Buzzard Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Young people? It clearly states "good women." Can you not figure out why garments are particularly hard on women? The key point here is that nothing was given up. Do you want us to become a version of the Amish and stay in 19th c. clothing simply to accommodate more cloth? As we become a worldwide church, I expect more modification of garments, especially in exceptionally hot climates.A sister missionary who served in Brazil purchased a few pair while in country. Apparently the top had no sleeves. (Disclaimer: This is second-hand information, though the person who told me this is someone I would consider to be reliable and honest).
EllenMaksoud Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 What will become of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in western culture if it does not adapt its doctrines and stances? What if it continues to count homosexuality (or sexual interactions between people of the same gender) as sin? What if it does not ever allow women to hold the priesthood? What if it never provides the answers to satisfy its honest doubters on tough historical issues?If you look at a lot of the rest of the world, they are imprisoning and killing divergents. I won't make any moral judgements on gays, not that it does not offend God, but God created the world, and if something is wrong, he can fix it ... or give us the tools to do so. I've been around enough now that I suspect something genetic or something happened during pregnancy. So, perhaps our task is to discover what happened and either prevent it or fix it. SSM would not be a choice for me, but we who pontificate so self righteously about it, should assume the burden of finding a solution. As to what we do in the interim, I have no idea. Morally, America does not occupy the high ground. Will we rise to the challenge?
Calm Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 What will become of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in western culture if it does not adapt its doctrines and stances? What if it continues to count homosexuality (or sexual interactions between people of the same gender) as sin? What if it does not ever allow women to hold the priesthood? What if it never provides the answers to satisfy its honest doubters on tough historical issues?Not changing its doctrines to match certain current demands for a segment of the population is not equivalent to the Church not adapting. IMO, it is already working on and providing answers for historical issues…whether or not they will satisfy all doubters is questionable, I see it as pretty unlikely as often there is much more involved in the dynamics of doubt then just simple knowledge. I think the changes in the Church that are occurring now without the acceptance of either female priesthood at this time or gay marriage are a great example of how the Church has actively adapting to the changing needs of its members and those sincerely interested in it since its beginning. The Church is a living organism. As such, even if they don't change in the way that certain groups demand, it will continue to be able to fulfill its purpose given to it by God. 1
Paddy Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 What will become of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in western culture if it does not adapt its doctrines and stances? What if it continues to count homosexuality (or sexual interactions between people of the same gender) as sin? What if it does not ever allow women to hold the priesthood? What if it never provides the answers to satisfy its honest doubters on tough historical issues?I think the church is maturing appropriately and has significantly matured over the last decade. I don't think it wants too but it has to. It needs to adapt further to be able to deal with divergent political views, cultures, gender roles, etc, as it breaks further into an international community. It needs to sheds its business model an adapt a better pastoral model in dealing with people. It will need to shed its American and conservative specific moral agendas.I don't see it being a problem in adapting to most of these things while balancing a gospel standard.
3DOP Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Be not conformed to this world... I don't think that the church ever "adapts". Or maybe I just think that isn't the right word. I guess I don't look at past changes (polygamy, priesthood restrictions) as adaptations. If adapting to culture is our goal then we are really lousy at it. We're a church that believes in revelation and restoration. I believe both will continue. In some cases it will likely be seen as "adapting". That's what I thought. The kingdom of God doesn't look to MTV for its morals. When you guys get a revelation saying that now it is time to conform yourselves the world, I guess you have to do it. Until then, why do you want to be like everybody else? If western culture wants to go to Hell, does the true church have to follow? Edited October 1, 2014 by 3DOP 3
Tacenda Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 I don't think anyone ever saw the possibility of gay marriage. As a result, I think it is our rhetoric more than our doctrine that has gotten us into trouble. By emphasizing the sin part rather than the against God's plan or natural order part, we are now stuck with some inflammatory rhetoric. There is just nothing to be gained by calling an entire class of people sinners and a whole lot to lose. And since we made being lawfully and legally wedded as the measure of who can have sex rather than the man and woman part...it seems like that will necessitate another round of rhetoric.I don't think we can afford to continue morphing "gay marriage" with churchy stuff. When it is legal, the debate is over...people are going to see it as a mere fact of life separate from religious beliefs. Thus, this test of do you accept gay marriage is a trick question. We will all have to "accept" gay marriage when it is legal. I guess the question really is do you approve of it and that just seems like a really grumpy way to live when it has become a moot question.We need a much better way to talk about it all.I am not one of those binary folk who thinks "the world" is evil. I don't think we are in a steady decline. There are peaks and valleys and regardless of awful we like to paint our world, only the privileged would really want to live in another time. I think it is absurd that we construct "the good old days" when so much of the population was disenfranchised.There will be unintended consequences to changing the definition of marriage and that would happen regardless of which group changed it. The church's mistake was personalizing it as a gay marriage problem. As ridiculed as the slippery slope position is, we are now on one. One of the stupidest talking points I heard during Prop 8 is that "oh, that will never happen, how dare you!" only to see it happen even within the same year. It wasn't about "gay marriage" it was about "and you really couldn't see that coming?" I haven't seen those kinds of gay marriage defenses anymore. And I'd like to see a whole lot less of the knee jerk inflammatory defenses from the other side as well.Thankyou.
