rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 It isn't [yet] necessary. When it becomes necessary, then it will be changed. That's one of the purposes and reasons why the Proclamation was issued in 1995. Marriage equality was the law in many states when the temple film was redone. We've had the proclamation for almost 20 years now. They've had a long time to change the language in the temple. I am surprised that it wasn't done.
rongo Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 At the time it was written the Church was living plural marriage which was neither legal nor lawful.The idea that "legally and lawfully" has anything to do with civil marriage doesn't hold up historically. It refers to priesthood law.I agree, but even polygamy was seen as a series of man/woman marriages. They were never regarded as Moonie group marriages, polyfidelity, or anything like that. Multiple man/woman sealings/marriages, each of which was one-on-one.
rongo Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Marriage equality was the law in many states when the temple film was redone. We've had the proclamation for almost 20 years now. They've had a long time to change the language in the temple. I am surprised that it wasn't done.Yes, but we aren't yet in a position where we are being threatened because we don't allow gay marriage *ecclesiastically.* Legal gay marriages in states or countries doesn't yet threaten the Church itself. I think the time is coming when it will, and this will necessitate a wording change when people/groups try to leverage it.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 At the time it was written the Church was living plural marriage which was neither legal nor lawful.The idea that "legally and lawfully" has anything to do with civil marriage doesn't hold up historically. It refers to priesthood law. I think that's probably the best explanation as to why they haven't change the language in the temple to specify man-woman marriage.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Yes, but we aren't yet in a position where we are being threatened because we don't allow gay marriage *ecclesiastically.* Legal gay marriages in states or countries doesn't yet threaten the Church itself. I think the time is coming when it will, and this will necessitate a wording change when people/groups try to leverage it. Okay... well, we were talking about the temple definition of the law of chastity. Not potential threats due to not recognizing gay marriage. But, as I said, I think such a change is possible and I'm surprised it hasn't already happened as they've known for quite some time where this was all headed. Edited February 18, 2015 by rockpond
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 Oh gosh, I hope not.I had already noted this and surmised that it was an error brought on by auto-correct. California boy confirmed it was a typo. Bummer of a coincidence though, isn't it?
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) It's not naivete. Here is the mission statement of Mormon Stories: http://mormonstories.org/about/ And what I've listened to on MS over the years has supported that mission statement. I suspect that what you're actually upset about is that MS has helped bring attention to some of the messier issues in our doctrine and history. It seems to be those issues that often are a catalyst for people leaving the church.He brought attention to them without helping people understand that there are reasonable explanations, defenses and Mormon-friendly analyses which, if they don't provide definitive answers in some cases, at least leave the matter open to the degree that faith can continue to flourish until more knowledge can be had. In the process, he eventually declared his disbelief in some fundamental and core doctrines of the Church, all the while heaping negative criticism on it. In this way, he facilitated the apostasy of numerous struggling or jaded Church members. This is so notwithstanding whatever the written mission statement might have said. Dehlin has been a loose cannon for a long time. Yeah, I have a problem with that. And though I'm dearly glad I didn't have to sit on his disciplinary council, I can't criticize or oppose its decision. You talk about my not being concerned about Church growth and retention. I'm concerned enough to deplore what Dehlin has done. Edited February 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Erroneous post. Edited February 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 When you use the word "impact," it seems to connote that our behavior in some way takes Him by surprise, if not off guard. I can't accept that as true, considering that God has perfect knowledge and is thus not apt to be surprised by anything. I don't know about taking Him by surprise either. After all, it is true He knows the options ahead of us and Himself. But I still tend to think I surprise Him when I do something charitable. He sees me walking around and living my life for me too much.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) He brought attention to them without helping people understand that there are reasonable explanations, defenses and Mormon-friendly analyses which, if they don't provide definitive answers in some cases, at least leave the matter open to the degree that faith can continue to flourish until more knowledge can be had. In the process, he eventually declared his disbelief in some fundamental and core doctrines of the Church, all the while heaping negative criticism on it. In this way, he facilitated the apostasy of numerous struggling or jaded Church members. This is so notwithstanding whatever the written mission statement might have said.Dehlin has been a loose cannon for a long time.Yeah, I have a problem with that. And though I'm dearly glad I didn't have to sit on his disciplinary council, I can't criticize or oppose its decision.You talk about my not being concerned about Church growth and retention. I'm concerned enough to deplore what Dehlin has done. There are actually a lot of reasonable explanations, defenses, and Mormon-friendly analyses in the podcasts. One of the best was produced just a few months ago, by Dehlin who was no longer even a believer at the time. I highly recommend it: Fiona & Terryl Givens and "The Crucible of Doubt". We need to realize that even the Church's reasonable explanations, defenses, and Mormon-friendly analyses of issues in the gospel topics essays have become the "shelf-breaking" last straw for some of our fellow church members. I think it's fine if you want to deplore what Dehlin has done. He created channels for discussion of troubling issues that have been causing pain, isolation, and loss of faith for members of our church long before he came on the scene. That's not an easy thing to deal with as a church and faith community. But we do need to effectively deal with those issues. Edited February 18, 2015 by rockpond
