A New Mormon [Double] Standard?

[carbon dioxide]

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.

My understanding of events is that David O McKay prayed about the issue at least one time and was told by the Lord "Not Yet" in terms of the priesthood ban.  So whatever was the reason for the ban, the Lord was completely on board with the ban as of the 50s or 60's to tell Pres, McKay to not to change anything.  It seems to me if the ban was not authorized by God, it would have been changed right at that spot or earlier.  But perhaps Mckay misunderstood or it was Satan telling him "Not Yet".  I guess anything is possible.

[rockpond]

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."

 

The world needs your musical talent and journalism... I have faith that you can live to be 100 and we can discuss where things are at that time.

[rockpond]

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.

 

If I believed in a literal/ontological Satan, I'd have to go with option #1.

 

Last month one of my aunts legally married her long-time partner now that it's an option available to them in their home state of Utah.  They had been together for about 20 years.  I don't believe that there is anything immoral about the two of them making their commitment to one another legally and spiritually binding.

[carbon dioxide]

If I believed in a literal/ontological Satan, I'd have to go with option #1.

 

Last month one of my aunts legally married her long-time partner now that it's an option available to them in their home state of Utah.  They had been together for about 20 years.  I don't believe that there is anything immoral about the two of them making their commitment to one another legally and spiritually binding.

So what is the moral reasons that Satan opposes SSM?

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

Maybe, but I think it is a very weak argument that amounts to little more than wishful thinking. If we follow this argument further it ends up obliterating much of the roles of prophets and apostles. In this particular case we have scriptural evidence that such actions have been a sin through out every dispensation (before the law of Moses, during the law of Moses, after the law of Moses and today). I think the likelihood that all of these prophets got it wrong is minuscule at best.

[rockpond]

So what is the moral reasons that Satan opposes SSM?

 

Theoretically speaking, I would imagine Satan opposes the thought of two people making a commitment to love and care for each other.

[carbon dioxide]

Maybe, but I think it is a very weak argument that amounts to little more than wishful thinking. If we follow this argument further it ends up obliterating much of the roles of prophets and apostles. In this particular case we have scriptural evidence that such actions have been a sin through out every dispensation (before the law of Moses, during the law of Moses, after the law of Moses and today). I think the likelihood that all of these prophets got it wrong is minuscule at best.

Apparently all the prophets down through history whether it be Adam, brother of Jared, Moses, Noah, ect were all too blind to the fact that SSM and homosexuality was all part of the Lord's plan all along.  Makes me wonder how many actions in the scriptures that are called sins are really sins to the Lord.  Perhaps there are no sins at all.  Who knows, perhaps 40 years from now there will a revelation that there was no Jesus Christ but it was just a nice story.  If there is no sin, there is no need for a Christ.  Or perhaps it was not Jesus who died for our sins but it was Mary who died for our sins.  Once one starts removing part of the foundations of the Church, might as well blow the whole thing up and start over.  I am just waiting for someone to declare that Jesus was gay and had a SSM and that will be revealed at some point.  When the members are ready for the truth between the true relationship between Jesus and say Peter. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[mormonnewb]

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.

I have no way of knowing how clear your pre-1978 memory is but I will just suggest that I hope it is much clearer than most people's memory, because we all tend to have problems with remembering the past accurately.

Governor Wallace infamously said in the 60s: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." There can't be more than six Americans who will admit that they cheered when he said it. But the truth is that the crowd rose to their feet in applause. He was elected FOUR times. In fact, he is the 3rd longest governor in American history. In short, he was expressing a WIDELY popular opinion although almost no one remembers supporting it.

I submit that A LOT of people have faulty memories of where they stood in the past on all kinds of issues. Fortunately, we now have the Internet so we will KNOW who stood where in the future.

[mormonnewb]

But it wasn't just him. The issue was often discussed even before he became prophet. It was assumed that the african americans would receive the priesthood sooner than later. This was one reason why it wasn't a shock to most of the members at that time when the ban was lifted. I remember it quite well. It is ashame that mormonnewb just cant get it. But here we go again about the priesthood ban. From gay rights to priesthood ban thanks to our friend. Just can't stay away from it.

Maybe they are related. Maybe we can actually LEARN something from our history. Or should we simply make the same mistakes repeatedly?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Fortunately, we now have the Internet so we will KNOW who stood where in the future.

 

Note to all future readers of this thread, including future me: I joyfully and gratefully stand with the authorised servants of the Living God.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

If anything happened as you describe and the members did anything as you describe, I'd realize immediately, I'd be in the wrong church. See ya, I'd say. this is nuts.

 

So in California, there are a lot of hard feelings towards Mormons.  I take it that you would not have a problem if every major business in California decided that all Mormons are bigots and have no place in their companies.  Simply by being a Mormon, you would get fired from your job.  It would effectively prevent you from working for any major company in the state.  And what if they all decided to put this practice in place throughout the United States?  No problem????  

 

The church could be setting up it's members for a world of hurt if it continues to push the idea that it is ok to discriminate on religious grounds.  Many religions don't believe or support bigots.  And whether they are or not, many people think Mormons are bigots.  You do the math.

[mormonnewb]

Note to all future readers of this thread, including future me: I joyfully and gratefully stand with the authorised servants of the Living God.

Great! And when they change YOUR mind for you, then we will be of one accord, my brother!

And I don't mean to be so snarky, but why are you so sure that the Brethren's view won't change on this topic, as it did on so many others? Is the thought that we simply always turn over our cognitive abilities and godly inspiration to the Brethren and let them do our thinking for us?

If not, then it seems that, on some issue or another, we will all disagree with church leaders. Or do you stand with the Brethren on EVERY issue?

Edited January 29, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Hamba Tuhan]

Great! And when they change YOUR mind for you, then we will be of one accord, my brother!

