The Clock Is Running On This False Prophecy

[cinepro]

I do this without any reasonable expectation that I will still be alive in 40 years. But on the outside chance that I am, the clock is running and I will see what the future brings. At any rate, I fully expect that with the passage of time, it will appear less and less likely to any reasonable mind that the Church is going to cave in on this matter, just as it has never done so on the matter of sex outside of marriage being wrong and sinful, even though we are some 40-45 years out now on the beginning of the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s.

 

 

 

 

I would also point out that you are using loaded language to frame the subject.  You are saying that if the Church does change on this issue, it will be "caving in".  Obviously, "caving" is a loaded term, and meant to make us think "Oh, the Church is strong, it would never 'cave' on any issue!"

 

But what if you said "it will appear less and less likely to any reasonable mind that the Church is going to evolve on this matter."

 

Or "it will appear less and less likely to any reasonable mind that the Church is going to become more accepting on this matter."

 

Or "it will appear less and less likely to any reasonable mind that the Church is going to adopt a less 19th century view on this matter."

 

After all, did the Church "cave" on birth control?  Or oral sex between married couples?  Or interracial marriage?  Of course not.  These were obviously teachings that were based in the culture of the early lives and views of the Church leaders of the time, and over time as the culture of the world (and the Church members themselves) changed and became more accepting of these things, Church leaders had to change as well.  

 

Eventually, we will have 15 apostles who grew up in a world that was much more understanding of people with same-sex attraction, although it will be a while, depending on when you consider homosexuality to have started to become accepted as "normal"* to mainstream society.  I would estimate that such attitudes weren't common until the mid-to-late 1990s, so the last 20 years at the most.  So it will be decades before the youngest Apostles grew up in such a world, and even then, this assumes that they aren't more orthodox LDS who take their views on the subject from Mormon Doctrine and don't want to "cave in".

 

*Not "normal" in the sense that a majority of people are homosexual, but "normal" in the sense that people who are homosexual are that way because of some unchangeable facet of their person, and that they shouldn't have be ashamed of it  and hide it (or go to jail for engaging in homosexual behaviors).

Edited February 13, 2015 by cinepro

[Hamba Tuhan]

Reading this kind of commentary from members like you makes me want to leave, it pushes me closer to the door with each new page of posts. But I doubt you care.

 

If I ever see emotional blackmail occurring in real life, I feel obligated to speak out, so for what it's worth, 'stop defending the words of the living prophets or I swear I'll walk' is a textbook example of emotional blackmail and should not be allowed to claim anyone as a victim.

[sdc999]

I prophesy that in 40 years no one will remember Dehlin's prophecy and few will remember Dehlin himself.

I agree with you on this point.  But I asked a friend just a little earlier if he knew who Thomas Monson was.  Imagine that, the mouthpiece of God here on earth (according to mormons)  didn't ring a bell.   Most people go into obscurity unless they really made a difference to the world.

[The Nehor]

I agree with you on this point.  But I asked a friend just a little earlier if he knew who Thomas Monson was.  Imagine that, the mouthpiece of God here on earth (according to mormons)  didn't ring a bell.   Most people go into obscurity unless they really made a difference to the world.

 

Well, we will see what the history books say.

[sdc999]

Well, we will see what the history books say.

If The Nehor was writing the history book, what would it say?

[The Nehor]

If The Nehor was writing the history book, what would it say?

 

Nice trap.

 

If I claim he would feature prominently you mock and say that I am biased.

 

If I claim I would not include him you would crow that he is obviously unimportant even to me.

 

So I am going to assume I survive to the Millenium before writing said book Jesus appears and President Monson who was dead is resurrected and comes back to earth as well. In this history book I write his contributions are noted.

 

That help?

[rockpond]

If I ever see emotional blackmail occurring in real life, I feel obligated to speak out, so for what it's worth, 'stop defending the words of the living prophets or I swear I'll walk' is a textbook example of emotional blackmail and should not be allowed to claim anyone as a victim.

Impressive how you manage to overlook everything else in this thread and zero in on that.

[rodheadlee]

Impressive how you manage to overlook everything else in this thread and zero in on that.

No more impressive than your stance on prophets, SSM and what the Apostle Christoffesrson said was doctrine.

Edited February 14, 2015 by rodheadlee

[Scott Lloyd]

If I ever see emotional blackmail occurring in real life, I feel obligated to speak out, so for what it's worth, 'stop defending the words of the living prophets or I swear I'll walk' is a textbook example of emotional blackmail and should not be allowed to claim anyone as a victim.

