The Clock Is Running On This False Prophecy

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I won't deal individually with everything on your laundry list, but I'm curious about the "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" item.

This definitely has gained great popularity among the Latter-day Saints. I myself selected it for performance by our ward choir last November at Thanksgiving time; the members enjoyed singing it.

But I wonder what you think was the reason for it being excluded from the current (published in 1985) hymnbook. I wonder, because I have heard rumors that some think it was due to heavy-handed censorship on the part of Church leaders because it was too Protestant-sounding, or some such nonsense. This is pure buncomb.

Truth is, when that hymn was in the old hymnbook, it was scarcely ever sung or even recognized. When the new hymnbbook was compiled, surveys were taken and, as a purely practical matter, many of the hymns that lacked popularity were not retained for the scarce slots in the new publication. "Come Thou Fount" was among those that didn't make the cut.

It took Mack Wilberg, with his BYU choruses and later with the Tabernacle Choir, to popularize "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" among Mormons, and this was years after the publication of the new hymnbbook.

If you had been alive and been a member of the Church pre-1985 as I was, I daresay you wouldn't have sung or even recognized that hymn either.

Even today, there are many beautiful pieces in the hymnbbook that are scarcely ever sung because they are not well known and they are not well-known because they are scarcely sung. It's an ongoing phenomenon.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

What I have learned from this thread is this:  If you have questions that apologists can't answer...you're not intelligent.  Emotional blackmail is really how the church keeps their members....in fact in all areas of mormonism.  Pay tithing..get to see your daughter married...leave the group it is because of something you have said or some disobedience you have done...but you know..guess what??  People in all areas and phases in and out of the church are  not stupid.  This may work both ways..but love, friendship, alnd personal knowledge should never attract conditional love,

Edited February 15, 2015 by Jeanne

[Jeanne]

Just wanted to let you know that I know a lot of people in and out of the church who are intelligent but can't spell cat.  Being scholars does noat mean one can really comprehend,,with that,,compassion goes out the window,,

[Calm]

Even today, there are many beautiful pieces in the hymnbbook that are scarcely ever sung because they are not well known and they are not well-known because they are scarcely sung. It's an ongoing phenomenon.

Our chorister generally goes through the hymnbook first by theme for the month and then numerically so over the years she tends to hit almost all eventually.

Edited February 15, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I think the difference between emotional blackmail and consequences is that consequences are generally known up front, are tied directly to the behaviour and are pretty much standard for everyone.  Of course in a one on one relationship, everyone is not involved, but an outsider would be able to say 'this consequence makes sense if you act this way'.  And consequences don't need emotion to give them weight, though of course since emotion is always involved in human activity it will be part of the decision making process….but it won't be set up so that negative emotion is automatically the main reason that someone makes that choice (though that may be why).

 

Emotional blackmail is meant to rely on negative emotion to manipulate behavior….fear, guilt, and obligation.  While members may respond to commandments and standards based on these, I believe the Church as a whole is trying to move members towards a higher motivation, one of love and a desire to serve others as well as God…positive emotions.

 

So it can feel like emotional blackmail to those who make their choices based on fear, guilt or a sense of obligation; to those who don't, it will feel more like an invitation.

 

Behaviours that are actually emotional blackmail, imo, can't really feel like anything else besides intentional manipulation by fear, etc.

Edited February 15, 2015 by calmoriah

[california boy]

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.

Welfare?  Could you explain?

[tonie]

I would say that Rockpond has a point and Scott has a point about "ungodliness".

 

My impression of Rockponds discouragement with members of the Church is that, he beleives we can and should strive to be better voice in dialogue with others. This thread, in my opinion,  is just one of many threads, by a fellow Saint, intended to ridicule another person. 

 

We are not perfect, but we could strive to be better. My impression of Rockpond's dislike of what has happened in this thread, is that we, as Saints, shouldn't be the one's returning insult for insult or even being the ones who initiate the insults and ridicule.

 

Concerning the  "ungodliness"  statement; we something we all have it. And we all must ride ourselves of all ungodliness.

[Freedom]

What I have learned from this thread is this:  If you have questions that apologists can't answer...you're not intelligent.  Emotional blackmail is really how the church keeps their members....in fact in all areas of mormonism.  Pay tithing..get to see your daughter married...leave the group it is because of something you have said or some disobedience you have done...but you know..guess what??  People in all areas and phases in and out of the church are  not stupid.  This may work both ways..but love, friendship, alnd personal knowledge should never attract conditional love,

Can you give an example of this from the thread?

