Do We Still Believe The Lord Directs His Church?

[Stone holm]

I think it is long past time we stopped conflating people with disease(s) with their being immoral.

Yet, one might see the emphasis on sexual morality as being a warning against disease.  Problem is, I am not sure one can justify singling out a specific activity with a disease, and not putting as much emphasis on say the W of W, the violation of which probably results in more disease and heartbreak, or  expanding on the notion of wicked men in the later days adulterating food to include over use of high fructose corn syrup, GMOs, use of antibiotics upon animals destined for human consumption.  Or say the lack of emphasis on environmental issues which result in cancer and asthma, etc.  So the problem here is that it is a lot easier to crusade against a specific minority and justify it with references to disease.

[ERayR]

Gods a racist. There is nothing else afoot.

 

Nope he just sees things in a much broader scope.

[why me]

  So the problem here is that it is a lot easier to crusade against a specific minority and justify it with references to disease.

But it is not against a specific minority but a rise in sexual immorality that defined a part of the 70's. Herpes is a case in point. No one basically heard of it until Time magazine did an article on it. It came as a shock for many people that such a disease existed.

 

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19820802,00.html

 

That cover brought fear to the NYC bar scene among heteros. And this was 1982. And I don't believe HIV was that well known then, if at all. When I saw that cover and read that article I said a quiet thank you for the law of chasity and for what the GAs were saying back in the 70s.

 

Was the stress on chasity in the 1970s by the church the lord's way of protecting his saints? Who knows...but...it does say something about who may lead it.

Edited December 24, 2013 by why me

[thesometimesaint]

Yet, one might see the emphasis on sexual morality as being a warning against disease.  Problem is, I am not sure one can justify singling out a specific activity with a disease, and not putting as much emphasis on say the W of W, the violation of which probably results in more disease and heartbreak, or  expanding on the notion of wicked men in the later days adulterating food to include over use of high fructose corn syrup, GMOs, use of antibiotics upon animals destined for human consumption.  Or say the lack of emphasis on environmental issues which result in cancer and asthma, etc.  So the problem here is that it is a lot easier to crusade against a specific minority and justify it with references to disease.

Sure we can and do do it. But it is really short sighted and ultimately self defeating. That train of thought also smacks awfully close to you sinned therefore God gave you a disease. IMNTHO cure the disease then worry about the sin.

[thesometimesaint]

I think that you misunderstood and misjudged. I was in NYC during the 70sand one could have had sex quite often. No problem. But the law of chasity kept me from going all the way. If i was sleeping around here and there, the chances of me catching something even though I am hetero would have improved greatly.

 

And my gay friends spent many hours in gay bathhouses having multiple partners. Trying to tell them about the law of chasity and monogamy did not go very far. And no one thought that sex can kill. And being hetero did not give one immunity. I am thankful for the law of chasity and the guidance that we young people received in the 70s.

 

http://backinthegays.com/gay-sex-in-new-york-city-during-the-1970s/

 

There is a wonderful trailer in that link above.

 

And then we have this from the new republic:

 

Quite how this has happened (and why) are questions that historians will fight over someday, but certain influences seem clear even now—chief among them the HIV epidemic. Before aids hit, a fragile but nascent gay world had formed in a handful of major U.S. cities. The gay culture that exploded from it in the 1970s had the force of something long suppressed, and it coincided with a more general relaxation of social norms. This was the era of the post-Stonewall New Left, of the Castro and the West Village, an era where sexuality forged a new meaning for gayness: of sexual adventure, political radicalism, and cultural revolution.

The fact that openly gay communities were still relatively small and geographically concentrated in a handful of urban areas created a distinctive gay culture. The central institutions for gay men were baths and bars, places where men met each other in highly sexualized contexts and where sex provided the commonality. Gay resorts had their heyday—from Provincetown to Key West. The gay press grew quickly and was centered around classified personal ads or bar and bath advertising. Popular culture was suffused with stunning displays of homosexual burlesque: the music of Queen, the costumes of the Village People, the flamboyance of Elton John's debut; the advertising of Calvin Klein; and the intoxication of disco itself, a gay creation that became emblematic of an entire heterosexual era. When this cultural explosion was acknowledged, when it explicitly penetrated the mainstream, the results, however, were highly unstable: Harvey Milk was assassinated in San Francisco and Anita Bryant led an anti-gay crusade. But the emergence of an openly gay culture, however vulnerable, was still real.

