rockpond Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Because we don't know that it was wrong. That would be presumptuous of them to condemn the action itself (that was instituted in the name of God) without some revelation on the subject. You may claim to have such a revelation, but you aren't the one who would receive it on behalf of the Church. I think you and I agree that the men we sustain as prophets/seers/revelators have the ability to receive whatever inspiration or revelation is needed to condemn past wrongs (where such wrongs exist). Correct? My point is just that these historical issues will continue to haunt us in the form of challenges to testimony, criticisms, negative press coverage, member disaffection, etc as long as they are not condemned by church leadership. You are welcome to believe that they should not be condemned but it doesn't change my point: we'll have to live with the unfortunate consequences. The proposed CES classes (in the OP video) won't do anything to solve the problem if they are similar in tone and content to the recent gospel topic essays.
Mystery Meat Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 I think you and I agree that the men we sustain as prophets/seers/revelators have the ability to receive whatever inspiration or revelation is needed to condemn past wrongs (where such wrongs exist). Correct? Agreed. My point is just that these historical issues will continue to haunt us in the form of challenges to testimony, criticisms, negative press coverage, member disaffection, etc as long as they are not condemned by church leadership. You are welcome to believe that they should not be condemned but it doesn't change my point: we'll have to live with the unfortunate consequences. The proposed CES classes (in the OP video) won't do anything to solve the problem if they are similar in tone and content to the recent gospel topic essays. I never disagreed with this. There is no doubt there will be consequences. What I am saying, is they can't condemn it if they don't have appropriate revelation. If they had it, they would have been much more firm in their condemnation. If the Lord wanted his prophets to condemn it, he could communicate that message to them.
Buzzard Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 A few good points, but a two semester course on Polygamy? A full semester on Mormon sexuality? (would be a popular course, I predict). No, the basics of Polygamy could be covered in a couple of days, and if an instructor really wanted to bring up the history of LDS sexuality, which the real answer is "Don't do it unless you are married, and if you are gay, don't do it at all", he could cover the peripheral topics in half a class period. The members of "his generation" that I know for the most part are not anguishing over the Kinderhook plates, they are trying to find a job and perhaps a spouse, and have some basic questions about the church easily answered in a few minutes by any competent teacher or bishop.If they do have in-depth questions, like he said, most Institutes have pretty good libraries with lots of great source material for inquiring young souls.
Freedom Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Church education is to teach doctrine. What doctrine is to be found in the historical development of polygamy and who would have access to such a course? Those who are active and attending BYU. We are to seek God through faith and through revelation. It will become a great sifting in the last days as people fight to have proof, fight to have the church be responsible to teach history and politics. Those who are not satisfied with the simple requirement to seek the spirit will fall away just as those in the times of Moses were not satisfied with the simple requirement to look at the serpent. I am of the opinion that God has left it this way on purpose. He let the church evolve in this way on purpose. He has left us in the dark on purpose. Be it polygamy, priesthood restrictions, evolution, translation of the Book of Mormon, endorsement of slavery in the Old Testament law, and a host of other issues that would fill up hours of courses. None of them get us to the temple. But all this begs the question: why is it more important to know about polygamy then to learn about how to solve child poverty or how to cure cancer? My mind boggles at the corruption of priorities. 3
Mystery Meat Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Church education is to teach doctrine. What doctrine is to be found in the historical development of polygamy and who would have access to such a course? Those who are active and attending BYU. We are to seek God through faith and through revelation. It will become a great sifting in the last days as people fight to have proof, fight to have the church be responsible to teach history and politics. Those who are not satisfied with the simple requirement to seek the spirit will fall away just as those in the times of Moses were not satisfied with the simple requirement to look at the serpent. I am of the opinion that God has left it this way on purpose. He let the church evolve in this way on purpose. He has left us in the dark on purpose. Be it polygamy, priesthood restrictions, evolution, translation of the Book of Mormon, endorsement of slavery in the Old Testament law, and a host of other issues that would fill up hours of courses. None of them get us to the temple. But all this begs the question: why is it more important to know about polygamy then to learn about how to solve child poverty or how to cure cancer? My mind boggles at the corruption of priorities. Well said.
