The Next 100 Mormon Years

[JLHPROF]

Do you see the change of the Law of Adoption to family sealings as inappropriate?

 

Not inappropriate, but as with all things, there was a doctrinal basis behind the Law of Adoption when it was practiced.  That doctrine made sense.  But I also think President Woodruffs explanation for the change made perfect doctrinal sense.

It's one of the more unique situations in Mormon theology where BOTH the original teaching and the new teaching make perfect doctrinal sense.  I see nothing wrong with either practice.

[Freedom]

Here's a few links (both Church and Anti) on the subject:

 

EMPHASIS ON DOCTRINES THAT DIFFERENTIATE US FROM EVANGELICALS  ARE FADING

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity#Downplaying_of_differences

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865556300/Do-Mormons-really-want-recognition-as-a-mainstream-religion.html?pg=all

http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/02/did-president-hinckley-downplay-deification/

http://www.mrm.org/official-doctrine

 

MAINSTREAMING

Focusing purely on the first principles that every Christian religions share and working to find common doctrinal ground while downplaying our differences of belief as minor or insignificant.  Also, becoming more acceptable to the population at large.

http://www.charismanews.com/us/41590-is-the-mainstreaming-of-mormonism-a-threat-to-christianity

http://www.saltybeliever.com/2010/01/mainstreaming-mormonism.html

So let me get this straight. If you have  blue Honda sedan and I have  red Ford sedan, the fact that i point out that we both have a sedan somehow means I have become more like you then I was before I mentioned the commonality of the sedan? You do see how ridiculous this argument is don't you?

[Pahoran]

Active, faithful church members.

 

Then it'll never happen.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[rockpond]

Then it'll never happen.

Regards,

Pahoran

The "it" that we were discussing was just general changes in the church. If you are suggesting that there will be no change in the church over the next 100 years then I would respond that history doesn't support such a conclusion.

If you had something else in mind as "never happening" then you'll have to elaborate.

[JLHPROF]

So let me get this straight. If you have blue Honda sedan and I have red Ford sedan, the fact that i point out that we both have a sedan somehow means I have become more like you then I was before I mentioned the commonality of the sedan? You do see how ridiculous this argument is don't you?

Well first of all it's not my argument as these articles show.

Second the analogy is closer to apples and oranges if the oranges are marketing themselves as a particularly orange apple, and asking people to ignore the citric acid.

[Freedom]

Well first of all it's not my argument as these articles show.

Second the analogy is closer to apples and oranges if the oranges are marketing themselves as a particularly orange apple, and asking people to ignore the citric acid.

That would work if it were true but it is not. The doctrines have not changed, the emphasis has not changed. all that has happened is that we are pointing out the similarities. So give me some specific examples where the church (the orange) is presenting itself as an apple.  You must have at least one example.You might show evidence that we now accept the trinity, or that priesthood is only symbolic, or that we only become like God in that we become really good people. Go at it. 

[JLHPROF]

or that we only become like God in that we become really good people. Go at it.

Sure, that one will do and it's already in the quotes I provided.

[Freedom]

Revocation of Plural Marriage - Stopping a practice because the laws prohibit it are not the same as revoking. 

Revocation of United Order/Law of Consecration (for now)-  law is still in place, it is just not being practiced. 

Addition and then removal of Adam-God teachings from the Church and Temple. - this was never doctrine. This shows that the bretheren know how to correct errors. 

Ending of Adoption ceremonies in 1894 - Show me the applicble doctrine that was changed. 

Ending of Rebaptism - a correction of  a practice that has no founding in doctrine. 

Official acceptance of Christ as Jehovah in the OT around the 1910s - No change in doctrine here, just  clarificatio. 

Changes in the temple and garment in the 1920s - provide me the doctrine that determines the design of the garments. 

Reception of the 1978 Revelation on Priesthod - ok, you have provided one change so far which is really just a correction. 

Changes in the temple in the 1990s. No changes to the temple. You are confusing the ordinance with the ceremony. 

Changes in the temple in 2005. Again, confusing ordinances with ceremony., 

Openly showing the temple clothing to the world last week - ya, again. No change in doctrine. No abandonment of temple ordinances. Just a bit more openness since it is already all over the internet. This is not change, this is called common sense. 

 

As far as from the "original" practices of the Church we've come through many changes.  I don't think the potential changes I described would be seen as all that much further.  And whether we can admit it or not, many of these changes were for world acceptance.  Not all, but some. 

 

You have not shown a single example of a doctrinal change. You see the church moving a chair here and a cup there and alarm bells are going off in your head. If Microsoft had their receptionists wear a blue name tag would you argue that they are fundamentally changing direction as a company? Silly question, of course you would. I, on the other hand, would not. 