 

As to your other point, why else have a church or any organization if there are no standards? It is not blackmail, you are not forced to be here. There is no threat, just a standard. If you want to go to the temple, here are the rules. They are laid out quite clearly. Nobody is accusing you of being stupid. People are not kicked out of the church because of their opinion, they are kicked out when they go from having an opinion to actively convincing others to join them in criticizing the church. If you don't like it, leave. I don't shop at certain stores because I don't like their products. I don't stay around and protest. They are not blackmailing my by saying 'if you want to shop here, you have to select from the products on our shelves'. The alternative is anarchy. You end up with the United Church of Canada where there are no set doctrines or standards. And this church is disappearing because there is nothing keeping it together.  There are no standards, no rules, no duty to follow anything. 

[Anteojito]

Out of John Dehlin's posted "confidential" conversation with his stake president has come his projection that within 30-40 years the Church will have reversed its position on homosexual behavior and, I would assume, pronounced the whole package OK including, presumably, same-sex "marriage" and attendant sealings in the temple.

 

I've seen others put this 40-year time frame on such a projection. I don't know what there is particularly significant about that 40-year number; perhaps they think it will take that long for all the current Church leaders to die off, thus clearing the way for a new sheriff in town, as it were.

 

So, I have this app on my mobile device that allows me to set a timer for pretty much any length that I choose. I have set it at 40 years, thus putting a time stamp on projections such as the above.

 

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.

 

So come back in 2055, and if I'm still here and able to raise my decrepit, hundred-year-old hands to maneuver a keyboard, we will revisit this.

I think that there is a very good chance that it will happen. I'm betting there were a lot of people who thought the church would never abandon polygamy and there were many others who believed that blacks would not get the priesthood in their lifetimes.

 

Homosexuality is only a big deal because we make it a big deal. 40 years from now, I think it will hardly be a topic of discussion.

 

I think as the church holds on to its stance, it will receive more and more pressure from outside sources. Just like with the priesthood ban. Universities will begin refusing to play sports games will BYU and other such things. Someone in congress will start talking about looking into the church's finances and its tax exempt status and so on.

 

If, say 25 years, the Prophet and President of the Church, Dieter Friedrich Uchtdorf, were to get up in conference or wherever and publish OD3 stating that gay sealings can be performed in temples, are you going to say he is a fallen prophet?

 

Please to say that it will never happen. I lived in Utah in 1978 as a non Mormon and a lot of our Mormon friends were quite shocked when OD2 came out

[rodheadlee]

The difference is that blacks were always promised the Priesthood at some future date. Homosexuals have never been promised Temple sealings at a future date.

[california boy]

 

I think that there is a very good chance that it will happen. I'm betting there were a lot of people who thought the church would never abandon polygamy and there were many others who believed that blacks would not get the priesthood in their lifetimes.

 

Homosexuality is only a big deal because we make it a big deal. 40 years from now, I think it will hardly be a topic of discussion.

 

I think as the church holds on to its stance, it will receive more and more pressure from outside sources. Just like with the priesthood ban. Universities will begin refusing to play sports games will BYU and other such things. Someone in congress will start talking about looking into the church's finances and its tax exempt status and so on.

 

If, say 25 years, the Prophet and President of the Church, Dieter Friedrich Uchtdorf, were to get up in conference or wherever and publish OD3 stating that gay sealings can be performed in temples, are you going to say he is a fallen prophet?

 

Please to say that it will never happen. I lived in Utah in 1978 as a non Mormon and a lot of our Mormon friends were quite shocked when OD2 came out

 

I think you are probably right.  Is all it would take is for church leaders to start looking at the sin of sexual relations outside of marriage as being the law of chastity.  I don't remember a exception to this when it comes to gay relations. The church has just made it an exception.  There are far more Bible statements condemning fornication and adultery than homosexual relations outside of marriage and none about homosexual relations within the bonds of marriage.

 

Church leaders aren't there right now, but church leaders weren't there on the blacks holding the priesthood in 1950's either.

[california boy]

The difference is that blacks were always promised the Priesthood at some future date. Homosexuals have never been promised Temple sealings at a future date.

 

You are misquoting the prophesy by Brigham Young.  He actually said that the negro would not receive the priesthood until ALL the rest of the children of Adam had the opportunity to received the priesthood.  This excuse comes up regularly but it is not fulfillment of the prophesy that Brigham Young received, or didn't receive.  I am not sure what the current church position is.  

 

Read the original prophesy, you will see that you are completely wrong.  An error church leaders have repeatedly used to make the 1978 revelation reconcile with what Brigham Young prophesied.  It doesn't.

