Elder Ballard Speaks To The Young Adults About Three Things

[Mystery Meat]

So then, using that logic, is it respectful to tell you that your opposition to gay marriage is influenced by homophobia?

 

You are putting the rest of us in a position to accept your "revelation" or the one from 15 men we sustain as prophets. If we don't accept yours you say it is disrespectful. 

 

What do you think has influences their decisions and thoughts on the matter?

[rockpond]

If that is your opinion I can respect that.

Well, it isn't my opinion. I think your opposition to gay marriage is rooted in sincere spiritual beliefs. It would be nice if my own community could say the same about my beliefs in support of gay marriage.

[Mystery Meat]

Well, it isn't my opinion. I think your opposition to gay marriage is rooted in sincere spiritual beliefs. It would be nice if my own community could say the same about my beliefs in support of gay marriage.

 

I think your belief is rooted in sincere beliefs. But I think your belief is wrong and clouded by the social trends of the day.

[rockpond]

You are putting the rest of us in a position to accept your "revelation" or the one from 15 men we sustain as prophets. If we don't accept yours you say it is disrespectful.

What do you think has influences their decisions and thoughts on the matter?

I'm not asking anyone to accept my personal revelations. As you noted, I've always said to choose the Brethren over me. But I think "respect" of someone's beliefs means you acknowledge what they are saying they believe and not reduce their beliefs by saying that they are just the reflection of a societal trend. I agree we all have opinions of each other, but doesn't respect require a but more of us?

[rockpond]

I think your belief is rooted in sincere beliefs. But I think your belief is wrong and clouded by the social trends of the day.

I guess that's the best I can hope for.

[Mystery Meat]

I'm not asking anyone to accept my personal revelations. As you noted, I've always said to choose the Brethren over me. But I think "respect" of someone's beliefs means you acknowledge what they are saying they believe and not reduce their beliefs by saying that they are just the reflection of a societal trend. I agree we all have opinions of each other, but doesn't respect require a but more of us?

 

I will also note that my belief is based on my own revelation. One of the most spiritual experiences of my life. There haven't been many on the level of this one. So its not just a because the prophets say so.

[rockpond]

I will also note that my belief is based on my own revelation. One of the most spiritual experiences of my life. There haven't been many on the level of this one. So its not just a because the prophets say so.

I honor you for having prayed and pondered over it. And I think someday we'll understand why so many of us seem to have (what appear to be) conflicting spiritual experiences with regard to this matter.

[CV75]

Yes, but I'm telling you my beliefs on this subject are not a matter of wanting the church to simply adapt to a changing society.  Is that something you can accept?

No, because after all this discussion, you haven't explained how or otherwise (if doing so is important to you). An appeal to personal promptings of the Spirit and answers to prayer do not accomplish that; sharing an understanding of scripture may offer a little more credibility in explaining your beliefs. I would think that would be more important than getting others to accept that your beliefs and wants somehow function independently of each other or that they are a matter of something they haven't thought of or you haven't explained.

Edited May 10, 2014 by CV75

[rockpond]

No, because after all this discussion, you haven't explained how or otherwise (if doing so is important to you). An appeal to personal promptings of the Spirit and answers to prayer do not accomplish that; sharing an understanding of scripture may offer a little more credibility in explaining your beliefs. I would think that would be more important than getting others to accept that your beliefs and wants somehow function independently of each other or that they are a matter of something they haven't thought of or you haven't explained.

I've explained them before on these boards. Likely on threads on which you were participating. My beliefs on the subject are primarily mocked and dismissed here. So for now, I don't really have the desire to share them again. It won't make a difference for you or Scott or LVJD. Maybe another time on another thread -- there's never a shortage of gay marriage threads around here.

[CV75]

I've explained them before on these boards. Likely on threads on which you were participating. My beliefs on the subject are primarily mocked and dismissed here. So for now, I don't really have the desire to share them again. It won't make a difference for you or Scott or LVJD. Maybe another time on another thread -- there's never a shortage of gay marriage threads around here.

