Only For Those Who Were 30 Years Old And Up

[thatjimguy]

I don't get this kind of binary/fundamentalist way of looking at things. If we fallible humans adopted this kind of "reasoning," we would be unable to believe anything because humans invariable make make mistakes. And yet, science has gotten a number of things wrong, and we continue to trust it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

But science doesn't claim God giving them revelation.

[wenglund]

But science doesn't claim God giving them revelation.

 

I know. They get their revelations from Mother Nature. So?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

[california boy]

That was a verbose way of saying that you don't understand the difference between "religionists" and "Mormons." (Hint: Mormons are a small subset of religionists) My comment was regarding religionists. Please, read for comprehension.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have to give you this.  You are good at dodging reality.  The truth is, more and more christian churches are embracing SSM.  As you know, even the Pope made a gesture towards civil unions this week.  This is all headed in only one direction.  But hey, if you want to pretend otherwise, I am fine with that as well.  Please read for reality check.

[thatjimguy]

I know. They get their revelations from Mother Nature. So?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

 

I get what you're saying because it's my way of explaining our church too (and explains our open canon). We are an evolutionary church. Some things in what prohets in the past understood is barbaric compared to our knowledge now, just the same as our super-great grandchildren may think of us. We can only understand God (and science) based on our current knowledge (as a people).

 

However, this leads me to wonder if "questioning" the church is as every bit as important to our "spiritual evolution" as the Wright Brothers were to question if we could build a flying machine.

 

And if we know they are fallable, should it not the more reason we should question (or at least fight outside the church) for issues we feel are "off"?

Edited March 7, 2014 by thatjimguy

[wenglund]

I have to give you this.  You are good at dodging reality.  The truth is, more and more christian churches are embracing SSM.  As you know, even the Pope made a gesture towards civil unions this week.  This is all headed in only one direction.  But hey, if you want to pretend otherwise, I am fine with that as well.  Please read for reality check.

 

Since this doesn't directly address what I have actually said, nor does it give any indication that you now comprehend the critical difference between religionists and Mormonism, I have to chuckle at your use of the word "dodge," 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-,

[wenglund]

I get what you're saying because it's my way of explaining our church too (and explains our open canon). We are an evolutionary church. Some things in what prohets in the past understood is barbaric compared to our knowledge now, just the same as our super-great grandchildren may think of us. We can only understand God (and science) based on our current knowledge (as a people).

 

However, this leads me to wonder if "questioning" the church is as every bit as important to our "spiritual evolution" as the Wright Brothers were to question if we could build a flying machine.

 

And if we know they are fallable, should it not the more reason we should question (or at least fight outside the church) for issues we feel are "off"?

 

As with many aspects of life, scrutiny and skepticism and questioning may be good to a point, but are qualities that are subject to the law of diminishing marginal returns.

 

Not everyone gets this, and so at times they may make scrutiny and skepticism and questioning their religion, so to speak. In which case, instead of building an elevating mountain of faith and trust, they end up dig a counterproductive sinkhole of doubt.

 

To everything there is a time and a place and season and a degree of usefulness...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 7, 2014 by wenglund

[Daniel2]

I get what you're saying because it's my way of explaining our church too (and explains our open canon). We are an evolutionary church. Some things in what prohets in the past understood is barbaric compared to our knowledge now, just the same as our super-great grandchildren may think of us. We can only understand God (and science) based on our current knowledge (as a people).

 

However, this leads me to wonder if "questioning" the church is as every bit as important to our "spiritual evolution" as the Wright Brothers were to question if we could build a flying machine.

 

And if we know they are fallable, should it not the more reason we should question (or at least fight outside the church) for issues we feel are "off"?

Wade's response echoes President Packer's sentiments that 'some truths are not particularly useful.' The suggestion that science gets "revelation from Mother Nature" is spin designed to minimize knowledge gained from empirical observation and continuous retesting by diminishing it as a "revelation," thereby attempting to elevate "revelation" as a result of religious belief as another legitimate way to acquire "truth."