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/the-end-gay-culture

 

I don't judge you at all. Everything I've seen of you is that you are a kind, generous person. So I'll leave any judgement to God.

 

I was born in 1951 so I'm a product of the 50's and came of age in the 60's.

 

I didn't want to be a father in my teens. That was my motivation. Plus I dated some LDS girls, and was impressed with their morals.

 

A big part of raise in AIDS in this country was the social isolation that gays felt. If you can't find social acceptance in the group you're in. You will look elsewhere. Soc 101.

[Palerider]

How many examples does it take to establish a principle? Jesus declined to go the Non Jews during his mortal ministry, and wasn't until well after his Resurrection that Peter, under revelation from God, started preaching to them. See Judaizers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers

 

Prooftexting isn't of much help to you here. Christ established his Church with leaders that were/are fallible.

 

But Christ's validity isn't in question here. 

 

"Christ established his Church with leaders that were/are fallible."  As far as the claims of the Current LDS church? Says who?

[Stone holm]

I don't judge you at all. Everything I've seen of you is that you are a kind, generous person. So I'll leave any judgement to God.

 

I was born in 1951 so I'm a product of the 50's and came of age in the 60's.

 

I didn't want to be a father in my teens. That was my motivation. Plus I dated some LDS girls, and was impressed with their morals.

 

A big part of raise in AIDS in this country was the social isolation that gays felt. If you can't find social acceptance in the group you're in. You will look elsewhere. Soc 101.

You mean God wasn't killing off a bunch of sinners with the flu epidemic during WWI , who would of thought, and cancer isn't sin based...next thing you will try to tell me is that it isn't sinful to get transfusions...what is this world coming to, why the entire social order is going to collapse if Sue marries Jill.

[Palerider]

And in the Book of Mormon as well.  I agree that the priesthood ban was not part of the primitive Christian Church.  It was wrong and did not come via revelation.  Social policy can come from folklore and good intentions, and an entire people may find that to be O.K., until the day of reckoning.  A closer look at our forebears might tell you that they often left a lot to be desired in their ethical and moral behavior -- from a fully modern perspective.  As I said previously, we might not want to too ferociously condemn George Washington et alia merely because they were slaveholders in a slaveholding world.

 

Most scholars looking at the reception of revelation in Mormonism see that it has usually come in answer to a question or to a problem.  It isn't for me to suss out the precise reasons why the Lord does not always intervene with revelation.  We can both think of plenty of times in history (biblical and otherwise) when a revelation seemed needed, but did not come -- unless you want to opt out of that notion.  I may have my individual opinions as to why it didn't come in particular cases, but that doesn't make my (or your) suppositions correct.

 

You seem to me to ignore human fallibility or even the notion that God can let errant humans stew in their own juices for a time (maybe even a long time).  You also cast aspersions on the belief by Mormons that prophets are often called despite their desire not to be so burdened.  Instead you suggest that they arrogate the role to themselves.  I think that ungenerous to say the least.  Are we to be fouind condemning men so easily -- when they may actually be quite sincere (aside from whether they are actually led by God).

 

So too for your ungenerous statement:  " . . . unlike waiting 100 some-odd years for someone to turn the light on over President Kimball's head, which is what the church would have us believe happened."  We can always make unkind statements about groups with which we do not share a common view, but is that proper?

 

 

In consideration of this statement from the First Presidency, how could a member view the ban as anything but revelation? 

 

August 17, 1949:

 

"The LDS First Presidency issues the following statement regarding the church and the negroes:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord,..."

 

How can The First Presidency make such a statement and then (some 28 years later) change not only the restriction, but also the language and ask us with a straight face to accept it as an "Oops"?  "But keep believing my friends! We're still prophets after all....." 

 

I think my reference to Nathan giving his opinion to David regarding the temple construction is an excellent example of allowing for the foibles and fallibility of humans. And I accept his honest mistake easily and without reserve. But the point is driven home that the Lord did not let the error stand. The situation was clarified.

