BCSpace Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 What would it be like to live in a pluralistic church society where diversity of thought was highly valued and absolute unity seen as repression? We wouldn't have a Church as absolute unity is the ultimate goal (see Ephesians 4:11-14). The difference between our unity and all others is that ours is a voluntary unity. We are very good at waiting until people have settled down, had their fun, and now realize that it's all a waste if it's not in harmony with the Gospel teachings. Some learn this lesson sooner than others. Others don't need to experience it to learn it.
Buckeye Posted November 11, 2014 Author Posted November 11, 2014 Repressed institutionally, or repressed by individual members or leaders, acting individually? Sorry, it's been a long weekend. And I can't promise any more response than this today. In brief, most repression I see in the church is through local leaders and members. But that is because most all of my interaction is with local members and leaders. Moreover, I believe a good part of our tendency to repress beliefs that we disagree with comes directly or indirectly through the institution. There are examples of institutional repression - for example, Joseph burning the Nauvoo Expositer and church scholars / BYU professors being shown the door for bringing to light truths that are less than pleasant (though now posted in church essays and worked into youth and adult curriculum). PS - I went back and re-read the newsroom article with a fresh mind to see if it really is different from what the church typically publishes. For this experiment, I imagined that I was reading the article as a talk in sacrament meeting without giving any indication that it was a church approved source. From my limited experience, in that scenario, there would be many members in my congregation who would have taken offense at the talk. It really is quite different from what is said week in and week out in local units.
Pahoran Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Fixed if for you. No, you censored it for me. You could have foreborne. But then again, maybe you couldn't. Same sex "marriage" is an oxymoron. The fact that a number of judges (and a much smaller number of legislative bodies) have chosen to sanction it merely makes it a legal oxymoron, which is in many ways analogous to a legal fiction. And I don't need you to "fix" it for me. It was right when I wrote it. Regards,Pahoran 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) Seems to argue against the idea that we as a Church should attempt to stifle the variety brought by SSM. (yep, I went there) It is not just religion that is most important. It only is usually most important, there are other factors.Just a hunch, but my observation is that the phrase "we as a Church" is used disproportionately by those who want to alter the Church of Jesus Christ to fit their own personal preferences. Edited to add: Hey Pahoran, remember Rollo "we as a church" Tomasi? Edited November 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Just a hunch, but my observation is that the phrase "we as a Church" is used disproportionately by those who want to alter the Church of Jesus Christ to fit their own personal preferences. nefarious! Disgusting! The Church will alter over time. Why not ask the questions, pose the ideas, on what changes may need to be considered?
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 nefarious! Disgusting!The Church will alter over time. Why not ask the questions, pose the ideas, on what changes may need to be considered?I'll cast my lot with the apostles, not pressure groups and dissenters. 1
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 I'll cast my lot with the apostles, not pressure groups and dissenters. I'll cast my lot with God and the apostles. It just so happens, unbeknownst to us, God could very well use "pressure groups and dissenters" to help us understand the truth all the more. To learn to embrace that which is good. After all, my lot is to embrace the truth no matter where it originates.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 I'll cast my lot with God and the apostles. It just so happens, unbeknownst to us, God could very well use "pressure groups and dissenters" to help us understand the truth all the more. To learn to embrace that which is good. After all, my lot is to embrace the truth no matter where it originates.You're more apt to come by truth if you're facing in the proper direction. See Lynn G. Robbins' last general conference sermon.
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 You're more apt to come by truth if you're facing in the proper direction. See Lynn G. Robbins' last general conference sermon. Whose to say if one goes with the notion of embracing truth no matter where it comes that the one is not facing in the right direction? We indeed may be pleasing God all the more by seeking openly for truth even if it comes from somewhere unexpected. It could very well be that some members are the ones pointing the finger of scorn at those who would embrace truth no matter from whence it comes.
Pahoran Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Just a hunch, but my observation is that the phrase "we as a Church" is used disproportionately by those who want to alter the Church of Jesus Christ to fit their own personal preferences. Edited to add: Hey Pahoran, remember Rollo "we as a church" Tomasi? Very well indeed. And I have a hunch that your "Nefarious! Disgusting!" observation is right on the mark. In my experience, real patriots don't have to wrap themselves in the flag, and real Latter-day Saints don't have to wrap themselves in the Church. Those who are trying too hard always seem to be compensating for something. Regards,Pahoran
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 No, you censored it for me. You could have foreborne. But then again, maybe you couldn't. Same sex "marriage" is an oxymoron. The fact that a number of judges (and a much smaller number of legislative bodies) have chosen to sanction it merely makes it a legal oxymoron, which is in many ways analogous to a legal fiction. And I don't need you to "fix" it for me. It was right when I wrote it. Regards,PahoranActually, legal fiction seems an appropriate way to characterize same sex "marriage." I might thus apply that phrase hereafter.
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Very well indeed. And I have a hunch that your "Nefarious! Disgusting!" observation is right on the mark. In my experience, real patriots don't have to wrap themselves in the flag, and real Latter-day Saints don't have to wrap themselves in the Church. Those who are trying too hard always seem to be compensating for something. Regards, Pahoran We're all trying to compensate for something. None of us are perfect, wanting nothing.
Recommended Posts