A New Mormon [Double] Standard?

[rockpond]

The policy of withholding priesthood from Africans was official church doctrine until 1978. The church has not disavowed that. What the church has clarified is that the reasons given for that policy in the past may not be correct. In other words, the doctrine was correct, but the explanation for why that policy was in place was flawed.

 

Doctrine:  a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

 

The reasons given for the priesthood and temple ban were doctrine taught and published by men acting as prophets/seers/revelators.  Those reasons were wrong and are therefore false doctrine taught for over 125 years by a Church that now claims what is it teaching about our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters can't possibly be wrong.

 

The arrogance of yesterday's press conference was astonishing.  I'm still in shock over it.

[rockpond]

Amen.

 

And for some reason, this essential fact keeps getting lost in the ongoing public dialogue.

 

So how do you define doctrine?

[Scott Lloyd]

And since religious beliefs on race were wrong, there is the possibility that religious beliefs on homosexuality will to that same direction.

In another 40 years our Church will have accepted gay marriage or it will be withering on the vine.

To use the Master's words, "And will you also go away?" (John 6:67)

Edited January 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

To use the Master's words, "And will you also go away?" (John 6:67)

 

Certainly not.

[Pahoran]

But the prevailing attitude must have been "And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.""

But no one really thinks all the rest of the children had received their blessings in the priesthood in 1978, right?

I was speaking to my mother-in-law the other day and after the ban was lifted she had some of her old friends from BYU call crying, upset the ban was lifted, throwing them for a loop because not all whites had received the blessings of the priesthood.

Why "must" a line from a 1949 statement represent "the prevailing attitude" when there was a much more recent statement (December 1969) to hand?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Certainly not.

Good. With one exception, neither did the apostles.

[Scott Lloyd]

So how do you define doctrine?

Probably more broadly than you do.

[Pahoran]

Right... Because nobody changes their views or beliefs over the course of four decades. Especially not children who will mature into adulthood during that time. Your certainty is laughable.

As an alternative to your view, consider that maybe the Lord is patiently waiting on His people to prepare themselves to receive the truth in the same way He apparently had to wait to end the practice of keeping black people out of the temple.

It must be very satisfying to imagine that the Lord is patiently waiting for His people to become as enlightened as -- you!

BTW, the immoralist party line is that they wouldn't dream of trying to pressure a church -- any church -- into solemnising their abominations "marriages." So where is the impetus for this "truth" going to come from?

Also, not only am I old enough to remember the Church pre-1978, I'm also old enough to remember when the Inevitable March of History was going to lead the world in the "Radiant Future" of world communism.

Not all such expectations come to fruition.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Doctrine:  a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

 

The reasons given for the priesthood and temple ban were doctrine taught and published by men acting as prophets/seers/revelators.  Those reasons were wrong and are therefore false doctrine taught for over 125 years by a Church that now claims what is it teaching about our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters can't possibly be wrong.

 

 

The reason it remained in place is that it was consistent with the will of God. That there were misguided attempts to explain the reason, though God had not revealed it, does not nullfiy its validity.

 

The arrogance of yesterday's press conference was astonishing.  I'm still in shock over it.

 

More's the pity. I will pray for you that you get over it.

[mormonnewb]

We as a church have no reason to fear that an LGBT "marriage" will ever be performed in the Temple. Beings how we don't perform "marriages" in the temple.  Through the provenance of God "sealings" are strictly an exclusive Religious right..

 

The part where it gets sticky is that the way things are going with the laws on the subject. Will a Bishop ever be able to decline from performing a "civil" marriage at a local ward house? If an LGBT couple want to be married at a ward building and the Bishop or SP say no can they sue? Will the Bishop be compelled against their conscience to comply? This is the question that bothers me and Im trying to iron out just how I feel about it.

 

PS. Another question popped into my mind. In the resurrection, will all these people who have been surgically reassigned be resurrected as they were born or as they were reassigned?

 

I suppose too that all the surgical implants people are getting will fall out of their resurrected bodies upon rising from the grave as well.

 

I can't answer your second question (although I eagerly await someone else's definitive answer), but I can answer your first.  No ecclesiastical leader will ever be required to perform a marriage that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

 

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the Supreme Court invalidated laws banning interracial marriage in 1972.  As a result, no state could prevent blacks and whites from intermarrying.  However, the church associated with Bob Jones University (they're too irrelevant to look up their name) prohibited its members from marrying interracially until the 1990s.  During those two DECADES, no minister of that church was required to perform an interracial marriage.