I tend to take each thread as a new thread – after all, people’s beliefs and views evolve over time and perhaps something new can be garnered.

 

From the number of pages spent exchanging and discussing beliefs on this subject with you, I don’t see how yours can be considered to have been dismissed. And if subjection to mockery was a problem, I’m not sure why that would be allowed to go on for so many pages.

 

In this thread, i picked up on the denial that religious belief that matches the current popular trend isn't influenced by that trend, especially if it counters religious belief (in this case, LDS belief). I find it interesting that as an LDS, you consider your ideas to have arisen independent of the American social trend and so early on (or even prior to) its progression, which was picking up steam arguably as early as 1972 (Baker v. Nelson). Using that as a “fairly early” date, “early” to me would have been a contemplation of the issue 10, 20 or more years earlier. Where were you in those days? What is "early" to you? I suppose it’s all relative to one’s perception, but sometimes pre-existing societal trends carry us along whether we are aware of them or not.

 

Since marriage has been around since “Year 1” I am undoubtedly influenced by that trend. Admittedly I was carried along for many years by that trend without much thought, and when I converted to the Church I accepted its teachings on marriage. But when it comes to consciously promoting a trend or alternative trend, or resisting the trend, it really takes some effort and thought--but especially when such effort and thought arises outside of the influence of either trend.

[rockpond]

I tend to take each thread as a new thread – after all, people’s beliefs and views evolve over time and perhaps something new can be garnered.

From the number of pages spent exchanging and discussing beliefs on this subject with you, I don’t see how yours can be considered to have been dismissed. And if subjection to mockery was a problem, I’m not sure why that would be allowed to go on for so many pages.

In this thread, i picked up on the denial that religious belief that matches the current popular trend isn't influenced by that trend, especially if it counters religious belief (in this case, LDS belief). I find it interesting that as an LDS, you consider your ideas to have arisen independent of the American social trend and so early on (or even prior to) its progression, which was picking up steam arguably as early as 1972 (Baker v. Nelson). Using that as a “fairly early” date, “early” to me would have been a contemplation of the issue 10, 20 or more years earlier. Where were you in those days? What is "early" to you? I suppose it’s all relative to one’s perception, but sometimes pre-existing societal trends carry us along whether we are aware of them or not.

Since marriage has been around since “Year 1” I am undoubtedly influenced by that trend. Admittedly I was carried along for many years by that trend without much thought, and when I converted to the Church I accepted its teachings on marriage. But when it comes to consciously promoting a trend or alternative trend, or resisting the trend, it really takes some effort and thought--but especially when such effort and thought arises outside of the influence of either trend.

I apologize... I suspect that I got off track over the numerous responses. I'll try to clarify as succinctly as possible and then I may choose to drop out of further discussion on this particular point because it seems to be beating a dead horse.

My point, in response to Scott's original comment (days ago) was that those I know who are in favor of church acceptance of gay marriage do not want it because we want the church to match a societal trend. We want it because we believe it to be the right thing to do, the right way to treat God's children. To reduce that belief to just wanting to follow a societal trend is analogous to saying that OD2 was just the church's attempt to catch up with the civil rights movement.

I don't find it particularly productive or civil to portray either side in a way that diminishes sincerely held beliefs.

[CV75]

I apologize... I suspect that I got off track over the numerous responses. I'll try to clarify as succinctly as possible and then I may choose to drop out of further discussion on this particular point because it seems to be beating a dead horse.

My point, in response to Scott's original comment (days ago) was that those I know who are in favor of church acceptance of gay marriage do not want it because we want the church to match a societal trend. We want it because we believe it to be the right thing to do, the right way to treat God's children. To reduce that belief to just wanting to follow a societal trend is analogous to saying that OD2 was just the church's attempt to catch up with the civil rights movement.

I don't find it particularly productive or civil to portray either side in a way that diminishes sincerely held beliefs.

I understand the effort to apply the OD2 formula to same-sex “marriage.”