Regarding the usefulness of questioning and doubt: unsurprisingly, I take a different view than both Wade and Packer. Here's how Unitarians approach the issue:

Cherish Your Doubts - Robert T. Weston

Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the handmaiden of truth.

Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery.

A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error,

for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief.

Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false.

Let no man fear for the truth, that doubt may consume it;

for doubt is a testing of belief.

The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing;

For truth, if it be truth, arises from each testing stronger, more secure.

He that would silence doubt is filled with fear;

the house of his spirit is built on shifting sands.

But he that fears no doubt, and knows its use, is founded on a rock.

He shall walk in the light of growing knowledge;

the work of his hands shall endure.

Therefore let us not fear doubt, but let us rejoice in its help:

It is to the wise as a staff to the blind; doubt is the handmaiden of truth.

Responsive Reading 413 from Hymns for the Celebration of Live - Beacon Press

[Daniel2]

Granted, gay activist have been very active since the mid 60's attempting to normalize homosexuality, and while they have been increasingly successful within pop culture over the last half century (particularly the last 10 years), they haven't been as successful among religionists--in large part because religionists grasp the critical difference between skin color and sexual perversion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That was a verbose way of saying that you don't understand the difference between "religionists" and "Mormons." (Hint: Mormons are a small subset of religionists)... Please, read for comprehension.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, YOUR use of the term "religionist" in this thread (and your statement that Mormons are a subset thereof) is comically ironic. "I dunno think that term means what you think it means."

An easy Google search sheds some light on "religionist."

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: re·li·gion·ist

Pronunciation: \-ˈli-jə-nist, -ˈlij-nist\

Function: noun

Date: 1653

: a person adhering to a religion ; especially : a religious zealot

Dictionary.com:

religionism[ ri-lij-uh-niz-uhm ]

noun

1. excessive or exaggerated religious zeal.

2. affected or pretended religious zeal.

Urban Dictionary:

Religionist

An arrogant, prideful, egoistic, religious person who believes his/her religion is the only true religion. They are deeply religious in their dogma/religion to such an extent they believe that is who they are. They are often times very legalistic and think they are better than others, especially other people who aren't members of their particular religion. People who are religionists are usually the biggest hypocrites.

Religious people are often times religionists due to the effect their religion has had on them over the years.

Jenny is so prideful about her religion, she is such a religionist.

A religionist takes legalism to the extreme.

Most religionists are so blind and arrogant they don't even realize how hypocritical they are.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Daniel2

[Tacenda]

I used the word religionist, recently in an email, in the same context Wade did. But later after the email was sent, darn it, looked up the meaning. Hopefully who I sent it to doesn't know all the meanings for it.

[thesometimesaint]

Wade's response echoes President Packer's sentiments that 'some truths are not particularly useful.' The suggestion that science gets "revelation from Mother Nature" is spin designed to minimize knowledge gained from empirical observation and continuous retesting by diminishing it as a "revelation," thereby attempting to elevate "revelation" as a result of religious belief as another legitimate way to acquire "truth."

Regarding the usefulness of questioning and doubt: unsurprisingly, I take a different view than both Wade and Packer. Here's how Unitarians approach the issue:

Cherish Your Doubts - Robert T. Weston

Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the handmaiden of truth.

Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery.

A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error,

for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief.

Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false.

Let no man fear for the truth, that doubt may consume it;

for doubt is a testing of belief.

The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing;

For truth, if it be truth, arises from each testing stronger, more secure.

He that would silence doubt is filled with fear;

the house of his spirit is built on shifting sands.

But he that fears no doubt, and knows its use, is founded on a rock.

He shall walk in the light of growing knowledge;

the work of his hands shall endure.

Therefore let us not fear doubt, but let us rejoice in its help:

It is to the wise as a staff to the blind; doubt is the handmaiden of truth.