I'll give rockpond the benefit of the doubt and suppose his comment was driven more by anger than reason. Forsaking or falling away from his faith because he doesn't like the content or manner of my or anyone else's disagreement with him makes no better sense than feeling "that the truthfulness of the church rests on its continued exclusion of homosexuals from the plan of happiness." It's like going inactive because you got mad at your bishop.

But in principle, you do make a good point about emotional blackmail. I see it in Dehlin's accusing Elder Oaks of hastening the demise of the Church. I see it in Dehlinians claiming that "apologists" drive people away from the Church.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

No more impressive than your stance on prophets, SSM and what the Apostle Christoffesrson said was doctrine.

Thanks. I love Elder Christofferson's April 2012 teachings on doctrine.

[rockpond]

I'll give rockpond the benefit of the doubt and suppose his comment was driven more by anger than reason. Forsaking or falling away from his faith because he doesn't like the content or manner of my or anyone else's disagreement with him makes no better sense than feeling "that the truthfulness of the church rests on its continued exclusion of homosexuals from the plan of happiness." It's like going inactive because you got mad at your bishop.But in principle, you do make a good point about emotional blackmail. I see it in Dehlin's accusing Elder Oaks of hastening the demise of the Church. I see it in Dehlinians claiming that "apologists" drive people away from the Church.

I see... Critical commentary of church members is emotional blackmail. Critical commentary of Dehlin is what? Something that should make us proud to be members of the church?

[DBMormon]

40 years from now what other prophecies could be made?   Billtradomis says the following will happen sometime in the next 40 years

 

- no more 1 year wait period for temple sealings after civil marriage

- stigma that you don't say no to callings and you don't ask to be released disappears 

- view of Scripture more closely matches that of the CoC

- Prophets can retire

- at least 1/3 of the Q12 is born outside of the western united states

- other instruments besides piano/organ/strings are permitted

- Amazing Grace will be in the hymn book and come thou fount will return to the hymnbook

- Knowing will no longer be seen as superior to faith

- dissent will be more tolerated

- Mormon Doctrine will be disavowed publicly

- practicing Homosexuals will hold formal callings and be permitted to be baptized (may be able to hold the Aaronic PH though their still will be a doctrinal separation of what gays can do vs what heterosexuals can do)

- Women will once again be permitted to give blessings and annointings outside the temple.

- Heavenly Mother will be a more common in church discussion and even be permitted to be addressed in prayer either as H.M. or Heavenly Parents (either or just Heavenly Parents)

- The race ban itself will be officially disavowed

- We will narrow what a member has to believe to a smaller set of things (first principles and ordinances and authority)

 

Put that on your google Calendar as a reminder and see how much I got right 

Edited February 14, 2015 by DBMormon

[Freedom]

Judging from what was taught 40 years ago compared to today, I predict that no doctrines will change. I suspect that we will no longer support the scouting program, and that we will look back with nostalgia to the much tamer and morally upright society of 2015. We will also be wondering when flying cars will be invented and if machines will ever become intelligent. And the same posters will be lingering on this site pontificating on what the church will be like in 2095. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I see... Critical commentary of church members is emotional blackmail. Critical commentary of Dehlin is what? Something that should make us proud to be members of the church?

Hamba Tuhan came up with the term, so he can correct me as he sees fit. But this is how I would define emotional blackmail in this context: an attempt to silence defense of the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders, doctrines, principles, values, practices, etc. by making defenders feel guilty.

It is a pernicious and potentially effective weapon of ideological warfare. But its effect has been blunted to a degree now that we have a term by which to conveniently identify it (thanks, Hamba) as in "His question, 'Is this something that Mormons should be proud of?' is an obvious attempt to shut down rebuttal by using emotional blackmail."

Edited February 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

40 years from now what other prophecies could be made?   Billtradomis says the following will happen sometime in the next 40 years [snip]

 

.... Put that on your google Calendar as a reminder and see how much I got right 

To me, it seems more like a wish list than a set of prophecies.

 

An apt basis on which to start one's own church, perhaps.

 

I know, I know. With startup and infrastructure costs, it's far more efficient to hijack someone else's.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Hamba Tuhan came up with the term, so he can correct me as he sees fit.

 

Correction: I didn't come up with the term; Dr Susan Forward did. It's a common definition used by professional therapists. In short, it's an attempt to use fear, obligation, and guilt to control the behaviour of another person, often in the form of threats.

 

For example, a husband may say to his wife, 'If you keep defending your mother, I simply won't be able to stay in this house, and then the kids won't have a father. How will you feel about that?' This threat is effective because the man knows his wife fears losing him, feels obligated to keep the family intact, and will accept the manipulator's insistence that she's the guilty party.

 

It's a clever manipulation designed to turn what the victim values (family, Church membership, etc.) into a tool of control.