 

With OD2 there was a trend involved, but not of the society of the world. It was “the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth.” Gratitude inspired the desire that all worthy members of the Church may receive “all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords ["including the blessings of the temple"]… when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood.” They sought and obtained confirmation that this was not only the right thing to do but the right time to do it (“the long-promised day has come”).

 

Following this formula, the same-sex “marriage” proponents you know and describe would be grateful for “the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth” and so desire that all worthy members of the Church may receive “all of the privileges and blessings which [temple marriage] affords… when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may [be sealed to a man or to a woman and when every faithful, worthy woman in the Church may be sealed to a woman or to a man].” They have received confirmation that this is not only the right thing to do but hope that the time comes to do it, though there hasn't been a “long-promised day [to] come” for such.

 

I think you can pick out the several places where the formula breaks down. Now perhaps you can say that they might desire the acceptance of same-sex civil “marriage” by the Church, but then the formula breaks down even further into a matter of the current societal trend and not the "work of the Lord."

[rockpond]

I understand the effort to apply the OD2 formula to same-sex “marriage.”

With OD2 there was a trend involved, but not of the society of the world. It was “the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth.” Gratitude inspired the desire that all worthy members of the Church may receive “all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords ["including the blessings of the temple"]… when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood.” They sought and obtained confirmation that this was not only the right thing to do but the right time to do it (“the long-promised day has come”).

Following this formula, the same-sex “marriage” proponents you know and describe would be grateful for “the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth” and so desire that all worthy members of the Church may receive “all of the privileges and blessings which [temple marriage] affords… when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may [be sealed to a man or to a woman and when every faithful, worthy woman in the Church may be sealed to a woman or to a man].” They have received confirmation that this is not only the right thing to do but hope that the time comes to do it, though there hasn't been a “long-promised day [to] come” for such.

I think you can pick out the several places where the formula breaks down. Now perhaps you can say that they might desire the acceptance of same-sex civil “marriage” by the Church, but then the formula breaks down even further into a matter of the current societal trend and not the "work of the Lord."

Yup, you totally missed my point.

And since the "long promised day" has no known basis in revelation it doesn't cause my comparison to break down.

[CV75]

Yup, you totally missed my point.

Perhaps; I thought you actually made two points:

 

1. It isn’t productive or civil to portray either side in a way that diminishes sincerely held beliefs.

 

2. To keep OD2 in the discussion as one way of properly comparing the two types of revelations as a means to justify sincerely held beliefs.

[rockpond]

Perhaps; I thought you actually made two points:

1. It isn’t productive or civil to portray either side in a way that diminishes sincerely held beliefs.

2. To keep OD2 in the discussion as one way of properly comparing the two types of revelations as a means to justify sincerely held beliefs.

I was only intending to make the first point.

[Scott Lloyd]

A belief can be sincerely held and yet still have been influenced to one degree or another by social and environmental trends. A belief can also be sincerely held yet be wrong.

 

I would go so far as to say there is a vast array of stimuli --  shifting social trends among the rest -- that potentially shape the beliefs we all hold. We form our attitudes and views according to what we embrace as persuasive and what we reject as unpersuasive.

 

And it is not being uncivil to say so or to suggest which stimuli may have been at play in shaping someone's views on a given topic.

 

We do this when we say that a person's attitudes, to be fair, must be viewed in the context of the times and setting in which that person lived. It is not ordinarily considered "uncivil" to do so.

 

Nor is it extraordinary for a person to evaluate to some degree a belief or preference according to how popular he perceives it to be. I call it the "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong" type of conclusion. It is perhaps better known as the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

But if rockpond is going to continue to contradict the above, will he also concede that it is "uncivil" to predict that in x-number of decades from now, Church members will look back on our day and wonder how we could have continued to be so backward and benighted as to insist that homosexual behavior should not be accepted, legitimized and blessed with marital unions and temple sealings?

 

I see that now and then here and elsewhere. If he is going to be consistent in his thinking, he is going to have to say that, too, is uncivil.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

A belief can be sincerely held and yet still have been influenced to one degree or another by social and environmental trends. A belief can also be sincerely held yet be wrong.