Responsive Reading 413 from Hymns for the Celebration of Live - Beacon Press

[thesometimesaint]

I used the word religionist, recently in an email, in the same context Wade did. But later after the email was sent, darn it, looked up the meaning. Hopefully who I sent it to doesn't know all the meanings for it.

[busybee]

I would be very interested to hear you expand on this.

I was a teen a the time so not too interested in the politics of the day, but tribal influences then (and to some extent, even today) played a big part int he lives of most black people in Africa. Amongst those tribal influences was the practice of polygamy, ancestor worship, witch doctors etc. Superstition was very prevalent (and still is among the older generation). Without wanting to offend anyone, any earlier would have been too early.

I recall someone from the church auditing department relating a story to us in the late 90's about visiting a ward in one of the African countries where two sisters got up to pass the Sacrament to the congregation. This person spoke to the bishop of the ward and told him that only ordained priesthood holders were to pass the Sacrament. The bishop indicated that he would make sure this was the case in future. Several months later, on visiting the same ward, the same two sisters passed the Sacrament again. The Bishop was addressed on the matter again and his response was, " but I ordained them to the priesthood".

It was an innocent misunderstanding, granted, but showed a lack of understanding and a degree of naivety that was way more prevalent in earlier days.

The gospel in Africa has blossomed since the ban was lifted. I am grateful it was.

Calmoriah, if you want any more in depth detail please don't hesitate to inbox me with any specific questions etc. As you are probably aware, racial issues in Africa were/are very complicated and I don't want to cause offense to anyone.

Edited March 7, 2014 by busybee

[Calm]

Thank you for the offer. I get the need for sensitivity.

[Stargazer]

I was 27 when it happened and I remember being very surprised and pleased about it, and every LDS around me was exactly the same way.  It was a very welcome event in amongst my acquaintances and friends.

 

I do believe there were some who were taken aback and were not pleased at all.  But in all these years have only met one member who was not pleased about it.  He was fairly open about his racist attitudes -- not embarrassed at all about it, in fact.  He doesn't hate non-whites, but feels that God made the races for good reasons (my comment that He made the races so we could learn to be more tolerant did not fall on willing ears).  His main problem with the 1978 revelation was that it would promote miscegenation.    He went totally inactive the day after he was in the temple and happened to walk past a sealing room and saw a white woman kneeling across a sealing altar from a black man, as he told me.  This was ten years ago or so, and he hadn't been back to church in quite a while -- although I've heard that he has started coming to church meetings again once in awhile.

 

This man is very much in the minority.

[rpn]

 

And if we know they are fallable, should it not the more reason we should question (or at least fight outside the church) for issues we feel are "off"?

 

What church members absolutely MUST do is to ponder the words of prophets in their heart and seek spiritual confirmation of their teachings.   What they CAN do if they do not get that confirmation after diligently seeking it (which will require that they want it to be correct or at least aren't diametrically opposed to the idea of it --- you won't hear what you refuse to hear), is to NOT personally participate in what they know is wrong (ie the Mountain Meadows guys should have refused to obey the militia/stake president's orders to kill innocents) and to pray for hearts to be softened so policies can be changed.    I don't see any problem with writing church leaders either, as one is inspired to do so, even knowing that up the chain, it will return to my stake president.  Leaders need to know what members are concerned about.   Just don't expect any response from those levels. 

 

But anyone who thinks that church leaders who are wrong are likely to respond to public pressure, when the Lord runs the church through inspiration, is misguided.   If mortal leaders are not listening to Him, they are likely more unwilling to listen to others, so it is also pointless.  The Lord is perfectly capable of correcting His leaders.  If we believe that He does run the church, we do not try to overthrow our leader's decisions and teachings.  It does not represent the loyal opposition.

[california boy]

Let's be honest here, the main reason why this topic is being discussed is because of the Church's stance on same-sex marriage and homosexuality, yes? I think, if I am being 100% honest, that it is a fair comparison for a few reasons but very distinguishable for a lot of others.