[mikegriffith1]

Out of John Dehlin's posted "confidential" conversation with his stake president has come his projection that within 30-40 years the Church will have reversed its position on homosexual behavior and, I would assume, pronounced the whole package OK including, presumably, same-sex "marriage" and attendant sealings in the temple.

 

Well, Jehovah declared in the Old Testament that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral.  The Apostle Paul, who spoke with Christ, said the same thing in the New Testament.  Same-sex marriage contradicts every basic tenet of the doctrine of eternal marriage and eternal families. 

 

Same-sex marriage also goes against the mountain of science on the fact that men and women's brains are wired differently and that they respond to stimuli differently, which is why there is some nurturing and guidance that only dads can give and other nurturing and guidance that only moms can give. Anyone who is human and who is willing to be honest knows that are times when a child needs Mom and other times when they need Dad. That's just the natural order of things.

 

The fact that John Dehlin thinks that the Church will one reverse its doctrine on homosexuality and gay marriage tells me all I need to know about him.

[Anteojito]

The difference is that blacks were always promised the Priesthood at some future date. Homosexuals have never been promised Temple sealings at a future date.

"Homosexuals have never been promised Temple sealings at a future date" 

 

That we know of. Scripture on homosexuality is pretty scarce and what there is is open to interpretation. 

 

There is a lot of OT stuff that good LDS don't observe today that could have gotten them killed back then.

[rodheadlee]

You are misquoting the prophesy by Brigham Young.  He actually said that the negro would not receive the priesthood until ALL the rest of the children of Adam had the opportunity to received the priesthood.  This excuse comes up regularly but it is not fulfillment of the prophesy that Brigham Young received, or didn't receive.  I am not sure what the current church position is.  

 

Read the original prophesy, you will see that you are completely wrong.  An error church leaders have repeatedly used to make the 1978 revelation reconcile with what Brigham Young prophesied.  It doesn't.

How do you know all the rest of the children of Adam have not had the opportunity to receive the Priesthood?

 

Anyway I wasn't thinking of BY's prophecy specifically, just the general feeling/talks in the Church leading up to 1978. Are you going to make me go look up talks from the 1900s?. I really don't feel like it. Was there or was there not  a general consensus among the Brethren that the blacks would receive the Priesthood at a future date?

Edited February 16, 2015 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

"Homosexuals have never been promised Temple sealings at a future date" 

 

That we know of. Scripture on homosexuality is pretty scarce and what there is is open to interpretation. 

 

There is a lot of OT stuff that good LDS don't observe today that could have gotten them killed back then.

We have current living prophets that have made the doctrinal call on SSM. There is an open thread on it here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64901-elder-christofferson-to-church-news-doctrine-is-not-changing/      

Also Paul's writings are not OT.

Edited February 16, 2015 by rodheadlee

[california boy]

How do you know all the rest of the children of Adam have not had the opportunity to receive the Priesthood?

 

Anyway I wasn't thinking of BY's prophecy specifically, just the general feeling/talks in the Church leading up to 1978. Are you going to make me go look up talks from the 1900s?. I really don't feel like it. Was there or was there not  a general consensus among the Brethren that the blacks would receive the Priesthood at a future date?

 

Seriously?  Everyone in China has had the opportunity to receive the priesthood?  All the children of Adam that have yet to be born have had the opportunity to receive the priesthood?  Truth is, just a fraction of the earth's population has had the opportunity to hold the priesthood.  There are over 7 billion people on the earth now and what 15 million members?  

 

It was the revelation/prophesy of Brigham Young that the whole ban on negros holding the priesthood is based.  How can you not think of it or know anything about what he actually said? You don't have to look up talks in the 1900's.  However those talks will confirm exactly what I am saying. Just read what Brigham Young actually said.  

 

When the church started getting a lot of pressure about this issue, the conversation went from what Brigham Young actually said to "someday they will receive the priesthood.  If they had actually stayed with what Brigham Young prophesied, there is no way the priesthood ban would have been lifted until the Millenium.  Why do you think Bruce R. McConkie was so adament that the negro was not going to receive the priesthood any time soon. 

 

Do a little research before you make claims that they were always promised the priesthood eventually.  Yeah they were promised the priesthood AFTER all the other sons of Adam had been given the opportunity.  Hasn't happened yet has it.

[Anteojito]

We have current living prophets that have made the doctrinal call on SSM. There is an open thread on it here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64901-elder-christofferson-to-church-news-doctrine-is-not-changing/      

Also Paul's writings are not OT.

"We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a religionship in the life heretofore.

 

From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

 

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

 

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine."