 

I would go so far as to say there is a vast array of stimuli --  shifting social trends among the rest -- that potentially shape the beliefs we all hold. We form our attitudes and views according to what we embrace as persuasive and what we reject as unpersuasive.

 

And it is not being uncivil to say so or to suggest which stimuli may have been at play in shaping someone's views on a given topic.

 

We do this when we say that a person's attitudes, to be fair, must be viewed in the context of the times and setting in which that person lived. It is not ordinarily considered "uncivil" to do so.

 

Nor is it extraordinary for a person to evaluate to some degree a belief or preference according to how popular he perceives it to be. I call it the "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong" type of conclusion.

 

But if you are going to continue to contradict the above, will you also concede that it is "uncivil" to predict that in x-number of decades from now, Church members will look back on our day and wonder how we could have continued to be so backward and benighted as to insist that homosexual behavior should not be accepted, legitimized and blessed with marital unions and temple sealings?

 

I see that now and then here and elsewhere. If you are going to be consistent in your thinking, you are going to have to say that, too, is uncivil.

 

So then, by that logic, it is not uncivil for people to say that the Brethren are old and out-of-touch as it is just identifying their social stimuli and environment.

 

I agree that we are all shaped, to some degree or another, by our society and culture.  Wasn't that a point made in the Race and the Priesthood article?  My point is that it is no more correct to say that I want the church to accept gay marriage "so that it will align with societal trends" than it is to say that President Kimball published OD2 because he wanted the church to "catch up with the civil rights movement".  Both statements minimize the actual reasons behind an individual's position and they don't foster mutual respect & understanding.

 

And, as an aside, I think that one day we'll look back on the church's teachings about homosexuality with the same view that we currently look at our teachings on race.

[Scott Lloyd]

So then, by that logic, it is not uncivil for people to say that the Brethren are old and out-of-touch as it is just identifying their social stimuli and environment.

 

You're the one making civility an issue. I just think the notion is flat wrong -- and according to what Elder Ballard said, quite uncomprehending.

 

I agree that we are all shaped, to some degree or another, by our society and culture.  

 

 

That's not what I said. I said, "I would go so far as to say there is a vast array of stimuli --  shifting social trends among the rest -- that potentially shape the beliefs we all hold. We form our attitudes and views according to what we embrace as persuasive and what we reject as unpersuasive."

 

Wasn't that a point made in the Race and the Priesthood article?

 

I don't know what article that is.

 

My point is that it is no more correct to say that I want the church to accept gay marriage "so that it will align with societal trends" than it is to say that President Kimball published OD2 because he wanted the church to "catch up with the civil rights movement".  Both statements minimize the actual reasons behind an individual's position and they don't foster mutual respect & understanding.

I never specified you. I can't be certain what your personal motivation is, so I purposely avoided naming you. It is my hunch, though, that shifting societal trends have driven attitudes such as yours among some professed believing Church members. And no, I can't prove a hunch. That's what makes it a hunch.

 

And, as an aside, I think that one day we'll look back on the church's teachings about homosexuality with the same view that we currently look at our teachings on race.

 

So, by your own reasoning, you are being uncivil in making that declaration.

 

Edited to add:

 

By "Race and the Priesthood article," are you referring to the essay recently published in the Gospel Topics section of lds.org? If so, I don't agree that the essay made the point that the pre-1978 priesthood restriction was driven by societal and cultural influences. You may be reading that into what was written, but from the text itself, I don't think you can support such a reading.

 

I understood the essay to sustain the longstanding Church position that the reason for the restriction is unknown. That position was not altered by the essay.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

And, as an aside, I think that one day we'll look back on the church's teachings about homosexuality with the same view that we currently look at our teachings on race.

You mean like this one, given on April 6, 1954, by Elder Spencer W. Kimball?

 

This has been a glorious conference. It pleases me greatly to notice that at each succeeding conference there is a larger sprinkling of Japanese and Chinese brothers and sisters; of Hawaiians and other islanders; of Indians, Mexicans, Spanish-Americans and others. It makes me very happy indeed, and I wish to address my remarks this morning in behalf of those minorities.

