rockpond Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 The church is actively working to fix the problem with the essays etc. I think that this is evidence that they acknowledge their part, or at least acknowledge that they can be more effective in their approach. They are adjusting, and that is all anyone can ask of them. I think what kenngo is saying is that the church, nor Dehlin are to blame for personal apostasy - that is all on the individual. "The devil made me do it" just isn't going to cut it at the day of judgment. I agree that each us of must be responsible for our own personal salvation. But, it's inappropriate to sit on a thread and blame Dehlin and the individual only (as was the case with the post I responded to) and suppose that the Church holds no responsibility for the way they presented doctrines, policies, and narratives. I also understand, quite clearly now, that the Church does not issue apologies. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Can you fix the problem without accepting your share of the blame?I agree with Pogi's response. I would add that (and I believe I already made this point to you in my previous post) it's difficult to assign specific individual blame for institutional decisions. And disaffection and disillusionment isn't as simple as, "The Church did [A] or said or said in [C] way, thus, the disaffected member's reaction was [D]." There are nearly as many reasons for such disaffection as there are people who are disaffected. 2
rockpond Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 I agree with Pogi's response. I would add that (and I believe I already made this point to you in my previous post) it's difficult to assign specific individual blame for institutional decisions. And disaffection and disillusionment isn't as simple as, "The Church did [A] or said or said in [C] way, thus, the disaffected member's reaction was [D]." There are nearly as many reasons for such disaffection as there are people who are disaffected. I've not suggested we assign individual blame for institutional decisions. But Church leadership could certainly apologize for past errors or misjudgments as an institution. But they won't. So people here will continue to feel free to blame people like Dehlin and consider the Church to have to blame in the matter. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 I've not suggested we assign individual blame for institutional decisions. But Church leadership could certainly apologize for past errors or misjudgments as an institution. But they won't. So people here will continue to feel free to blame people like Dehlin and consider the Church to have to blame in the matter.By whose reckoning does the past conduct on the part of the Church as an institution warrant blame? Should the Church issue an automatic apology every time somebody raises a complaint? That hardly seems just. 2
Ferdinand55 Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Should the Church issue an automatic apology every time somebody raises a complaint? If they did, we would certainly have a long list of apologies... 1
rockpond Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Should the Church issue an automatic apology every time somebody raises a complaint? That hardly seems just. Certainly not, nor have I suggested such a response. By whose reckoning does the past conduct on the part of the Church as an institution warrant blame? Ultimately it would need to be the reckoning of the Brethren. But, as I indicated earlier... kind of futile for now since Oaks has so arrogantly announced that the church does not apologize. I just think that if people here are going to blame Dehlin for making people leave by publicly discussing real issues with the church, maybe they should also consider what part of that blame lies with the church and how we can change. 1
Ferdinand55 Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 But Church leadership could certainly apologize for past errors or misjudgments as an institution.What apologies are you looking for? Polygamy? Blacks and the priesthood? City Creek? Tithing? Same-sex marriage? Ordination of women? Evolution? September Six? Abortion? Who decides what the church should apologize for and what they shouldn't? Delhin? Dan Vogel? Obama? 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) It's weird he speaks of not having a place to talk about his issues with Church, thus mormonstories, but then he seems to only want a certain voice participating. I think it makes perfect sense when one reads what he posted on Facebook yesterday about what his focus has been: (1) generate an awareness of 'problems' as a platform for (2) criticising the Church in order to (3) create space and justification for his personal activism. It's a smart approach, reflective of both modern advertising and classic Marxist agitation: manufacture discontent in order to create a need that one can then fill with a specific product; create division in a society in order to fracture it enough that it can be 'revolutionised'. Edited February 3, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan 2
rockpond Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Who decides what the church should apologize for and what they shouldn't? Delhin? Dan Vogel? Obama? The 15, I assume. What apologies are you looking for? Polygamy? Blacks and the priesthood? City Creek? Tithing? Same-sex marriage? Ordination of women? Evolution? September Six? Abortion? Personally, I think we should apologize for past and current errors in how we have taught and presented some of the past doctrines, policies, and narratives. Especially for those which have resulted in a loss of faith among fellow members. There are also, of course, some current issues. For example, now that we have decided to do the right thing and support gay rights we ought to apologize for work that was done in the past by the church to deny gay rights. 1
Ferdinand55 Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 We ought to apologize for work that was done in the past by the church to deny gay rights.Such as...?