Tacenda Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Actually if you read the whole post the first quote clearly states "young members" found the garments unfashionable.As for the key point - the key point here is actually the point of the thread - that the Church DOES adapt with society at times. In this case, they adapted for fashion and comfort. Either way, an adaptation was made (one that Joseph F. Smith apparently would have completely disagreed with).And you are probably correct that many more adaptations will be made by the Church.I read once that there was a time that leaders thought of discontinuing the garments, I wonder if that is true. Edited October 1, 2014 by Tacenda
3DOP Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) TV Network people have opinions on your priesthood. How? Why? What would they know about your priesthood? Would your prophets of the past have cared about that? You make women priests and that won't be good enough. Every church that has started down that road of caring what those who despise God think of them, finds that they can never slake the thirst of the world to denude the churches of anything that distinguishes it from them. Adaptation...conformity...The world never ever gives an inch...Do they ever conform to our beliefs? Why should we conform to theirs? Edited October 1, 2014 by 3DOP 4
JLHPROF Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 I read once that there was a time that leaders thought of discontinuing the garments, I wonder if that is true. I can see it happening - is there any profit in them or are they sold at cost?I can see them going the way of phylacteries or temple recommends - something we carry with us.
juliann Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 A sister missionary who served in Brazil purchased a few pair while in country. Apparently the top had no sleeves. (Disclaimer: This is second-hand information, though the person who told me this is someone I would consider to be reliable and honest). I'd like to think that was true. However, I'm wondering if it was the "chemise" style that doesn't have a seam for the "sleeve", it is all one piece. Sleeves could easily be changed without affecting anything but tradition. The sleeves have no religious significance whatsoever and at this point are being used as "modesty" enforcers rather than anything related to covenants. I don't think it is a good thing to add to the purpose of the garment. 2
JLHPROF Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 I'd like to think that was true. However, I'm wondering if it was the "chemise" style that doesn't have a seam for the "sleeve", it is all one piece. Sleeves could easily be changed without affecting anything but tradition. The sleeves have no religious significance whatsoever and at this point are being used as "modesty" enforcers rather than anything related to covenants. I don't think it is a good thing to add to the purpose of the garment. The pieces of the older garments were said to have symbolism of things beyond the covenants, just as the rest of temple clothing has many different symbols within it.Every item/piece removed from the garment actually had some less defined representation to it. Let's just say that early leaders taught much additional symbolism beyond the covenant reminders. Boy, it's hard to say that without saying things we shouldn't. Maybe this isn't a good topic for the board.
Calm Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 I can see it happening - is there any profit in them or are they sold at cost?I can see them going the way of phylacteries or temple recommends - something we carry with us.They may be sold at less than cost given how the price was cut in half several years ago to make them more affordable to all saints.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 We cwill never see the church accept gay marriage ordain women otherwise revelation would probably already be given. 1
The Nehor Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 We cwill never see the church accept gay marriage ordain women otherwise revelation would probably already be given.Why? Are we so important that it would have to happen in our lifetime?
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 It's not happening. Why would God change his mind? 1
Calm Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 I am not saying that it will happen, but I don't believe women getting the priesthood would be a sign that God changed his mind, but simply that it wasn't the time previously and now it is. OTOH, I think gay marriage would indicate that there was a significant change of direction given that homosexual behavior is taught as a sin and this seems to me to apply whether legal or not. Now we may have misinterpreted scriptures or others misinterpreted God's Will and he was condemning all forms of sexual behavior outside of marriage, but it seems to me that this is what would have been taught if that was the issue.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Then again, why did God change his mind on black people?
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Did God just feel 1978 was the right time for blacks to receive the priesthood?
rockpond Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Then again, why did God change his mind on black people?What makes you think he changed His mind?
rockpond Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Did God just feel 1978 was the right time for blacks to receive the priesthood?There is no evidence that God had anything to do with the priesthood and temple restrictions.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Rockpond, because there used to be a ban and now there isn't a ban. Isn't that changing your mind?
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 God should have everything to do with what our prophets decide.
The Nehor Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) Rockpond, because there used to be a ban and now there isn't a ban. Isn't that changing your mind?No more then the Institution of the Word of Wisdom was God changing His mind. Edited October 2, 2014 by The Nehor
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 So if God can change His mind then there's a chance He could change it about gay marriage.
rockpond Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Rockpond, because there used to be a ban and now there isn't a ban. Isn't that changing your mind?Not if He (God) didn't implement the ban.
Recommended Posts