Recently there came to my desk a letter, anonymously written. Generally the wastebasket receives all such messages, written by people who have not the courage to sign their statements. But this time I saved it. It reads in part as follows:

 

"I never dreamed I would live to see the day when the Church would invite an Indian buck to talk in the Salt Lake Tabernacle – an Indian buck appointed a bishop – an Indian squaw to talk in the Ogden Tabernacle – Indians to go through the Salt Lake Temple –

The sacred places desecrated by the invasion of everything that is forced on the white race …"

 

 

This letter now goes into the fire also, but it gives me the theme for the words I wish to say today.

 

 

If Mrs. Anonymous were the only one who felt that way! However, from many places and different directions I hear intolerant expressions. While there is an ever-increasing number of people who are kind and willing to accept the minority groups as they come into the Church, there are still many who speak in disparaging terms, who priest-like and Levite-like pass by on the other side of the street.

 

It would be a delightful step forward if our newspapers and periodicals and our writers and speakers would discontinue the term buck and squaw and substitute “Indian men and women” or “Lamanite brethren and sisters.”

 

Their ancestors and ancient prophets foresaw this day and this people would be reviled and disparaged.

 

In the letter quoted, there is the suggestion of a superior race! From the dawn of history we have seen so-called superior races go down from the heights to the depths in a long parade of exits. Among them were the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans. They, with more modern nations, have been defeated in battle, humiliated and crushed in economic life. Is the implication of Mrs. Anonymous justified that the white race or the American people is superior? John the Baptist, in forceful terms, rebuked a similar self-styled superior group:

 

"O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham (Matt. 3:7-9)."

 

The Lord would have eliminated bigotry and class distinction. He talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, healed the centurion’s kin, and blessed the child of the Canaanitish woman. And though he personally came to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” and sent his Apostles first to them rather than to the Samaritans and other Gentiles, yet he later sent Paul to bring the gospel to the Gentiles and revealed to Peter that the gospel was for all. The prejudices were in Peter, and it took a vision from heaven to help him to cast off his bias. The voice had commanded: “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat,” when the vessel descended from the heaven containing all manner of beasts, reptiles and fowls. Punctilious Peter expressed his lifelong prejudices and habits in saying, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” Then the heavenly voice made clear that the program was for all. “What God hath cleansed,” it said, “that call not thou common.” Peter’s long-sustained prejudices gave way finally under the power of the thrice repeated command. When the devout Gentile Cornelius immediately thereafter appealed to him for the gospel, the full meaning of the vision burst upon Peter and he exclaimed, “God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” (See Acts 10:11-28.)

 

 

 

[rockpond]

You're the one making civility an issue. I just think the notion is flat wrong -- and according to what Elder Ballard said, quite uncomprehending.

That's not what I said. I said, "I would go so far as to say there is a vast array of stimuli -- shifting social trends among the rest -- that potentially shape the beliefs we all hold. We form our attitudes and views according to what we embrace as persuasive and what we reject as unpersuasive."

I don't know what article that is.

I never specified you. I can't be certain what your personal motivation is, so I purposely avoided naming you. It is my hunch, though, that shifting societal trends have driven attitudes such as yours among some professed believing Church members. And no, I can't prove a hunch. That's what makes it a hunch.

So, by your own reasoning, you are being uncivil in making that declaration.

Edited to add:

By "Race and the Priesthood article," are you referring to the essay recently published in the Gospel Topics section of lds.org? If so, I don't agree that the essay made the point that the pre-1978 priesthood restriction was driven by societal and cultural influences. You may be reading that into what was written, but from the text itself, I don't think you can support such a reading.

I understood the essay to sustain the longstanding Church position that the reason for the restriction is unknown. That position was not altered by the essay.

What notion do you think is flat wrong and uncomprehending?

And when you say that shifting societal trends shape the beliefs we all hold does that include the prophet and apostles or are they immune due to their callings?