It does seem that history is repeating itself since no revelation has ever been received concerning gays being allowed to marry and live the law of chastity like everyone else.

[california boy]

That was a verbose way of saying that you don't understand the difference between "religionists" and "Mormons." (Hint: Mormons are a small subset of religionists) My comment was regarding religionists. Please, read for comprehension.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Second and last warning today.  STOP the insults!

I am sorry if you failed to connect the dots.  What I was pointing out is that far more religionists accept gay marriage than they do the claims of the Mormon church.  Yet Mormons believe what they teach  is true despite the fact that the Mormon church has been declaring their message for over 150 years.  Gays also believe that their God allows for their marriages and the opportunity to live the law of chastity like everyone else for a very short time, yet it has been widely embraced by religionists.  Mormons are only a subset of religionists that have yet to accept that idea. h

[thesometimesaint]

I am sorry if you failed to connect the dots.  What I was pointing out is that far more religionists accept gay marriage than they do the claims of the Mormon church.  Yet Mormons believe what they teach  is true despite the fact that the Mormon church has been declaring their message for over 150 years.  Gays also believe that their God allows for their marriages and the opportunity to live the law of chastity like everyone else for a very short time, yet it has been widely embraced by religionists.  Mormons are only a subset of religionists that have yet to accept that idea. h

 

That is an Ad Populum argument.

[california boy]

That is an Ad Populum argument.

You may be right.  And it was in response to Wade's claim stated here.

 

Granted, gay activist have been very active since the mid 60's attempting to normalize homosexuality, and while they have been increasingly successful within pop culture over the last half century (particularly the last 10 years), they haven't been as successful among religionists--in large part because religionists grasp the critical difference between skin color and sexual perversion.

 

If his definition of religionist only refers to zelots, then his comment was never relevant to start with.  The assertion that Christianity has not dramatically moved towards a much more inclusive and acceptance of gay marriage is just not true.

[HiJolly]

Wow. What a thread.

 

I was 10 y.o. in 1970 and didn't have a clue about race issues. White boy, raised in Mesa, AZ. I think I saw a total of 3 black people by the time I was 10. From afar.

1978 - Having read 'Mormon Doctrine' (I still have my mom's first edition copy) and 'The Way to Perfection', I was amazed and thrilled when I heard the good news of the revelation. So was everyone I knew there in Mesa. We'd never protested for black's rights. But we were amazed and thrilled. It was so cool!.

[applepansy]

I couldn't respond to this until I had my 25 posts.

 

I was a young adult when the revelation was received.  I welcomed it and most of the people I knew did.  My Dad served a mission in South Africa in the 50s.  He was happy to see the revelation finally here.

 

But... I have an Aunt who is very bigoted.  She a good person but just doesn't like Blacks.  The revelation was one of the reasons she lost her testimony and ended up being excommunicated.  She was re-baptized a few years ago.  But its still hard for her to be around African Americans.   When my grandmother was living with her we made arrangements for home health care to come in and help with grandma's care 3 times a week.  They sent a Black girl who was amazing, but my Aunt called and asked them not to send her back.  It broke my heart for the great HH Aide and for my Aunt.

[Tacenda]

D&c 132 has some racist ideas. I wish that section would go away. I think it's in vs. 16.

[Calm]

Try again.

I would really like to see how one gets racist ideas out of 132.

Edited March 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Try again.

I would really like to see how one gets racist ideas out of 132.

In vs. 16, those without the credentials are servants, so it was kind of racist when blacks had the PH withheld.

[Calm]

Don't see it since it was taught blacks would get the PH in the next life at the very least. For it to disqualify them it would have to disqualify everyone who didn't have the priesthood in mortality. It was never taught that I know of that proxy work wouldn't be done for all blacks who didn't have the opportunity.

Think you are trying too hard on that one.

Edited March 9, 2014 by calmoriah