 

Had David decided to go ahead and build the temple or if Nathan had decided not to deliver the message, then we would have had a completely different situation, much more analogous to the one you are describing where the Lord allows an individual or an entire people to "stew in their juices"

 

Regarding my description of President Kimball I apologize, I'll try to do better. It must have been as painful as someone making fun of another's response by bringing the Neil Young song, "searching for a heart of gold" to mind.

 

But then we all squeal when it's our ox being gored........  

[why me]

I don't judge you at all. Everything I've seen of you is that you are a kind, generous person. So I'll leave any judgement to God.

 

I was born in 1951 so I'm a product of the 50's and came of age in the 60's.

 

I didn't want to be a father in my teens. That was my motivation. Plus I dated some LDS girls, and was impressed with their morals.

 

A big part of raise in AIDS in this country was the social isolation that gays felt. If you can't find social acceptance in the group you're in. You will look elsewhere. Soc 101.

We have commandments for certain reasons. At times we may not understand these commandments. Certainly, when I was a young adult I didn't quite understand the law of chasity. After all, what is wrong with sex anyway was my thinking. Two adult people consent and so, why not? Why keep this law at all? Who gets hurt? No one. Such was my logic at that time. I am sure that other young adults still struggle with such an issue. And yet, what came in the early 80s was certainly a warning about breaking the law of chasity. Now those who contacted HIV and Herpes should not be judged. But for us lds, we know the law and we know why. we have such a law. If I were having sex with many women in the 70s and I caught HIV or Herpes, could I blame myself for not keeping the law? Should I blame god? What do you think?

Edited December 24, 2013 by why me

[why me]

In consideration of this statement from the First Presidency, how could a member view the ban as anything but revelation? 

 

August 17, 1949:

 

"The LDS First Presidency issues the following statement regarding the church and the negroes:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord,..."

 

How can The First Presidency make such a statement and then (some 28 years later) change not only the restriction, but also the language and ask us with a straight face to accept it as an "Oops"?  "But keep believing my friends! We're still prophets after all....." 

 

I think that I can have an answer. That statement was made by people who believed that it was a commandment. Why wouldn't they think otherwise? Most people thought it was a commandment. However, on careful examination, it became more clear: no revelation was given. Then, the policy was questioned, debated and prayed over. And an answer came.

[JLHPROF]

In consideration of this statement from the First Presidency, how could a member view the ban as anything but revelation? 

 

August 17, 1949:

 

"The LDS First Presidency issues the following statement regarding the church and the negroes:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord,..."

 

How can The First Presidency make such a statement and then (some 28 years later) change not only the restriction, but also the language and ask us with a straight face to accept it as an "Oops"?  "But keep believing my friends! We're still prophets after all....." 

 

 

Well, it's hardly the first time that the First Presidency declared something to be revealed by the Lord and then a later First Presidency downplayed it and said it wasn't from the Lord.  In fact, every change in doctrine the Church has made over the decades has featured this methodology.

The membership at large usually just keeps smiling and mutters "continuing revelation" quietly...

[Palerider]

I think that I can have an answer. That statement was made by people who believed that it was a commandment. Why wouldn't they think otherwise? Most people thought it was a commandment. However, on careful examination, it became more clear: no revelation was given. Then, the policy was questioned, debated and prayed over. And an answer came.

 

Well when you absolutely know for sure will you let me know?

 

Because it doesn't sound that way to me, but I'm just a simple man.........

[why me]

Well when you absolutely know for sure will you let me know?

 

Because it doesn't sound that way to me, but I'm just a simple man.........

The first presidency is the first presidency. They inherit what they perceive to be doctrine from past leaders.  If they also believed the ban to be doctrine and had nothing to refute it or if they did not bother to research why there was a ban, how would they know that no revelation was to be found? It was only after certain GAs began to research the ban did they discover a problem. And then they began to discuss the ban and debate it.

[Calm]

It came as a shock for many people that such a disease existed.

Seriously?  I mean that as a serious question.  I heard jokes about it back in high school in the 70s.

[Palerider]

The first presidency is the first presidency. They inherit what they perceive to be doctrine from past leaders.  If they also believed the ban to be doctrine and had nothing to refute it or if they did not bother to research why there was a ban, how would they know that no revelation was to be found? It was only after certain GAs began to research the ban did they discover a problem. And then they began to discuss the ban and debate it.