 

 Faithfully yours,

[signed]

George Albert Smith

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

David O. McKay

 

Maybe God doesn't tell the Prophets everything, or maybe they interpret things differently at times. I don't think that the current First Presidency who agree with the above statements made by the First Presidency a few decades ago. Maybe a few decades from now things will be interpreted differently about SSM.

 

Also, I was thinking about Leviticus not the teaching of Paul.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think you are probably right.  Is all it would take is for church leaders to start looking at the sin of sexual relations outside of marriage as being the law of chastity.  I don't remember a exception to this when it comes to gay relations. The church has just made it an exception.  There are far more Bible statements condemning fornication and adultery than homosexual relations outside of marriage and none about homosexual relations within the bonds of marriage.

 

Church leaders aren't there right now, but church leaders weren't there on the blacks holding the priesthood in 1950's either.

The laws of God are not bound by governmental decree or judicial edict. In other words, governmental redefinition of marriage does not change God's definition of it. Consider the quotation from Elder Nelson in my signature.

[Scott Lloyd]

Seriously?  Everyone in China has had the opportunity to receive the priesthood?  All the children of Adam that have yet to be born have had the opportunity to receive the priesthood?  Truth is, just a fraction of the earth's population has had the opportunity to hold the priesthood.  There are over 7 billion people on the earth now and what 15 million members?  

 

It was the revelation/prophesy of Brigham Young that the whole ban on negros holding the priesthood is based.  How can you not think of it or know anything about what he actually said? You don't have to look up talks in the 1900's.  However those talks will confirm exactly what I am saying. Just read what Brigham Young actually said.  

 

When the church started getting a lot of pressure about this issue, the conversation went from what Brigham Young actually said to "someday they will receive the priesthood.  If they had actually stayed with what Brigham Young prophesied, there is no way the priesthood ban would have been lifted until the Millenium.  Why do you think Bruce R. McConkie was so adament that the negro was not going to receive the priesthood any time soon. 

 

Do a little research before you make claims that they were always promised the priesthood eventually.  Yeah they were promised the priesthood AFTER all the other sons of Adam had been given the opportunity.  Hasn't happened yet has it.

It has happened in the sense that any male over age 12 today who embraces the gospel of Christ can receive the priesthood if he is found worthy.

[rockpond]

You are misquoting the prophesy by Brigham Young. He actually said that the negro would not receive the priesthood until ALL the rest of the children of Adam had the opportunity to received the priesthood. This excuse comes up regularly but it is not fulfillment of the prophesy that Brigham Young received, or didn't receive. I am not sure what the current church position is.

Read the original prophesy, you will see that you are completely wrong. An error church leaders have repeatedly used to make the 1978 revelation reconcile with what Brigham Young prophesied. It doesn't.

This tangent fits the thread title quite well: the clock ran out on Brigham Young's false prophecy in 1978.

[rockpond]

It has happened in the sense that any male over age 12 today who embraces the gospel of Christ can receive the priesthood if he is found worthy.

Wow. That is some seriously circular logic.

[california boy]

This tangent fits the thread title quite well: the clock ran out on Brigham Young's false prophecy in 1978.

I think that has been the case since the founding of the church.  So if you use that logic, were church leaders just being mean to not give the priesthood to the "negros"  sooner than over a hundred years later??

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

What I recall saying is that global or numerical dominance is not necessary to validate the truth claims of the Church. CFR that I've said growth and retention are not necessary in the Church.

 

Perhaps I said at some point that renouncing laws and commandments of God is too great a price to pay for attracting and retaining adherents. Is that what you have in mind? If so, I would respond that the Church can be anxiously engaged in convert baptism and retention without making such an unthinkable compromise.

 

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.

Citing his and others' assertions that the Church will in the future renounce provisions of the law of chastity is not mischaracterizing him or them. And contradicting such prognostications -- even doing it somewhat facetiously -- does not violate any moral or ethical code I subscribe to. Intimating that it does strikes me as rather weird -- except that it seems to fit an all-too-common pattern of attempted emotional blackmail that has been identified here.

And I reject your accusation that I have "mocked the suffering of our gay brothers and sisters." What I did, in contradiction to your distorted rendition of LDS belief on the matter, is assert that they have as much access to the plan of happiness as anyone else, subject to the same condition: overcoming ungodly dispositions.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow. That is some seriously circular logic.

Until we get the chance to ask Brigham Young what he meant by the statement, my supposition is just as plausible as yours.

It's obvious from OD2 that a later prophet, Spencer W. Kimball, would not have agreed with your interpretation.