 

In the same vein, I can't imagine that any LDS bishop will be required to violate Church policy and doctrine.  The 1st Amendment protects us from that.  Of course, it doesn't protect us from the social stigma "enjoyed" by the Bob Jones folks, but that's another issue entirely.

[ksfisher]

Doctrine:  a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

 

The reasons given for the priesthood and temple ban were doctrine taught and published by men acting as prophets/seers/revelators.  Those reasons were wrong and are therefore false doctrine taught for over 125 years by a Church that now claims what is it teaching about our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters can't possibly be wrong.

 

The arrogance of yesterday's press conference was astonishing.  I'm still in shock over it.

I'm sorry that you feel that the beliefs held by the Lord's prophets and apostles are so out of step with yours.

[Pahoran]

Rockpond wrote:

 

The arrogance of yesterday's press conference was astonishing. I'm still in shock over it.

And this from the fellow who imagines that the Lord is just waiting for His Anointed servants to become as wise and enlightened as Rockpond.

No sense of irony, eh?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

Mormonewb wrote:

 

So basically, if you found out that an NAACP employee was a closet klukker, you'd expect that fellow to keep his job?

You are unable to grasp the very material difference between someone having an unpopular opinion on public policy, and someone opposing his employer's core mission?

Are you really that obtuse?

Please tell us you're only pretending, Noob.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

The "core mission" of this Church is to prevent gays and lesbians (who are NOT members of this Church) from getting married?  Wow!  How did I miss that in the missionary discussions?

 

I kept hearing about the Plan of Happiness, the Atonement, and the Restoration of the Gospel.

[rockpond]

Probably more broadly than you do.

 

Then you would have to consider the teachings about the ban to be doctrine.  And they were incorrect.  Thus my statement about the prophets and apostles having taught false doctrine for 125 years.

[Rock_N_Roll]

What I can do it teach them to truth and if they choose to depart from it that is their choice.  I can just say with confidence between my children and my nieces and nephews that they are 100% with the view that SSM is eternally wrong.  I doubt that many will change their view over the next 40 years.  Perhaps the Lord will be merciful and allow a nuclear war to occur before that would happen.  Better for the world to be destroyed than have generations of people raised is wickedness.  Hopefully this global warming stuff is real and disasters will occur to keep the people repenting and not accepting of the filth that continues to rain down on the people.

 

I would have said this same thing 30 years ago.  If only I had known then what I know now.  Life has a way changing people over time. 

[rockpond]

It must be very satisfying to imagine that the Lord is patiently waiting for His people to become as enlightened as -- you!

 

I don't really look at it that way.  Is it satisfying to imagine that the Lord holds the same biases as you?

 

BTW, the immoralist party line is that they wouldn't dream of trying to pressure a church -- any church -- into solemnising their abominations "marriages." So where is the impetus for this "truth" going to come from?

 

Hopefully the impetus for truth comes from the body of the Church.

[rockpond]

The reason it remained in place is that it was consistent with the will of God. That there were misguided attempts to explain the reason, though God had not revealed it, does not nullfiy its validity.

 

You keep drawing it back to the ban.  I'm talking about the doctrine taught ABOUT the ban, the doctrinal reasons for the ban.  Do you disagree that they were false?  Or do you disagree that they were doctrine?  And if you disagree that they were doctrine than I ask that you kindly explain how you define doctrine to exclude the official teachings of prophets and apostles.

[rockpond]

I'm sorry that you feel that the beliefs held by the Lord's prophets and apostles are so out of step with yours.

 

No need to apologize.  No one's beliefs need to be in step with mine.  Everyone should be following the dictates of their own conscience and, hopefully, the Spirit.

[rockpond]

Rockpond wrote:

 

And this from the fellow who imagines that the Lord is just waiting for His Anointed servants to become as wise and enlightened as Rockpond.

No sense of irony, eh?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

I never said that nor is it how I feel.  #strawman

[mormonnewb]

You are so wrapped up in your idiotic stereotypes that you can't even get your dates right.

The revelation on the Priesthood was announced in June of 1978.