 

And from my point of view that's their job. It's their job to know so the rest of us who don't have the same access to revelation that they claim to have, aren't led astray into thinking (for the next 100 years) that those people out there who have black skins, were less valiant and don't deserve the privileges that we white folks do........

 

As an aside, from my reading I thought that President Kimball assigned a couple of GA's to research the doctrinal basis for the ban. I didn't think they took it upon themselves out of curiosity. I believe McKonkie was one of those.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Palerider

[canard78]

I think that the signs are subtle and often go unnoticed. For example: Leaders have constantly warned not to overspend and get out of debt as quickly as possible. They gave various warning signs about it. When economic crises come and come they do, church members are perhaps the best prepared to survive. Also, the teaching of the law of chasity has saved many people from death and pain. I remember the 70s very well and others remember the late 60s when sex was plentiful and morals were loosened. But if one lived the laws of chasity whether straight or gay, the chances of getting HIV at that time was minimal. The GAs constantly warned about not being influenced by the world by having sexual relations outside of marriage. Not to mention the less lethal STDs such as herpes.

So, in terms of finances and morals the GAs have been spot on. And then we have the word of wisdom. We can see the horrors of drug addiction and alcohol addiction, And the violence that comes from both addictions. The GAs were spot on here too. Many lds members have been saved from possible violent marriages because of the word of wisdom.

And the idea that the body is a temple has been a great blessing too and all that this entails. It has been another spot on for the GAs. And so, have the members been led astray in terms of who they are as spiritual beings? No. As physical beings? No. The message has been steady for years and years.

And all that says something about the truthfulness of the lds church.

Many other religions have similar benefits. For example, devout Muslims have 0 debt, no sex before marriage and don't drink alcohol. Does that say something about the truthfulness of Islam?

Edited December 25, 2013 by canard78

[Stone holm]

Many other religions have similar benefits. For example, devout Muslims have 0 debt, no sex before marriage and don't drink alcohol. Does that say something about the truthfulness of Islam?

Yeah it means you can have violent marriages without booze. While their message may have been spot on, we seem now to have a lot of serial monogamists in the Church. We may have quite a few people with little debt, but I am seeing quite a few people in our Ward on the verge of bankruptcy living in assisted housing or needing help from their family or the Church. Sometimes it is heartbreaking to watch these honest, faithful, righteous people with large families struggling to get by. Even those with some advanced education have trouble finding jobs. My eldest son remarks about. The bubble world some Saints live in in Wards clustered around medical schools and research universities.

[DBMormon]

This assumes that The Lord did not have a hand in the ban, I agree if the ban had been disavowed, then we would have a problem. However, if the ban was implemented because the Lord's people were not yet ready to abide the higher law and was left in place for that reason, then The Lord has been guiding the Church. Doesn't matter if the Prophets got their wires crossed in explaining it.

 

 

Why does the ban going from revealed Doctrine to Disavowed racism have a giant impact ]

but

The theories and interracial marriage as sin going from revealed Doctrine to disavowed racism means very little.

 

If you claim the second is is not revealed Doctrine I would argue this about as much evidence for one as the other.  You would also have reconcile the documented fact that the theories and interracial marriage was taught officially as Doctrine.

 

What say ye and others?

[Stone holm]

Why does the ban going from revealed Doctrine to Disavowed racism have a giant impact ]

but

The theories and interracial marriage as sin going from revealed Doctrine to disavowed racism means very little.

 

If you claim the second is is not revealed Doctrine I would argue this about as much evidence for one as the other.  You would also have reconcile the documented fact that the theories and interracial marriage was taught officially as Doctrine.

 

What say ye and others?

Not going to get into the what constitutes "revealed doctrine" trap with you. There were enough GAs teaching the disavowed "theories" to make that a real quagmire, but to say on the one hand that The Lord guides and directs His Church and the other that He had no hand in the ban being implemented and maintained for a century is simply not credible, so I have decided to believe He had a hand in the ban for His own purposes rather than deny that He is guiding and directing His Church, others are free to make up their own minds.