pogi Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 My point is just that these historical issues will continue to haunt us in the form of challenges to testimony, criticisms, negative press coverage, member disaffection, etc as long as they are not condemned by church leadership. I disagree. I don't think a condemnation from the church regarding historical issues will help problems of testimony and member disaffection. That is related to disillusionment more than anger towards the church for not condemning it. This will level out as this becomes common knowledge among church members. This is a temporary sifting. This will become old news in the press rather quickly. The critics will always be critics and have always known about this stuff. A condemnation from the church wont change that. They will simply criticize members for continuing to believe. 1
rockpond Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 If the Lord wanted his prophets to condemn it, he could communicate that message to them. Isn't the pattern that they would need to first study it out, then ask, then listen? Perhaps they are still studying it out.
rockpond Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 I disagree. I don't think a condemnation from the church regarding historical issues will help problems of testimony and member disaffection. That is related to disillusionment more than anger towards the church for not condemning it. Those things seem rather intertwined to me. This will level out as this becomes common knowledge among church members. This is a temporary sifting. This will become old news in the press rather quickly. The problem with your statements here is that the Church still hasn't totally opened up on some of these thorny issues. They are becoming more forthright but I think we are still a long way from all of it being "old news".
Mystery Meat Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Isn't the pattern that they would need to first study it out, then ask, then listen? Perhaps they are still studying it out. Totally possible. Maybe, and much more likely in mind opinion, is that they have studied it out and the Lord did not give them a firm response. This isn't exactly a new topic.
rockpond Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Totally possible. Maybe, and much more likely in mind opinion, is that they have studied it out and the Lord did not give them a firm response. This isn't exactly a new topic. Well, it's new in the sense that they are just now addressing it broadly & publicly.
pogi Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Those things seem rather intertwined to me. Not to me. I think the disillusionment (at least from what I hear from friends and family) is that they feel lied to. They feel like they have believed in something that is not what they thought it was. That is what disillusionment means by definition. If this was common knowledge from the beginning that every member knew about, there would not be any disillusionment. Sure, there might be some disaffection, but it would be the kind of disaffection that we have always seen in the church. The problem with your statements here is that the Church still hasn't totally opened up on some of these thorny issues. They are becoming more forthright but I think we are still a long way from all of it being "old news". Perhaps, but condemning it won't help in my opinion.
Mystery Meat Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Well, it's new in the sense that they are just now addressing it broadly & publicly. I suppose, but I don't see how that distinction makes a difference.
rockpond Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 I suppose, but I don't see how that distinction makes a difference. Well, you said it's "not a new topic". I contend that for many in the church, it is a new topic. One that we are just now facing as a church even though it's been lingering in the background for decades.
rockpond Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Not to me. I think the disillusionment (at least from what I hear from friends and family) is that they feel lied to. They feel like they have believed in something that is not what they thought it was. That is what disillusionment means by definition. If this was common knowledge from the beginning that every member knew about, there would not be any disillusionment. Sure, there might be some disaffection, but it would be the kind of disaffection that we have always seen in the church. Perhaps, but condemning it won't help in my opinion. I see that point... but doesn't disillusionment often lead to disaffection? And I do think that condemning certain things would help. There are church members who are very upset by the way that the new essays condone aspects of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy. I think that having the church condemn some of those actions (assuming that the Brethren felt duly inspired) would be helpful to many.
pogi Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 I see that point... but doesn't disillusionment often lead to disaffection? Sure, that's why we need to stop the disillusionment. And I do think that condemning certain things would help. There are church members who are very upset by the way that the new essays condone aspects of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy. I think that having the church condemn some of those actions (assuming that the Brethren felt duly inspired) would be helpful to many. It might help some people feel more comfortable in the church, but the testimony of many hinges on the fact that Joseph was justified in his practice. Once that is gone, I think you will see a much more widespread disillusionment and whisperings of a fallen prophet.