[Brian 2.0]

Correction: I didn't come up with the term; Dr Susan Forward did. It's a common definition used by professional therapists. In short, it's an attempt to use fear, obligation, and guilt to control the behaviour of another person, often in the form of threats.

 

For example, a husband may say to his wife, 'If you keep defending your mother, I simply won't be able to stay in this house, and then the kids won't have a father. How will you feel about that?' This threat is effective because the man knows his wife fears losing him, feels obligated to keep the family intact, and will accept the manipulator's insistence that she's the guilty party.

 

It's a clever manipulation designed to turn what the victim values (family, Church membership, etc.) into a tool of control.

 

 

Sort of like, "if you don't takes down your podcasts, we simply cannot have you in our membership, and you will no longer be sealed to your family.  How will you feel about that?"

[Freedom]

Sort of like, "if you don't takes down your podcasts, we simply cannot have you in our membership, and you will no longer be sealed to your family.  How will you feel about that?"

No, to make humba's example comparable to yours it would be "if you do stop sleeping with other women and beating me when you come home, I will leave you'. You see, Humba's example was bullying just to get his own way, your example is reminding someone of a covenant and the accompanying consequences of violating these covenants. You would propose anarchy where anybody can do and say what ever they want without a consequence. 

[DBMormon]

To me, it seems more like a wish list than a set of prophecies.

 

An apt basis on which to start one's own church, perhaps.

 

I know, I know. With startup and infrastructure costs, it's far more efficient to hijack someone else's.

check back in 40 years and we will see if it is a wish list or reality

[mfbukowski]

check back in 40 years and we will see if it is a wish list or reality

I have it on firm authority that in 28 years, Uganda will nuke everyone on the planet and we won't have to worry about it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Correction: I didn't come up with the term; Dr Susan Forward did. It's a common definition used by professional therapists. In short, it's an attempt to use fear, obligation, and guilt to control the behaviour of another person, often in the form of threats.

 

For example, a husband may say to his wife, 'If you keep defending your mother, I simply won't be able to stay in this house, and then the kids won't have a father. How will you feel about that?' This threat is effective because the man knows his wife fears losing him, feels obligated to keep the family intact, and will accept the manipulator's insistence that she's the guilty party.

 

It's a clever manipulation designed to turn what the victim values (family, Church membership, etc.) into a tool of control.

But it was you who made the astute application to what critics do when they try to shame the Church's defenders into shutting up. As in "You are being unChristlike to oppose me." Christ Himself was/is not backward about warning against and condemning wrongdoing and falsehood.

[Scott Lloyd]

check back in 40 years and we will see if it is a wish list or reality

As the thread title proclaims, the clock is running.

[KevinG]

Sort of like, "if you don't takes down your podcasts, we simply cannot have you in our membership, and you will no longer be sealed to your family.  How will you feel about that?"

Hahahahaha!

No.

[BCSpace]

As you know, I agree with the 30-40 year number.  It's an estimate but is based on a few things...

 

24 years between beginning of U.S. civil rights movement (Brown v BOE) and OD2.

 

34 years between OD2 and Church beginning to disavow racist teachings (Professor Bott interview & fallout).

 

35 years between President Kimball's letter to the church indicating that women can pray in every meeting they attend and when it actually started happening.

 

In 30-40 years, today's teenagers will be our Bishops, RS Presidents, and Stake Presidents.

 

I'm not asking you to agree with me.  Just telling you my thought behind the numbers.

 

I hope you'll still be with us when you are 100.

 

Here's my counter prophecy.  In 30-40 years, the issue of state recognized homosexual marriage will be seen for what it actually is, a matter of welfare and not civil rights.  In addition, homosexuality will still not rise to the level of suspect classification in law.

[rockpond]

Hamba Tuhan came up with the term, so he can correct me as he sees fit. But this is how I would define emotional blackmail in this context: an attempt to silence defense of the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders, doctrines, principles, values, practices, etc. by making defenders feel guilty.

It is a pernicious and potentially effective weapon of ideological warfare. But its effect has been blunted to a degree now that we have a term by which to conveniently identify it (thanks, Hamba) as in "His question, 'Is this something that Mormons should be proud of?' is an obvious attempt to shut down rebuttal by using emotional blackmail."

Nobody is being silenced here. And, no need to feel guilty. You've said (in other threads) that retention and growth are not necessary for the true church.

But, you can call it whatever you like... Just be sure to apply it equally to those who agree with you as well as those who don't. That you start a thread which mischaracterizes Dehlin, misrepresents those who feel similarly, mocks the suffering of our gay brothers & sisters, and then seek to claim the moral high ground is laughable.