[CA Steve]

Not going to get into the what constitutes "revealed doctrine" trap with you. There were enough GAs teaching the disavowed "theories" to make that a real quagmire, but to say on the one hand that The Lord guides and directs His Church and the other that He had no hand in the ban being implemented and maintained for a century is simply not credible, so I have decided to believe He had a hand in the ban for His own purposes rather than deny that He is guiding and directing His Church, others are free to make up their own minds.

If we take the position that God was somehow responsible for the ban, and at the same time state we do not understand why, how can we disavow what were considered past doctrinal/policy statements? Basically it sounds like saying, "hey I don't know why, but I know why not". It is my opinion that claiming to know why or why not are the different sides of the same coin.

[why me]

Many other religions have similar benefits. For example, devout Muslims have 0 debt, no sex before marriage and don't drink alcohol. Does that say something about the truthfulness of Islam?

And this is a common refrain from many exmembers of the church or of those who have left the fold: namely, that other churches or faiths have the same values or that their members have the same spiritual experiences as the lds. And of course this is meant to lessen the spiritual experiences of lds members. Sort of like the bandwagon effect.

 

I would say that it does say something about Islam and says something positive about it. But i would not equate it with the counseling and direction that mormons receive from their leaders. Nor with the personal spiritual experiences that mormons have received when they prayed about the book of mormon and received a truth claim. I think that mormons stand alone in these type of experiences.

 

I have also seen members of other churches mock such spiritual experiences that mormons claim to have, especially the 'burning of the bosom' that lds claim to have. And this says much.

[Palerider]

And this is a common refrain from many exmembers of the church or of those who have left the fold: namely, that other churches or faiths have the same values or that their members have the same spiritual experiences as the lds. And of course this is meant to lessen the spiritual experiences of lds members. Sort of like the bandwagon effect.

 

I would say that it does say something about Islam and says something positive about it. But i would not equate it with the counseling and direction that mormons receive from their leaders. Nor with the personal spiritual experiences that mormons have received when they prayed about the book of mormon and received a truth claim. I think that mormons stand alone in these type of experiences.

 

I have also seen members of other churches mock such spiritual experiences that mormons claim to have, especially the 'burning of the bosom' that lds claim to have. And this says much.

 

Of course we've never seen the Mormons mock the "saved by grace" folks.......does that say much about the Mormons?

[Calm]

Of course we've never seen the Mormons mock the "saved by grace" folks.......does that say much about the Mormons?

Those who mock?  Most definitely, but not those who don't,

[DBMormon]

Not going to get into the what constitutes "revealed doctrine" trap with you. There were enough GAs teaching the disavowed "theories" to make that a real quagmire, but to say on the one hand that The Lord guides and directs His Church and the other that He had no hand in the ban being implemented and maintained for a century is simply not credible, so I have decided to believe He had a hand in the ban for His own purposes rather than deny that He is guiding and directing His Church, others are free to make up their own minds.

 

So for you if the ban did not come from God, the Church 's credibility is problematic ?

[DBMormon]

Not going to get into the what constitutes "revealed doctrine" trap with you. There were enough GAs teaching the disavowed "theories" to make that a real quagmire, but to say on the one hand that The Lord guides and directs His Church and the other that He had no hand in the ban being implemented and maintained for a century is simply not credible, so I have decided to believe He had a hand in the ban for His own purposes rather than deny that He is guiding and directing His Church, others are free to make up their own minds.

 

Also this seems a little like you would prefer to hold a current belief rather then even be open to truth.  Now I am not saying the ban did not come from God, but it is in the realm of possibilities.  It is also possible at some future day the Church may feel impressed to make a statement that touches on this.    Now while I hold out faith that the ban came from God, I also do not prefer to hold a current belief only because it keeps my faith intact.

 

Elder Uchtdorf said the following

 

 

We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it—because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.

When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive.

 

It almost seems like he is saying we need to be willing to recognize when a belief is not truth and be completely willing to adopt new truths even if they change our paradigm.   We each have beliefs that are false, are we willing to change them or do we prefer to hold onto our beliefs regardless if they are true or not.  I get what your saying.  In the absence of absolute truth you will hold your faithful belief but can you also see how they can seem an unwillingness to open your beliefs up to close examination?

 

Whether the ban is of man or of God, I want to know and if the truth is out there I welcome it.

Edited December 25, 2013 by DBMormon