Mystery Meat Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Well, you said it's "not a new topic". I contend that for many in the church, it is a new topic. One that we are just now facing as a church even though it's been lingering in the background for decades. Correct, but my "not a new topic" comment was in reference to the Church leadership. Some of whom were in the 12 at the time the decision was made. For all of them this is hardly new. They have faced this topic before and I am sure have thought this out many times. They are the ones who will receive revelation that the ban was not divinely inspired. No such revelation has been received to my knowledge.
rockpond Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Sure, that's why we need to stop the disillusionment. It might help some people feel more comfortable in the church, but the testimony of many hinges on the fact that Joseph was justified in his practice. Once that is gone, I think you will see a much more widespread disillusionment and whisperings of a fallen prophet. I guess that's possible. For me, I don't believe that Joseph was justified in the practice but that does not make me lose my testimony of him as the prophet of the restoration. And it relieves me of feeling the need to find justifications for something that I never felt was right.
Mystery Meat Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 I think that having the church condemn some of those actions (assuming that the Brethren felt duly inspired) would be helpful to many. This is the key point. They obviously did not feel so inspired. Again, this is not a new issue for those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.
rockpond Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Correct, but my "not a new topic" comment was in reference to the Church leadership. Some of whom were in the 12 at the time the decision was made. For all of them this is hardly new. They have faced this topic before and I am sure have thought this out many times. They are the ones who will receive revelation that the ban was not divinely inspired. No such revelation has been received to my knowledge. Ah, yes, with respect to the ban, many in the 15 were around at the time it was removed. But, publicly, they didn't start dealing with the justifications that were given for the ban until a couple years ago. Regarding some of the other thorny issues, I don't know when the Brethren started to study those out (individually or collectively). To our knowledge, no such revelation has been received. But apparently prophets can receive revelations and not share them with the church at large for years.
rockpond Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 This is the key point. They obviously did not feel so inspired. Again, this is not a new issue for those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. You keep coming back to it being "not a new issue". I'm not sure how you know that they collectively have delved into these issues long ago and made the pertinent decisions. Some of these issues could be new for them.
Mystery Meat Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Ah, yes, with respect to the ban, many in the 15 were around at the time it was removed. But, publicly, they didn't start dealing with the justifications that were given for the ban until a couple years ago. Regarding some of the other thorny issues, I don't know when the Brethren started to study those out (individually or collectively). To our knowledge, no such revelation has been received. But apparently prophets can receive revelations and not share them with the church at large for years. I think in regards to the ban and polygamy, if they felt like they could have used stronger language, it would have been easy to do so. They are not exactly popular positions. The fact they didn't leads me to believe that they have not received a revelation, even after (I strongly assume) they have spent much time in prayer and meditation on the issues. However, on the other hand I think a case may be made that a revelation may have been held back if the Lord did not want it public because of what it might do to current members. I think that possibility is relatively weak.
Mystery Meat Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 You keep coming back to it being "not a new issue". I'm not sure how you know that they collectively have delved into these issues long ago and made the pertinent decisions. Some of these issues could be new for them. Honestly, I think it is common sense.
rockpond Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Honestly, I think it is common sense. Actually, I think common sense leads to the conclusion that it is a relatively new issue for the 15 collectively. If it wasn't why did they wait until AFTER they started losing members over the issues to finally address it publicly? Why did they let it get more publicity through podcasts and facebook forums before posting their essays in an attempt to regain control of the message? If they knew earlier, why did they wait so long to act?
Mystery Meat Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Actually, I think common sense leads to the conclusion that it is a relatively new issue for the 15 collectively. If it wasn't why did they wait until AFTER they started losing members over the issues to finally address it publicly? Why did they let it get more publicity through podcasts and facebook forums before posting their essays in an attempt to regain control of the message? If they knew earlier, why did they wait so long to act? Let me put this way...there is no doubt in mind that they were fully aware of all the tricky issues related to Church History well before it became all the rage to leave the Church over it. I know this from first hand information. I strongly suspect that such things were discussed in the highest places in the Church many, many years ago and continued up until the present time.
rockpond Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Let me put this way...there is no doubt in mind that they were fully aware of all the tricky issues related to Church History well before it became all the rage to leave the Church over it. I know this from first hand information. I strongly suspect that such things were discussed in the highest places in the Church many, many years ago and continued up until the present time. You know it from first hand information? Care to answer my questions then? If they knew why did they wait until after the church entered a period of the greatest apostasy since Kirtland to start publicly dealing with it? Was that the discussion that happened in the "highest places"... they decided: hey, let's have Dehlin go out and lead the discussion on the thorniest of church issues first then we'll step in?
Recommended Posts