[Freedom]

Sure, that one will do and it's already in the quotes I provided.

Ok, show us the original doctrine in the scriptures and then show us how this has been changed to be more palatable for the masses. I think you are confusing correcting misconceptions with changing doctrines. 

[JLHPROF]

Revocation of Plural Marriage - Stopping a practice because the laws prohibit it are not the same as revoking. 

Revocation of United Order/Law of Consecration (for now)-  law is still in place, it is just not being practiced. 

Addition and then removal of Adam-God teachings from the Church and Temple. - this was never doctrine. This shows that the bretheren know how to correct errors. 

Ending of Adoption ceremonies in 1894 - Show me the applicble doctrine that was changed. 

Ending of Rebaptism - a correction of  a practice that has no founding in doctrine. 

Official acceptance of Christ as Jehovah in the OT around the 1910s - No change in doctrine here, just  clarificatio. 

Changes in the temple and garment in the 1920s - provide me the doctrine that determines the design of the garments. 

Reception of the 1978 Revelation on Priesthod - ok, you have provided one change so far which is really just a correction. 

Changes in the temple in the 1990s. No changes to the temple. You are confusing the ordinance with the ceremony. 

Changes in the temple in 2005. Again, confusing ordinances with ceremony., 

Openly showing the temple clothing to the world last week - ya, again. No change in doctrine. No abandonment of temple ordinances. Just a bit more openness since it is already all over the internet. This is not change, this is called common sense. 

 

As far as from the "original" practices of the Church we've come through many changes.  I don't think the potential changes I described would be seen as all that much further.  And whether we can admit it or not, many of these changes were for world acceptance.  Not all, but some. 

 

You have not shown a single example of a doctrinal change. You see the church moving a chair here and a cup there and alarm bells are going off in your head. If Microsoft had their receptionists wear a blue name tag would you argue that they are fundamentally changing direction as a company? Silly question, of course you would. I, on the other hand, would not.

Actually this just shows how little is understood about the doctrinal connections to the items disgarded. Every time a procedural change is made in something that was given by revelation the doctrine changes. Every time an ordinance is altered so is the priesthood as Joseph Smith taught.

But we comfort ourselves by incorrectly saying nothing important or doctrinal changed.

Thank goodness the setting in order will happen.

[Freedom]

Actually this just shows how little is understood about the doctrinal connections to the items disgarded. Every time a procedural change is made in something that was given by revelation the doctrine changes. Every time an ordinance is altered so is the priesthood as Joseph Smith taught.

But we comfort ourselves by incorrectly saying nothing important or doctrinal changed.

Thank goodness the setting in order will happen.

So them make the connection for us

[california boy]

" I was just reading the thread on the new"Mormon Movie". Most of the thread is about how disgusted Mormons are about the misrepresentation of missionaries"

I think you need to go back and reread that one. The only one expressing disgust was a nonLDS poster.

Most seemed not offended to me even if they found the movie to be a stupid premise.

So I guess you have no problem with Pahoran , Mola Ram, USU78 and Rodheadlee completely distorting what I and others in ghe "gay team" have stated over and over again????    

 

Whatever.  I am pretty used to it by now.

[Calm]

Not inappropriate, but as with all things, there was a doctrinal basis behind the Law of Adoption when it was practiced.  That doctrine made sense.  But I also think President Woodruffs explanation for the change made perfect doctrinal sense.

It's one of the more unique situations in Mormon theology where BOTH the original teaching and the new teaching make perfect doctrinal sense.  I see nothing wrong with either practice.

I thought that too until I read Pres. Woodruff's talk about the change a few times. Given how he talks about the Law of Adoption, it sounds to me he saw it as an inappropriate practice though understandable mistake given the revelation which thankfully they now knew better about (and knowledge would continue to grow until they got it right).

[Calm]

So I guess you have no problem with Pahoran , Mola Ram, USU78 and Rodheadlee completely distorting what I and others in ghe "gay team" have stated over and over again????

Whatever. I am pretty used to it by now.

Really? I responded to a misperception being used about another thread that no one else made a correction to (and therefore could have given the wrong impression to someone who had not read that thread) and you condemn me for not responding like you want in this thread even though you yourself are devoting time and effort to that demonstration so people have the info to draw their own conclusions just fine, from what I see. I have responded in other threads where correction is lacking at the point ive been reading where I have had knowledge that is informative (such as posting links to corrections about the Hitching Post lawsuit likely hoax), but I see no reason to do so when more than enough info is given but it would appear I need to do it everytime someone distorts something no matter what to satisfy your standard or do it in the way you want or I might as well not bother....