rockpond Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Such as...? Amicus briefs filed with state and federal courts in opposition to non-discrimination ordinances and marriage equality. Prop 8 and other work against marriage equality for gay couples. 1
strappinglad Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Rockpond, are you saying that Correlation in these cases, does mean causation? ( pun intended )As for gay marriage rights, there were none, the people said there were none, then a court said there were, then the people said there weren't , then the court said there were.If and when NAMBLA pushes its agenda into the courts, I suppose the Church would be ill advised to pick a side. Wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history again. Do not use criminal activity for comparisons or you are out of the thread. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Amicus briefs filed with state and federal courts in opposition to non-discrimination ordinances and marriage equality. Prop 8 and other work against marriage equality for gay couples.Whoah, Nellie! It's not foregone that these things are blameworthy. I, for one, earnestly disagree that they are. Edited February 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 4
Avatar4321 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 The 15, I assume. Personally, I think we should apologize for past and current errors in how we have taught and presented some of the past doctrines, policies, and narratives. Especially for those which have resulted in a loss of faith among fellow members. There are also, of course, some current issues. For example, now that we have decided to do the right thing and support gay rights we ought to apologize for work that was done in the past by the church to deny gay rights.If it's the first presidency and twelve who make the decision, then perhaps we should trust their judgment to do that instead of complaining that they need to listen to us. Maybe we should listen to them and their inspiration. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Amicus briefs filed with state and federal courts in opposition to non-discrimination ordinances and marriage equality. Prop 8 and other work against marriage equality for gay couples.Oh, my goodness! Yes! Who but an Evil Empire could possibly oppose nondiscrimination ordinances? It's sort of like when somebody in Congress drafts the Protect Cute Puppies Act, but Senator Hickenlooper from Illinois is against it, whereupon he is publicly excoriated by his colleagues as "The intransigent Gentle-Idiot from Illinois." After all, who could possibly oppose protecting puppies, especially cute ones?!! But what Senator Hickenlooper's colleagues fail to mention is that the bill has been larded down with millions of dollars in pork riders that have nothing to do with protecting cute puppies. The devil is in the details: Are you sure there was nothing in that proposed legislation that would be detrimental to churches, people of faith, and other, similar organizations? Were they narrowly drawn to achieve specific purposes, or might they have been overbroad? Don't know? That makes two of us, but I'm loathe to criticize the Church of Jesus Christ or its leaders. Edited February 3, 2015 by Kenngo1969 3
teddyaware Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Amicus briefs filed with state and federal courts in opposition to non-discrimination ordinances and marriage equality. Prop 8 and other work against marriage equality for gay couples. The Family Proclamation makes a clear prophetic warning to the world at large, not just to the members of the Church, that if the people of the world continued on their present course (1995) of undermining the traditional mother/father family unit, then that rebellion and rejection of God's law would prove to be the main reason why the Lord would send upon the nations the oft-prophesied cataclysmic destructions of the latter-days. Because they were fully aware of the fact that they had already formally issued a very public prophetic warning of dire consequences if society continued to undermine the traditional mother/father family, it would have been an extreme dereliction of sacred duty if the leaders of the Church did not take a mighty stand to defend the traditional definition of marriage. Such inaction would stand as witness that the Church did not care enough for the world's people to raise a warning voice. Now that the Church did make a mighty stand in defense of traditional marriage with Proposition 8 in California, even though the electoral victory was ultimately overrule by the courts, the people of the world will not be able to point their fingers of scorn at the Church when the judgements of of God do descend upon them without measure. When that day comes, it will be widely known that the Church did try to stem the sweeping tide of iniquity, even in the face of threats and persecution; so the rebellious, thus judged, will have nobody else blame but themselves when the Lord's mighty "sermon of nature" shakes the nations throughout the world. Edited February 3, 2015 by teddyaware 3
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Whoah, Nellie! It's not foregone that these things are blameworthy. I, for one, earnestly disagree that they are.From Elder Holland last week: "Every citizen’s rights are best guarded when each person and group guards for others those rights they wish guarded for themselves. "Sure sounds like we failed in that respect. 2
