversed, and their behavior follows suit.

 

The same, in principle, holds for any and all of us with inclination that run contrary to godliness. Confirmed adulterers may not find the Church all that spiritually conducive.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

The LDS church is not a spiritually conducive home for LGBT persons. IMO, those persons identifying as such should find a better spiritual home where they can respond to God in full authenticity without the sacrifice of who they truly are.

As I understand it, the "B" in LGBT stands for bi-sexual. In theory, at least, such a person is capable of sexual expression with someone of the opposite sex -- and hence, capable of marriage as it is defined in the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Might it be difficult for such a person to suppress the homosexual aspect of his nature? Sure. But it can also be difficult for a heterosexual man to suppress sexual attraction he might feel for women other than his wife. That's part and parcel of marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Under the handbook, there is not currently a requirement that a person in a committed same sex relationship must be excommunicated or church discipline meted out.  Some stakes, therefore, welcome back to the fold LGBT in such relationships (whether in a same sex marriage or other partnership)--without the threat of excommunication (although they would not be given a recommend or called to a position).  That could be made a churchwide policy, without doing violence to how we see the hereafter.  (I would also note that many wards and stakes do threaten excommunication for individuals cohabiting with persons of the opposite sex.)  

 

I don't see a qualitative difference here, whether the sexual cohabitation is with a person of the same or of the opposite sex. Both are contrary to the laws of God and both are violations of the law of chastity. Is it because of the phrase "committed same-sex relationship"? Heterosexual persons shacking up outside of marriage might also describe their relationship as "committed."

[CV75]

How would you respond to John's quiz?

 

For Questions 1-8, revelations from God can occur in both ways.

 

For Question 9, when members want a particular blessing but are contentious with the Church, its leaders or members over it, their understanding of or motive for the blessing is as out of line as the spirit in which they ask for it. Also, the kinds of questions that lead to revelation, or the kinds of pleas for the Lord’s anointed to resolve or pray about a matter, are not framed as demands or used to camouflage the actual objective.

 

This is why the two issues at hand are not playing well, and how they are very different from the examples you provided.

Edited October 8, 2013 by CV75