Lack of interest in arguments that have been made over and over again by all sides on this issue on this board no matter what anyone else has said is not the same thing as approving of them.

FWIW, I am not to interested in anyone who plays victim too much, whether LDS or not. I tend to phase out of that part of the dialogue and only new stuff like the claim about the movie thread catches my eye, though I still always report violations I see when I am not just skipping posts.

Another example though it got locked before I could respond again:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64417-homosexual-activist-on-destroying-marriage-fighting-for-ssm-generally-involves-lying-about-what-were-going-to-do-with-marriage-when-we-get-there/

This "I've grown to expect my mistreatment being ignored by lds posters" is one of the reasons I am ignoring the conversation beyond skimming through a few posts as I click the "go to next unread thread" button. I have the same response to those claiming they are being attacked by atheists or creationists on the evolution thread.

I spent this much time on responding because you seem to want people to pay attention to your arguments. If so you might consider losing the parts where you go on about how mean everyone else is being even when they dont say anything at all. Few things are so boring and drop a poster's credibity faster for me. If an argument is strong, the drama isn't needed and isn't helpful.

Edited November 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[california boy]

Really? I responded to a misperception being used about another thread that no one else made a correction to (and therefore could have given the wrong impression to someone who had not read that thread) and you condemn me for not responding like you want in this thread even though you yourself are devoting time and effort to that demonstration so people have the info to draw their own conclusions just fine, from what I see. I have responded in other threads where correction is lacking at the point ive been reading where I have had knowledge that is informative (such as posting links to corrections about the Hitching Post lawsuit likely hoax), but I see no reason to do so when more than enough info is given but it would appear I need to do it everytime someone distorts something no matter what to satisfy your standard or do it in the way you want or I might as well not bother....

Lack of interest in arguments that have been made over and over again by all sides on this issue on this board no matter what anyone else has said is not the same thing as approving of them.

FWIW, I am not to interested in anyone who plays victim too much, whether LDS or not. I tend to phase out of that part of the dialogue and only new stuff like the claim about the movie thread catches my eye, though I still always report violations I see when I am not just skipping posts.

Another example though it got locked before I could respond again:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64417-homosexual-activist-on-destroying-marriage-fighting-for-ssm-generally-involves-lying-about-what-were-going-to-do-with-marriage-when-we-get-there/

This "I've grown to expect my mistreatment being ignored by lds posters" is one of the reasons I am ignoring the conversation beyond skimming through a few posts as I click the "go to next unread thread" button. I have the same response to those claiming they are being attacked by atheists or creationists on the evolution thread.

I spent this much time on responding because you seem to want people to pay attention to your arguments. If so you might consider losing the parts where you go on about how mean everyone else is being even when they dont say anything at all. Few things are so boring and drop a poster's credibity faster for me. If an argument is strong, the drama isn't needed and isn't helpful.

You are right.  I apologize.

[Pahoran]

The "it" that we were discussing was just general changes in the church. If you are suggesting that there will be no change in the church over the next 100 years then I would respond that history doesn't support such a conclusion.

If you had something else in mind as "never happening" then you'll have to elaborate.

 

The one and only "it" in my post to which you were responding -- or purported to be responding -- was "same sex marriage."

 

I'm surprised that I should need to "elaborate" on that point.  Don't you read posts before replying to them?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I am just guessing that you include me in the "gay team".  I was just reading the thread on the new"Mormon Movie".  Most of the thread is about how disgusted Mormons are about the misrepresentation of missionaries.  Yet one only needs to come to this thread to see the same kind of distortion and lies Mormons tell about "the gays".  Do you see any difference between the deceit?

I have practiced no "deceit." Feel free to withdraw the accusation, as it is false.

 

I nor any other member of "the gay team" have NEVER said there would not be social pressure against the church for their position on SSM.  We have only stated that the constitution protects religion from forcing churches to marry a gay couple or anyone else they don't want to marry.  From a now closed thread this is what I actually said.

 

Members of your team have also ridiculed the idea that any of you would ever think of trying to ask to be married in the Temple. Do you deny this?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

You are right.  I apologize.

Thank you.

[Pahoran]

The "majority of religions?" You may be right, if and only if you count each unaffiliated congregation as a separate "religion."

But here's my take: the surrendering churches -- however they rationalise their surrender -- will continue to languish; while all real Christians, without exception, will prefer to please God rather than men.

 

So it's "surrender to the gay jihad or lose your livelihood." Thank you for admitting this. Most of your fellow "gays" are not so forthcoming.

 

A situation which the framers of those laws never contemplated. But hey -- why should that matter as long as you are getting your own way?

