Reform Mormonism? The Future Splintering Of The Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

That's what I was thinking when I read it. Just wait. No need for anyone to be sneaky. As we grow, SSm will be so common and accepted it'll be silly to think it was every fought against. The Church itself will be opening it's arms to gay people like never before claiming things like, sexual orientation is an eternal component of mankind.

You're welcome to your opinion but you're in for disappointment if you expect the Church of Jesus Christ to be subject to the shifting whims of society where eternal law is concerned.

 

And incidentally here's the reading on the countdown clock for your arbitrary 25-year deadline by which all of this socialization of the Church of Jesus Christ is to have transpired: 24 years, 11 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 7 minutes and 10 seconds and counting down.

 

Edited to add:

 

The countdown for the much-later-but-no-more-realistic 40-year-deadline now stands at 39 years, 11 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 5 minutes and 15 seconds and counting down.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

You're welcome to your opinion but you're in for disappointment if you expect the Church of Jesus Christ to be subject to the shifting whims of society where eternal law is concerned.

 

And incidentally here's the reading on the countdown clock for your arbitrary deadline by which all of this socialization of the Church of Jesus Christ is to have transpired: 24 years, 11 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 7 minutes and 10 seconds and counting down.

 

Edited to add:

 

The countdown for the much-later-but-no-more-realistic 30-year-deadline now stands at 39 years, 11 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 5 minutes and 15 seconds and counting down.

I know it. At one point some leader of the Church told everyone that they are in for a sad awakening if they thought the Church would be "subject to the shifting whims of society where eternal law is concerned". Then suddenly polygamy was disavowed, interracial marriage was ok'd and blacks were given the priesthood. My guess may be off a bit, but we shall see.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that toward the end Kate Kelly moved toward the contentious end of that scale.  But in the beginning their intent was to encourage the prophet to ask on their behalf.  From what I recall that idea was based on the scriptural admonition to knock, on the idea that President Hinckley once floated that women did not have the priesthood because there was no "agitation" for it, and based on these quotes from our history.

With Kelly, it was always "my way or the highway." She held her latent hostility in check only until it became crystal clear that her "nothing-less-will-do" attitude was not going to prevali.

 

By the way, I agree with those who say President Hinckley's use of the word agitation was only by way of pointing out -- correctly -- that women by-and-large seemed content with the status quo pertaining to the priesthood. To suggest that he was hinting that he might be open to change if women began staging protests is an unreasonably tight stretch.

[KevinG]

...an unreasonably tight stretch.

Which dovetails nicely with the "are leggings modest" discussion.

[rockpond]

With Kelly, it was always "my way or the highway." She held her latent hostility in check only until it became crystal clear that her "nothing-less-will-do" attitude was not going to prevali.

 

By the way, I agree with those who say President Hinckley's use of the word agitation was only by way of pointing out -- correctly -- that women by-and-large seemed content with the status quo pertaining to the priesthood. To suggest that he was hinting that he might be open to change if women began staging protests is an unreasonably tight stretch.

 

I'm glad you know what was going on inside Kelly's head and heart in the beginning.  Do you always think the worst of everyone?

 

As for President Hinckley... I take him at his word.  He could have just said that women are content but, he didn't.

[KevinG]

I'm glad you know what was going on inside Kelly's head and heart in the beginning.  Do you always think the worst of everyone?

 

As for President Hinckley... I take him at his word.  He could have just said that women are content but, he didn't.

Some people take the Bible at its word and are for stoning gays... Just sayin'

Be careful what you advocate.

[Scott Lloyd]

I know it. At one point some leader of the Church told everyone that they are in for a sad awakening if they thought the Church would be "subject to the shifting whims of society where eternal law is concerned". Then suddenly polygamy was disavowed, interracial marriage was ok'd and blacks were given the priesthood. My guess may be off a bit, but we shall see.

Your guess is way off, as in "won't ever happen." (See my thread, which I think is still open, quoting Elder Christofferson.)

 

For decades, Church leaders said blacks would one day be eligible to receive the priesthood. It was only a matter of time (based upon affirmative statements from Church leaders, not upon vain prognostications and wishful thinking from critics). The interracial marriage thing was temporary, based no doubt on the understanding that offspring from such a marriage would be ineligible for the priesthood. That ceased to be an issue after the restriction was lifted.

 

Plural marriage was and always has been temporary and conditioned on what the Lord decrees at any given time.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Which dovetails nicely with the "are leggings modest" discussion.

Will that be the next staged protest, since the wear-pants-to-church thing didn't seem to go anywhere?

[rockpond]

Some people take the Bible at its word and are for stoning gays... Just sayin'

Be careful what you advocate.

 

Yes.  Obviously there is a difference between petitioning the prophet and stoning someone.

[KevinG]

Yes.  Obviously there is a difference between petitioning the prophet and stoning someone.