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 There are actually a lot of reasonable explanations, defenses, and Mormon-friendly analyses in the podcasts. One of the best was produced just a few months ago, by Dehlin who was no longer even a believer at the time. I highly recommend it: Fiona & Terryl Givens and "The Crucible of Doubt". We need to realize that even the Church's reasonable explanations, defenses, and Mormon-friendly analyses of issues in the gospel topics essays have become the "shelf-breaking" last straw for some of our fellow church members. I think it's fine if you want to deplore what Dehlin has done. He created channels for discussion of troubling issues that have been causing pain, isolation, and loss of faith for members of our church long before he came on the scene. That's not an easy thing to deal with as a church and faith community. But we do need to effectively deal with those issues. To be clear, though, there have been 27 episodes since then--and a number of other things posted that aren't podcasts but often critiques. And to be clear some episodes take a rather neutral side to it all (which honestly, Scott might see the Givens' episode in that way). I really enjoyed that podcast, but to see something that can be termed faithful every 30 or so episodes doesn't really argue that there are actually a lot. There are very very few. To be clear, though. I have no concern about whether they are critical or not. Most are just people talking about themselves. Cute, sometimes interesting, and often boring. But I listen enough. Can't help it. I like to hear from people particularly different perspectives. 1
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) To be clear, though, there have been 27 episodes since then--and a number of other things posted that aren't podcasts but often critiques. And to be clear some episodes take a rather neutral side to it all (which honestly, Scott might see the Givens' episode in that way). I really enjoyed that podcast, but to see something that can be termed faithful every 30 or so episodes doesn't really argue that there are actually a lot. There are very very few.To be clear, though. I have no concern about whether they are critical or not. Most are just people talking about themselves. Cute, sometimes interesting, and often boring. But I listen enough. Can't help it. I like to hear from people particularly different perspectives. Yeah, since that time a big portion of what Dehlin has posted has been about his excommunication. I haven't found those to be very interesting because he has become so adamant about his non-belief that I could never understand why he'd be fighting against the disciplinary action. I think that most episodes fall into the neutral category. They are the stories of individuals in and out of the church. I don't have the time to go back through every episode to determine which ones would be "faith promoting", "neutral", or "faith damaging" but I never felt like the ratio was as bad as many believe. But here is the key part for me... Those podcast episodes kept me thinking through the issues long enough to work my mind around them at a time when I felt so betrayed by the church that I was ready to be done. Edited February 18, 2015 by rockpond
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Yeah, since that time a big portion of what Dehlin has posted has been about his excommunication. I haven't found those to be very interesting because he has become so adamant about his non-belief that I could never understand why he'd be fighting against the disciplinary action. I think that most episodes fall into the neutral category. They are the stories of individuals in and out of the church. I don't have the time to go back through every episode to determine which ones would be "faith promoting", "neutral", or "faith damaging" but I never felt like the ratio was as bad as many believe. But here is the key part for me... Those podcast episodes kept me thinking through the issues long enough to work my mind around them at a time when I felt so betrayed by the church that I was ready to be done. It's not too hard to glance through and see which have anything near faith promoting people on it. I just open the list of them all and glance. Takes me just a minute. It looks to be about a 30-1 ratio, so I'm not sure the dry spell since the Givens' is atypical. But there may be some disagreement about what is faith promoting compared to what is not. There was one about 26 episodes before Givens' that was Adam Miller. I guess it might even be better to say 15-1 since most are expanded to two or more.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 It's not too hard to glance through and see which have anything near faith promoting people on it. I just open the list of them all and glance. Takes me just a minute. It looks to be about a 30-1 ratio, so I'm not sure the dry spell since the Givens' is atypical. But there may be some disagreement about what is faith promoting compared to what is not. There was one about 26 episodes before Givens' that was Adam Miller. I guess it might even be better to say 15-1 since most are expanded to two or more. Okay... but which ones in there are "faith damaging"? I don't see many (if any) of those in that timeframe either.
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Okay... but which ones in there are "faith damaging"? I don't see many (if any) of those in that timeframe either. I'm sure plenty here would argue that almost all of them. but as I said, I'm truly not interested in the categories. I like to hear people's perspectives. None of them have damaged my faith--they are far too shallow and such for that. No offense to them but that is just the nature of the media. Although some of them have posed things in a way that made me stop and think. Made me want to learn more. That's always cool too. I haven't listened to all and skip quite a few as they come out week to week, so I can't really comment on the whole of the enterprise even if that's kinda how my comments have come off. just note this little qualifier, please. Edited February 18, 2015 by stemelbow
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 None of them have damaged my faith--they are far too shallow and such for that. No offense to them but that is just the nature of the media. Although some of them have posed things in a way that made me stop and think. Made me want to learn more. That's always cool too. This statement ^^^ is fairly accurate for me as well. And I imagine that faith-promoting vs faith-damaging probably has a lot to do with one's personal perspective and background.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 I don't know about taking Him by surprise either. After all, it is true He knows the options ahead of us and Himself. But I still tend to think I surprise Him when I do something charitable. He sees me walking around and living my life for me too much.When you consider that He knows each of our mindsets, inclinations, stimuli and potential better than we individually do ourselves, the notion that He would be taken aback by anything we do is absurd.