And the rest of the above is wrong as well. I think you completely made it up. I was a serving missionary in 1978. I have never, even once in my life, met a Latter-day Saint who thought the former Priesthood ban would never be lifted. It was always expected to end someday; we just didn't know when.

 

That's wishful thinking at best.

And utter nonsense to boot.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Well, certainly my 90-day mistake on the date of OD2 invalidates any point I was trying to make.  But excusing that monumental blunder, my understanding is that a few members left the Church after it lifted the priesthood ban.  That means that surely everyone didn't get the memo about the ban being temporary.

 

Now, I suspect it was a VERY few members, which is exactly my point to CO2.  I find it hard to believe that there won't members who swore by the policy as being the "eternal word of God."  Yet, when push came to shove, they decided to stay with the Church because of the 3,000 other things they find valuable about it.

[DBMormon]

But he has so said, through His servants the prophets.

Do you see his point though.  Do we have a quote from a prophet where they say the teaching came from God after having a face to face conversation with him?  If we don't then there will always be room to set the statement off to the side as not from God.

[Scott Lloyd]

You keep drawing it back to the ban.  I'm talking about the doctrine taught ABOUT the ban, the doctrinal reasons for the ban.  Do you disagree that they were false?  Or do you disagree that they were doctrine?  And if you disagree that they were doctrine than I ask that you kindly explain how you define doctrine to exclude the official teachings of prophets and apostles.

Well, let me put it this way:

 

I have a very clear pre-1978 memory. During that time, I hoped, even prayed, for the day when the privilege to hold the priesthood would be granted to all of the worthy sons of God. In that hope and dream, never once did I ever feel or have good reason to feel that I was out of harmony with the position of the Church or with the teachings of the prophets and apostles as I understood them.

 

I contrast that with the attitude of those who hold out the vain hope that God or His servants will one day declare what has always been regarded as egregious sin as not being sinful, and beyond that, will sanctify it in the temples. Such an attitude is very much out of harmony with the position of the Church and with the unified declarations and teachings of the apostles and prophets. I have pity for such individuals; surely they must feel considerable discomfort to be in that position.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Well, let me put it this way:

 

I have a very clear pre-1978 memory. During that time, I hoped, even prayed, for the day when the privilege to hold the priesthood would be granted to all of the worthy sons of God. In that hope and dream, never once did I ever feel or have good reason to feel that I was out of harmony with the position of the Church or with the teachings of the prophets and apostles as I understood them.

 

I contrast that with the attitude of those who hold out the vain hope that God or His servants will one day declare what has always been regarded as egregious sin as not be sinful, and beyond that, will sanctify it in the temples. Such an attitude is very much out of harmony with the position of the Church and with the unified declarations and teachings of the apostles and prophets. I have pity for such individuals; surely they must feel considerable discomfort to be in that position.

 

Good dodge of the questions.

 

The time period you are referring to is the final years of the ban... Not 40 years before it was lifted.  As I suggested, I believe the Lord will prepare us such that, like you with the race-based ban, we will be anxiously anticipating the Lord's acceptance of unions between our homosexual brothers & sisters.

[Scott Lloyd]

Good dodge of the questions.

 

The time period you are referring to is the final years of the ban... Not 40 years before it was lifted.  As I suggested, I believe the Lord will prepare us such that, like you with the race-based ban, we will be anxiously anticipating the Lord's acceptance of unions between our homosexual brothers & sisters.

I was 24 years old when it was lifted. I have been a close watcher of the Church and how the Church is perceived in the mass media for most of my life, including much of my childhood.

 

I don't expect to be around 40 years from now. I would love to see how you react when the Church of Jesus Christ has neither embraced the sin of homosexual behavior nor "dried on the vine."

[carbon dioxide]

Good dodge of the questions.

 

The time period you are referring to is the final years of the ban... Not 40 years before it was lifted.  As I suggested, I believe the Lord will prepare us such that, like you with the race-based ban, we will be anxiously anticipating the Lord's acceptance of unions between our homosexual brothers & sisters.

My view on Satan and Jesus is that they are polar opposites.  Perhaps you don't.  So which of the 4 options do you lean towards

 

1.  Jesus supports SSM and Satan is against

2.  Jesus is against SSM and Satan is for it

3.  Jesus and Satan agree that SSM is wrong

4.  Jesus and Satan agree that SSM is fabulous and they can't wait for the LDS Church celebrate it.