And, finally, how am I being uncivil in saying that I believe we'll one day look back on our teachings about homosexuality the same way we now look back on our teachings about race?

[rockpond]

You mean like this one, given on April 6, 1954, by Elder Spencer W. Kimball?

Isn't that a fascinating case study? A man as wonderful as President Kimball can deliver such a clear and profound statement condemning prejudice and yet he and his brethren still stood by prejudicial teachings about Blacks for another 24 years.

It seems to show that we are all somewhat like Peter in that sometimes we struggle to see what the Lord hath made clean.

[CV75]

I was only intending to make the first point.

That goes without saying, and your other “unintended” points are also recognized. You would not say something as offensive that OD2 was received under the influence of the social trends of the day, yet you turn around and say that it was received a bit later than it could/should/might have because of prejudices that ran afoul of those social trends!

Aside from your lack of consistency in applying your terms of civility, this is yet another reason why you cannot use OD2 as a template for personal revelation condoning gay “marriage.” It doesn’t make sense to say that your revelation came before pro-gay “marriage” social trends influenced you, while at the same time say that you received it while holding to prejudices running afoul of those trends. That’s like saying, “Before gay “marriage” became popular, I was for it because of a revelation I received (none too soon, mind you!) after years of being OK with prejudiced attitudes and practices against gays, which was the norm for an earlier social trend.”

While you may well have had a Peteresque turnaround of some sort, I don’t think you can effectively compare it to OD2 for many reasons, but it would explain your jaundiced assumptions for President Kimball and his brethren.

[Scott Lloyd]

Isn't that a fascinating case study? A man as wonderful as President Kimball can deliver such a clear and profound statement condemning prejudice and yet he and his brethren still stood by prejudicial teachings about Blacks for another 24 years.

It seems to show that we are all somewhat like Peter in that sometimes we struggle to see what the Lord hath made clean.

No. It shows the Brethren were not motivated by "prejudicial teachings" but by a desire to follow the will of God.

 

It doesn't surprise me, though, that you would find a way to spin this. Beware the urge to bear false witness.

 

As you said: "Beating a dead horse." I think I'm done here, whether you are or not.

[rockpond]

That goes without saying, and your other “unintended” points are also recognized. You would not say something as offensive that OD2 was received under the influence of the social trends of the day, yet you turn around and say that it was received a bit later than it could/should/might have because of prejudices that ran afoul of those social trends!

Aside from your lack of consistency in applying your terms of civility, this is yet another reason why you cannot use OD2 as a template for personal revelation condoning gay “marriage.” It doesn’t make sense to say that your revelation came before pro-gay “marriage” social trends influenced you, while at the same time say that you received it while holding to prejudices running afoul of those trends. That’s like saying, “Before gay “marriage” became popular, I was for it because of a revelation I received (none too soon, mind you!) after years of being OK with prejudiced attitudes and practices against gays, which was the norm for an earlier social trend.”

While you may well have had a Peteresque turnaround of some sort, I don’t think you can effectively compare it to OD2 for many reasons, but it would explain your jaundiced assumptions for President Kimball and his brethren.

I've agreed with you and Scott, repeatedly, that we are all influenced by social trends. You, me, the prophet, and everyone else.

What I'm saying is that I don't want the church to accept gay marriage because I want a progressive church that adapts to social trends. I want gay marriage accepted within the church because of my belief that it is God's will.

Similarly, I don't think you or I believe that the Church opened up the priesthood and temple to all worthy men just so that we could say we had caught up to societal trends. We believe it was done because it was God's will.

Can we agree on those two preceding paragraphs?

What are my jaundiced assumptions about President Kimball?

[rockpond]

No. It shows the Brethren were not motivated by "prejudicial teachings" but by a desire to follow the will of God.

It doesn't surprise me, though, that you would find a way to spin this. Beware the urge to bear false witness.

As you said: "Beating a dead horse." I think I'm done here, whether you are or not.

Who's spinning? I didn't say that they were motivated by prejudicial teachings. Nor did I bear any false witness.