My point was about interpretations being obvious. Not stoning gays, stoning prophets, getting stoned with prophets, prophetic gays, gay prophets getting stoned and ordaining women named Kelly, or any other variation.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm glad you know what was going on inside Kelly's head and heart in the beginning.  Do you always think the worst of everyone?

 

No. But neither am I intentionally oblivious to obvious intent from a pattern of public statements and behavior.

 

As for President Hinckley... I take him at his word.  He could have just said that women are content but, he didn't.

 

There are typically many ways one might express something; the English language is beautifully versatile in that respect. But that does not excuse wresting a man's words from context and reading in unintended meaning. It's striking to me how often the phrase "take him at his word" is used to rationalize such a thing.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

[deleted]

Edited February 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

Quote function doesn't work on this computer, but Scott Lloyd not sure that I agree with your memory of the African descent ban,  yes it had been said that those of African descent would eventually get the Priesthood.  But BRM in his mistitled "Mormon Doctrine" indicated that the "eventually" would be the Millennium and we had, I believe, at least one GA said something like "Over my dead body."  And when the Priesthood was extended there was a caution against inter-racial marriage because of the social difficulties and strain on the marriage relationship -- that was included, I believe, in most of the newspaper announcements of the ban.  The membership, however, promptly ignored that cautionary comment.   You are correct about polygamy being only for times when the Lord decrees it, but can you imagine what the reaction would be if the Lord decreed it tomorrow and the Prophet proclaimed?  You would definitely see a thinning of the flock, let alone what the reaction would be of our erstwhile political allies down in the former Confederacy.

[sethpayne]

 

 

Take this board, for example. There is a lot said here that I don't like, but I stick around anyway, because it's where I'm generally comfortable.

 

 

Kind of like how many "progressive" Mormons feel about the Church.  

[stemelbow]

Your guess is way off, as in "won't ever happen." (See my thread, which I think is still open, quoting Elder Christofferson.)

 

For decades, Church leaders said blacks would one day be eligible to receive the priesthood. It was only a matter of time (based upon affirmative statements from Church leaders, not upon vain prognostications and wishful thinking from critics). The interracial marriage thing was temporary, based no doubt on the understanding that offspring from such a marriage would be ineligible for the priesthood. That ceased to be an issue after the restriction was lifted.

 

Plural marriage was and always has been temporary and conditioned on what the Lord decrees at any given time.

Don't worry. I have no intention on teasing you when, as events unfold, you are proven wrong. it happens. We're all wrong at various times in our lives.

[Scott Lloyd]

Quote function doesn't work on this computer, but Scott Lloyd not sure that I agree with your memory of the African descent ban,  yes it had been said that those of African descent would eventually get the Priesthood.  But BRM in his mistitled "Mormon Doctrine" indicated that the "eventually" would be the Millennium and we had, I believe, at least one GA said something like "Over my dead body."  And when the Priesthood was extended there was a caution against inter-racial marriage because of the social difficulties and strain on the marriage relationship -- that was included, I believe, in most of the newspaper announcements of the ban.  The membership, however, promptly ignored that cautionary comment.   You are correct about polygamy being only for times when the Lord decrees it, but can you imagine what the reaction would be if the Lord decreed it tomorrow and the Prophet proclaimed?  You would definitely see a thinning of the flock, let alone what the reaction would be of our erstwhile political allies down in the former Confederacy.

Re: the portion I bolded for emphasis: I remember that being in one newspaper account and only one. President Kimball said something to that effect, and only because a reporter put the question to him. It made sense back then; less so today because conditions have changed. But even today, I would agree that marrying outside of one's own demographics (not just race) could be bad planning because of the potential strain on marriage, which is a challenge under the best of circumstances. And it's not being racist to say so.

 

Your memory of it being in "most of the newspaper announcements of the [revelation]" is probably because a wire service picked up the story. That's not the same thing as each and every newspaper, on its own initiative and acting independently, seeing to it that this element was in the report. And it's definitely not the same thing as the Church issuing a press release to that effect, since it was the reporter who posed the question to President Kimball, not President Kimball or the Church aggressively seeking out the news media to ensure it was publicized.

[Scott Lloyd]

Kind of like how many "progressive" Mormons feel about the Church.  

We'll see how they feel when the 40-year prognostications fail to come true. In any event it takes relatively few to form a splinter group. People have been doing it ever since the Prophet was martyred.

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't worry. I have no intention on teasing you when, as events unfold, you are proven wrong. it happens. We're all wrong at various times in our lives.

That's kind of you.

 

But don't expect me to let you off so easily. 

[stemelbow]

Re: the portion I bolded for emphasis: I remember that being in one newspaper account and only one. President Kimball said something to that effect, and only because a reporter put the question to him. It made sense back then; less so today because conditions have changed. But even today, I would agree that marrying outside of one's own demographics (not just race) could be bad planning because of the potential strain on marriage, which is a challenge under the best of circumstances. And it's not being racist to say so.