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 When you consider that He knows each of our mindsets, inclinations, stimuli and potential better than we individually do ourselves, the notion that He would be taken aback by anything we do is absurd. Not so sure. It could be that He knows us well enough but isn't so perfectly in control of who we are that He is surprised by what we decide to do. Granted if ever He is surprised by any of us it would be extraordinarily rare.
mfbukowski Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 There are actually a lot of reasonable explanations, defenses, and Mormon-friendly analyses in the podcasts. One of the best was produced just a few months ago, by Dehlin who was no longer even a believer at the time. I highly recommend it: Fiona & Terryl Givens and "The Crucible of Doubt". We need to realize that even the Church's reasonable explanations, defenses, and Mormon-friendly analyses of issues in the gospel topics essays have become the "shelf-breaking" last straw for some of our fellow church members. I think it's fine if you want to deplore what Dehlin has done. He created channels for discussion of troubling issues that have been causing pain, isolation, and loss of faith for members of our church long before he came on the scene. That's not an easy thing to deal with as a church and faith community. But we do need to effectively deal with those issues.Interesting fact: That link has been taken down. When did you check it? Just curious if it was just taken down.
mfbukowski Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 This statement ^^^ is fairly accurate for me as well. And I imagine that faith-promoting vs faith-damaging probably has a lot to do with one's personal perspective and background."I am not disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place" - Sterling McMurrin
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 "I am not disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place" - Sterling McMurrin Exactly.
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Interesting fact: That link has been taken down. When did you check it? Just curious if it was just taken down. the podcast is still available. http://mormonstories.org/fiona-and-terryl-givens-and-the-crucible-of-doubt/ Don't know what's up the link he gave.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Interesting fact: That link has been taken down. When did you check it? Just curious if it was just taken down. Nope, not taken down... Copy/paste error on my part. I've corrected it in my post. My apologies. And here it is again... http://mormonstories.org/fiona-and-terryl-givens-and-the-crucible-of-doubt/ Edited February 18, 2015 by rockpond
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 "I am not disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place" - Sterling McMurrin Another recent podcast had McMurrin as one of it's subjects. http://mormonstories.org/lowell-bennion-sterling-mcmurrin-and-obert-tanner/
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 We need to realize that even the Church's reasonable explanations, defenses, and Mormon-friendly analyses of issues in the gospel topics essays have become the "shelf-breaking" last straw for some of our fellow church members. I know this is the talking point Dehlin has been trying to popularize for a long time. That was the purpose behind his bogus "survey." I suspect that in many if not most all cases those who claim the Church's defenders drove them out of the Church were already pretty much out already and relish the chance to seize on "apologists" as being the cause of their disaffection. It has the potential to bring discredit upon defenders, if not to silence them altogether. It is an example of the emotional blackmail we have been talking about these past few days. Tow years ago, I posted a message on this board in a thread titled "Does Apologetics Drive People away from the Church?" In the post I drew an analogy -- perhaps more of a metaphor -- that I think is pertinent to this point. I reproduce the post here: The talking point du jour seems to be that apologists -- even if one sets aside the alleged nastiness of Peterson et al -- drive people from the Church because the arguments and logic they provide to answer concerns and allay doubts are not satisfactory. To this, I would reply that apologetics, like any form of opinion writing or expression, is more persuasive to some people than it is to others. That is the nature of public discourse. Some hearers and listeners, for one reason or another, are not open to being persuaded. Some, due to prejudice, past influences, or whatever reason are inherently predisposed not to change their minds, no matter how reasonable the argument.Does it make sense to blame apologists and apologetics organizations for people leaving the Church just because the apologists are not successful in every instance? To say -- implicitly or explicitly -- that they ought not be doing apologetics, because they do more harm than good?I liken it to the following scenario.A guard is poised at the edge of a steep mountainside to prevent a group of children from tumbling over the edge. He employs a variety of approaches ranging from gentle persuasion and humor to stringent warning to sharp reproach to outright threats to get them to come away from the edge.Some heed him. Others, convinced that he is bent on hindering their enjoyment, ignore his warnings. He actually rescues a few just as they are going over the edge and sets them back on safe ground. One or two he grabs as they are going over, but he lacks the strength to hold them. They slip from his grasp and are seriously injured.Later, at a town meeting, some people assert that the guard should be removed from his post because he has done more harm than good and that his efforts have actually driven children over the edge.
Recommended Posts