 

Micro-aggression noted.

[mormonnewb]

Micro-aggression noted.

Noted on my part too, which is why I added to my post in order to have a more fruitful discussion. [-1 rep point for me]

[Scott Lloyd]

I have no way of knowing how clear your pre-1978 memory is but I will just suggest that I hope it is much clearer than most people's memory, because we all tend to have problems with remembering the past accurately.

Governor Wallace infamously said in the 60s: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." There can't be more than six Americans who will admit that they cheered when he said it. But the truth is that the crowd rose to their feet in applause. He was elected FOUR times. In fact, he is the 3rd longest governor in American history. In short, he was expressing a WIDELY popular opinion although almost no one remembers supporting it.

I submit that A LOT of people have faulty memories of where they stood in the past on all kinds of issues. Fortunately, we now have the Internet so we will KNOW who stood where in the future.

Well, I was on the staff of the university newspaper on that day in June 1978. As many of us as could be found went back into the newsroom that day and produced one of the very few "extra" editions in the newspaper's history, proclaiming the revelation, covering some of the instant outpouring of nearly universal joy and euphoria that came from Church members worldwide.

 

I still have a copy of that newspaper at home in my files.

 

Yeah, my memory is pretty darn clear on this matter. It was one of those events that are so fixed in memory you remember precisely where you were and what you were doing when it happened.

 

I had you in mind when I made the statement a few posts back about truth being the first casualty of historical revisionism by those who are both too young and too ignorant to know what they're talking about.

 

Edited to add:

 

How I love Google! Here is an image of the front page of that "extra" edition we produced that day.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

Well, I was on the staff of the university newspaper on that day in June 1978. As many of us as could be found went back into the newsroom that day and produced one of the very few "extra" editions in the newspaper's history, acclaiming the revelation, covering the instant outpouring of nearly universal joy and euphoria that came from Church members worldwide

I still have a copy of that newspaper at home in my files.

Yeah, my memory is pretty darn clear on this matter.

I had you in mind when I made the statement a few posts back about truth being the first casualty of historical revisionism by those who are both too young and too ignorant to know what they're talking about.

Given the revisionist memories of MOST Americans when it comes to segregation, can you at least IMAGINE how someone might be skeptical that the Mormon collective memory is as reliable as you believe it is?

[Scott Lloyd]

Given the revisionist memories of MOST Americans when it comes to segregation, can you at least IMAGINE how someone might be skeptical that the Mormon collective memory is as reliable as you believe it is?

Not on this. It was one of the four or five single  historic events I have witnessed in my lifetime.

 

If you're determined not to understand, there's nothing I can do about that, but it doesn't change the truth.

 

By the way, did you notice the image I added to my post? I was able to find it immediately with a Google search.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

I'm sure you photo-shopped the subhead, Scott.  I'll bet it originally read, "Majority of Church members outraged."

Edited January 29, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sure you photo-shopped the subhead, Scott.  I'll bet it originally read, "Majority of Church members outraged."

 

What can I say? Truth is truly the first casualty.

[Guest]

On a related note, elder Christofferson was interviewed yesterday about members who support SSM. (I'm on a mobile device and can't post a link but it's on the tribune). He said that members can publicly support SSM and remain in good standing. The line is crossed when they attack the church or it's leaders.

So while yesterday's press conference has left a lot of questions unanswered, at least this one has been made much more clear. Thank you Elder Christofferson.

But how would they ever know...it is not one of the questions asked.

[Guest]

Given the revisionist memories of MOST Americans when it comes to segregation, can you at least IMAGINE how someone might be skeptical that the Mormon collective memory is as reliable as you believe it is?

I know segregation very well. I grew up in the South in the 50's, 60, and 70's.

[Scott Lloyd]

On a related note, elder Christofferson was interviewed yesterday about members who support SSM. (I'm on a mobile device and can't post a link but it's on the tribune). He said that members can publicly support SSM and remain in good standing. The line is crossed when they attack the church or it's leaders.

So while yesterday's press conference has left a lot of questions unanswered, at least this one has been made much more clear. Thank you Elder Christofferson.

I don't see anything particularly groundbreaking in this. The Church has long allowed people a great deal of leeway to hold personal opinions and even to be wrong in those opinions.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

I know segregation very well. I grew up in the South in the 50's, 60, and 70's.

So did most whites in the south pull their cars to the side of the road and weep tears of joy upon the passage of the Civil Rights Act?

[carbon dioxide]

So in California, there are a lot of hard feelings towards Mormons.  I take it that you would not have a problem if every major business in California decided that all Mormons are bigots and have no place in their companies.  Simply by being a Mormon, you would get fired from your job.  It would effectively prevent you from working for any major company in the state.  And what if they all decided to put this practice in place throughout the United States?  No problem????  

 

The church could be setting up it's members for a world of hurt if it continues to push the idea that it is ok to discriminate on religious grounds.  Many religions don't believe or support bigots.  And whether they are or not, many people think Mormons are bigots.  You do the math.

Outside of mentioning an LDS mission or a BYU graduate. how would a company know if somebody is LDS unless the volunteered that information?

[Pahoran]

Great! And when they change YOUR mind for you, then we will be of one accord, my brother!

Just a little note for you:

This constantly reiterated theme of yours, that Mormons are unthinking sheep who simply swallow whatever the suits in Salt Lake say, is not only boilerplate anti-Mormon propaganda; it's also the way people talk when they're trying to demonise an "other" they despise and wish others to despise as well.

At very least, it's a group with which they do not identify.

So I don't want you to worry about the fact that it's a spiteful falsehood; why start worrying about that now? But perhaps you should worry about the fact that it calls into question your painstakingly cultivated Mormon veneer.

Regards,

Pahoran