 

So it's "surrender to the gay jihad or lose your livelihood." Thank you for admitting this. Most of your fellow "gays" are not so forthcoming.

And "gay rights" will ultimately be defined as "The right to compel any person to actively support your relationship du jour, despite any valid principle-based objections they may have."

And neither you nor any other "gay" agitator will have a problem with that.

 

I regret that you are consciously misrepresenting the facts.

I challenge you to produce even one Church member who has proposed any sort of "sexual orientation" test for Temple blessings.

There are none.

Here is your prediction, reworded so that it is actually truthful this time.

"There may be a minor schism the membership. Some believing that unrepentant reprobates deserve the blessings of temple marriage, and those who believe that those blessings belong to the repentant."

 

Many will leave the church over this issue

Some may. If they do, it's because they've left already in all but name.

 

and missionary work will struggle because of this issue. How the church handles such social pressure is anyone's guess.

Make no mistake: the Church will stand firm on this matter, even if we end up standing alone.

 

5. Some Mormons will continue to believe that they can distort the laws of this country and make up unfounded fears concerning the lost of religious liberty in order to justify their religious belief against ssm. They will try and use fear as a weapon against gay Americans. It will largely fail both within the membership of the church and society in general.

And in the meantime, the "gay" agigators will continue to chip away at the rights of decent people to uphold decency in all aspects of their lives; and every time true freedom is forced to retreat another step closer to the doors of the Temple, the "gay" propagandists will continue to use a combination of soothing phony assurances and bitter invective in order to lull people into a false sense of security.

 

6. Gay marriage will fade from the headlines of the newspapers and be accepted much the same way "black power" faded from the headlines once discrimination laws were in force.

This is called being "ripe in iniquity."

Regards,

Pahoran

 

We have  had enough of recycled bashing on this topic. Both of you will be thread banned or the thread closed if it erupts again.

[rockpond]

The one and only "it" in my post to which you were responding -- or purported to be responding -- was "same sex marriage."

I'm surprised that I should need to "elaborate" on that point. Don't you read posts before replying to them?

Regards,

Pahoran

My mistake, I'm sorry. I had it confused with my conversation with USU.

My belief is that within the next 100 years SSM will have been accepted in the church, through revelation to the proper channels. But I don't want to delve deeper and risk making this thread into another gay marriage discussion, detracting from the OP. I understand that you believe differently.

[Gervin]

I challenge you to produce even one Church member who has proposed any sort of "sexual orientation" test for Temple blessings.

There are none.

 

I'm LDS-process ignorant, so bear with me.  Does the Temple Recommend questions include "do you live the Law of Chastity?" How would this be different than Temple blessings?

[SmileyMcGee]

Several years ago I read George Friedman's book "The Next One Hundred Years'. It covers speculations, predictions and assessments of geo-politics, technology, and culture over the next century. He states in the forward that the by looking at developments throughout history- the one thing for certain is that the course of the global history takes unexpected paths and that predicting anything is really just a guess, educated or no.

With that sentiment firmly in mind I'd like to propose the following thought experiment: Imagine it's 2115 and the second coming hasn't happened. Most likely technology will continue to advance and society will adapted and reacted accordingly. Advances in robotics, bioengineering, cybernetics, networking, virtual reality, longevity medicine, space exploration, and a changing geo-political landscape are sure to influence everyone; including us Mormons. So... What does being a Mormon look like?

Note: I do not want to this to turn in to a wish-list of how people WANT the Church to change to accommodate anyone's particular pet agenda. I'd love to hear your honest best guesses as to how the Church will respond to/fit in/push back against what will (may) happen in the next 100 years.

Similar to the last 100 years we'll probably see continued, incremental mainstreaming of the church. The church will probably see nice growth in some under-developed countries and mild decline in developed nations. Like the last 2000 years, a second coming will probably not occur despite all the prophecies made by message board prophets.

[california boy]

I have practiced no "deceit." Feel free to withdraw the accusation, as it is false.

 

 

Members of your team have also ridiculed the idea that any of you would ever think of trying to ask to be married in the Temple. Do you deny this?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Yes to probable social pressure

No to forcing a religion by the government to marry gay couples

Yes to the possiblitiy of some wacko trying to sue over this issue

No to any chance of that law suit ending in a religion being forced by the governement to marry a gay couple.

Edited November 2, 2014 by california boy

[Guest]

Active, faithful church members.

Would not those be the one's who support current Church doctrine. This is not a social issue in the Church, it is one supported with the entire history of Judeo-Christian doctrine from creation's dawn.

[rockpond]

Would not those be the one's who support current Church doctrine.

The key phrase there being "current Church doctrine".