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 The Family Proclamation makes a clear prophetic warning to the world at large, not just to the members of the Church, that if the people of the world continued on their present course (1995) of undermining the traditional mother/father family unit, then that rebellion and rejection of God's law would prove to be the main reason why the Lord would send upon the nations the oft-prophesied cataclysmic destructions of the latter-days. Because they were fully aware of the fact that they had already formally issued a very public prophetic warning of dire consequences if society continued to undermine the traditional mother/father family, it would have been an extreme dereliction of sacred duty if the leaders of the Church did not take a mighty stand to defend the traditional definition of marriage. Now that the Church did make a mighty stand in defense of traditional marriage with Proposition 8 in California, even though the electoral victory was ultimately overrule by the courts, the people of the world will not be able to point their fingers of scorn at the Church when the judgements of of God do descent upon them without measure. When that day comes, it will be widely known that the Church did try to stem the sweeping tide of iniquity, even in the face of threats and persecution; so the rebellious, thus judged, will have nobody else blame but themselves when the Lord's mighty "sermon of nature" shakes the nations throughout the world.Not sure what this has to do with my point about non-discrimination laws that our leaders used to fight but are now calling on everyone to support. Regarding marriage, is your suggestion here that gay people enter into heterosexual marriages to support the proclamation? 1
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Oh, my goodness! Yes! Who but an Evil Empire could possibly oppose nondiscrimination ordinances?From Sister Marriott at last week's presser: "This movement arose after centuries of ridicule, persecution and even violence against homosexuals. Ultimately, most of society recognized that such treatment was simply wrong, and that such basic human rights as securing a job or a place to live should not depend on a person’s sexual orientation."...but I'm loathe to criticize the Church of Jesus Christ or its leaders.Right... It's okay to use these boards to tear apart Dehlin. But suggesting that our infallible leaders have done something wrong is entirely inappropriate. 2
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 If it's the first presidency and twelve who make the decision, then perhaps we should trust their judgment to do that instead of complaining that they need to listen to us. Maybe we should listen to them and their inspiration.I do listen to them and their inspiration. I'm also not complaining but looking for a way we can solve problems rather than just heaping them onto Dehlin who will soon be out while we continue to confront the same challenges.
USU78 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Amicus briefs filed with state and federal courts in opposition to non-discrimination ordinances and marriage equality. Prop 8 and other work against marriage equality for gay couples. Ban 'em all! Ban 'em from the public square! Install padlocks on Mormons' mouths upon baptism, only to be unlocked when the likes of rp thinks they ought, in some obscure and very narrow instance, to be permitted to speak. 3
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Rockpond, are you saying that Correlation in these cases, does mean causation? ( pun intended )As for gay marriage rights, there were none, the people said there were none, then a court said there were, then the people said there weren't , then the court said there were.If and when NAMBLA pushes its agenda into the courts, I suppose the Church would be ill advised to pick a side. Wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history again.There is nothing remotely equivalent between gay marriage and pedophilia. And it is the brethren that keep admitting to being on the wrong side of history. Just don't ask them to apologize -- you might get an angry finger waved at you. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 If it's the first presidency and twelve who make the decision, then perhaps we should trust their judgment to do that instead of complaining that they need to listen to us. Maybe we should listen to them and their inspiration. It would appear that the apostles need to apologise for not apologising according to the dictates of the 'progressives'. Then they can apologise to the rest of the Church's membership for apologising for not apologising according to the dictates of the 'progressives'. And then they can apologise to the 'progressives' for apologising to the rest of the Church's membership for apologising for not apologising according to the dictates of the 'progressives'. And then ... 2
teddyaware Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Not sure what this has to do with my point about non-discrimination laws that our leaders used to fight but are now calling on everyone to support.Regarding marriage, is your suggestion here that gay people enter into heterosexual marriages to support the proclamation? You are being disingenuous and it doesn't become you. You very well know you said that the Church should apologize for participating in efforts to keep marriage strictly between men and women. My post was in answer to your calls for that apology. If in 2012 the Church leaders knew that, among other forms of rebellion, acceptance of gay marriage would bring the judgements of God upon the world if they didn't move to take a stand against it and try earnestly succeed in that stand, then it could be argued that by their inaction the leaders of the Church actually wanted the people of the world to be judged, destroyed and made miserable because they didn't care enough to raise the voice of warning. As to your question: I would imagine that at least some heterosexually married LDS gays chose heterosexual marriage (in spite of their natural predilections) out of obedience to the words of the living prophets. Edited February 3, 2015 by teddyaware 1
strappinglad Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 There is nothing remotely equivalent between gay marriage and pedophilia.Equivalent or not, NAMBLA could try to use the courts to grant the right to pursue their chosen lifestyle. All of society might rage against it NOW , but in 50 years that could all change. In actuality ,NAMBLA could point to the practice of the ancient Greeks as evidence of a long standing " right " .SSM proponents would be hard pressed to trace their rights that far back. This thread is on the NPR piece. Another criminal comparison and you are out. Those who want to debate gay marriage go to a gay marriage thread.
Recommended Posts