 

Your memory of it being in "most of the newspaper announcements of the [revelation]" is probably because a wire service picked up the story. That's not the same thing as each and every newspaper, on its own initiative and acting independently, seeing to it that this element was in the report. And it's definitely not the same thing as the Church issuing a press release to that effect, since it was the reporter who posed the question to President Kimball, not President Kimball or the Church aggressively seeking out the news media to ensure it was publicized.

Interesting though. The Church is always in some era of change. It used to be scene that blacks were less valiant and cursed. But as people in the surrounding culture wanted to see blacks as equals, the Church had to step back on it's rhetoric on the issue, and as a consequence many members started to move away from the teachings that the painful rhetoric promoted. Not too long ago, any person in Church could mock and deride gay people as choosing to feel that way, and if they wanted they go off and get cured on the afflication, adding, a severe condemnation for letting those feeligns develop. Nowadays no one would get away with talk like that in Church without, at least in most wards, the bishop having to call the person in to have a talk. I guess we'll see how it continue to progress.

[stemelbow]

That's kind of you.

 

But don't expect me to let you off so easily. 

Wouldn't expect it. I'm the one whose making the outlandish prediction.

[Stone holm]

Re: the portion I bolded for emphasis: I remember that being in one newspaper account and only one. President Kimball said something to that effect, and only because a reporter put the question to him. It made sense back then; less so today because conditions have changed. But even today, I would agree that marrying outside of one's own demographics (not just race) could be bad planning because of the potential strain on marriage, which is a challenge under the best of circumstances. And it's not being racist to say so.

 

Your memory of it being in "most of the newspaper announcements of the [revelation]" is probably because a wire service picked up the story. That's not the same thing as each and every newspaper, on its own initiative and acting independently, seeing to it that this element was in the report. And it's definitely not the same thing as the Church issuing a press release to that effect, since it was the reporter who posed the question to President Kimball, not President Kimball or the Church aggressively seeking out the news media to ensure it was publicized.

Well, I was in Indiana at the time and subscribed to several papers...so it was pretty uniformly published that way in the Hoosier State. And if, as you say, it was picked up by a wire service...well I suspect it had pretty extensive coverage. But the Church didn't push it and it was promptly ignored and then forgotten. But it was part of our history that shouldn't just be cavalierly ignored by saying, oh well everybody knew it was coming. Given Pres. Kimball's immediate predecessor had once supposedly said over my dead body, I think it's fair to say such an approach is pretty revisionist of our history.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I was in Indiana at the time and subscribed to several papers...so it was pretty uniformly published that way in the Hoosier State.

I'm not disputing that it was. That sort of thing happens when a wire service carries a story. It's very routine. And not at all remarkable.

 

You do understand the business concept of news wire services, do you not?

 

And if, as you say, it was picked up by a wire service...well I suspect it had pretty extensive coverage.

 

See above.

 

Next time you read a newspaper, look for the name "AP" or "Associated Press" in the dateline or by-line or a tagline at the end. It means that the identical story is, in all likelihood, running in many other newspapers and other news outlets across the country at that very moment.

 

But the Church didn't push it and it was promptly ignored and then forgotten. But it was part of our history that shouldn't just be cavalierly ignored by saying, oh well everybody knew it was coming.

 

Who's ignoring it? I've acknowledged it and even suggested that such advice might still have a measure of merit even today.

 

Given Pres. Kimball's immediate predecessor had once supposedly said over my dead body, I think it's fair to say such an approach is pretty revisionist of our history.

 

 

You've dropped this bomb twice now.  I've resisted the urge to issue a CFR, but since you keep repeating it, I'm doing so now. The fact that you use the weasel word "supposedly" suggests to me that the account has dubious credibility.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

As for President Hinckley... I take him at his word.  He could have just said that women are content but, he didn't.

No, you take him at the words Ms Kelly chose to put into his mouth.

OTOH, I take him at his actual word.

And he uttered not one word "exhorting" anyone to start agitating. Indeed, I never once heard him use the word "agitate" or its cognates with any degree of approval.

 

So let's put that deceitful old canard to bed, shall we?

Regards,

Pahoran

[rockpond]

My point was about interpretations being obvious. Not stoning gays, stoning prophets, getting stoned with prophets, prophetic gays, gay prophets getting stoned and ordaining women named Kelly, or any other variation.

 

I don't rule out Scott's interpretation of what President Hinckley said.  Likewise, I don't rule out Kate Kelly's interpretation.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, you take him at the words Ms Kelly chose to put into his mouth.

OTOH, I take him at his actual word.

And he uttered not one word "exhorting" anyone to start agitating. Indeed, I never once heard him use the word "agitate" or its cognates with any degree of approval.

 

So let's put that deceitful old canard to bed, shall we?

Regards,

Pahoran

Is that where this thing originated? From Kelly taking his words out of context? And rockpond swallows it? Good grief!

Edited February 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd