Thriving Churches Are Those That Have Not Redefined Marriage

[thesometimesaint]

This blog post came to my attention as a link from Daniel Peterson's blog.

 

I post the link, because I keep reading here (most recently from Teancum) that the Church of Jesus Christ is going to die on the vine because it resists the trend to redefine marriage.

 

Yet we read this in the linked blog post:

 

I think the hand wringing (or eager anticipation, depending on one's perspective) is premature that the Church of Jesus Christ will weaken and perhaps die because it won't succumb to societal trends.

 

Oh, I almost forgot to add that the current clock reading is 39 years, 10 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 5 hours, 32 minutes and 26 seconds and counting down.

 

Ad Populum arguments aren't real useful no matter which way they appeal.

[Storm Rider]

Even setting aside the assumption that growth of names on rolls should be a prime motivator for Christian churches, I don't see anything that indicates any kind of causative relationship between churches promoting marriage equality and churches losing membership. A slight majority of Americans favor marriage equality, and I think that number is only going to grow.

 

I would submit that within a generation or so the idea of discrimination against gay people will be unthinkable to a large majority of Americans, just as racial discrimination is unthinkable now. How well are churches that advocate for racial discrimination doing today? How well will churches that continue to advocate for LGBT discrimination be doing in 20 years? In 30 years? I would submit that such churches will face a lot of marginalization, and will only survive in isolated pockets. 

 

How well would we be doing today if we still had the priesthood ban?

 

Gray, the fact that you cannot see means little except that you cannot see.  However, there is something to contemplate and that is that those churches that abandon correct teachings are losing members has meaning.  An example that I have often considered is the actions of the RLDS Church.  They lost tens of thousands of members as they ordained women to the priesthood and became more liberal.  Consequently, my uncle, a member of the CofC, has shared that as the church became more accepting of all lifestyles the pews emptied.  

 

We don't want to be told we are right or that we are good.  Humans want the truth and they recognize it when they see it and hear it.  What gets in the way of following Christ is the carnal man.  The carnal man centers on self; my wants, my desires, my feelings.  

 

The religion you present is devoid of sacrifice and Spirit.  It is the bubblegum version of Christianity that teaches that we need do nothing, no obedience, no moral codes; if it feels good then do it.  This does not promote discipleship.  Obedience becomes very negative because it stunts the self.  

[stemelbow]

As gay marriage becomes the lay of the land people will see that it is not much different than "traditional" marriage. Gay people will raise kids, get old together and care for each other as they whither away. As that day approaches churches will be filled with people who support gay marriage, because they will have so many examples around them that prove it a useful institution. Whether the official stand of a Church gets it or not is irrelevant, Church to many is people gathering together to worship, learn from each other, and embrace community.

But as I said someday, as with other social issues, the Church will learn to embrace that which it detests now.

[Nofear]

As I said, present hand wringing (or smug projection of doom) is premature. As for the future, I'm confident the Lord will hasten His work in its time, even as I and others steady the arms of the prophet.

 

While I don't find it particularly plausible that such hastening would include the diminishing of Protestant denominations, I suppose I should keep a more open mind about that possibility.

[Daniel2]

As I said, present hand wringing (or smug projection of doom) is premature. As for the future, I'm confident the Lord will hasten His work in its time, even as I and others steady the arms of the prophet.

I haven't read any posts that I would characterize as "smug" or "predictions of doom," and the only thing close to handwringing posts are those like the opening post of this thread.

[Gray]

Gray, the fact that you cannot see means little except that you cannot see.  However, there is something to contemplate and that is that those churches that abandon correct teachings are losing members has meaning.  An example that I have often considered is the actions of the RLDS Church.  They lost tens of thousands of members as they ordained women to the priesthood and became more liberal.  Consequently, my uncle, a member of the CofC, has shared that as the church became more accepting of all lifestyles the pews emptied.  

 

We don't want to be told we are right or that we are good.  Humans want the truth and they recognize it when they see it and hear it.  What gets in the way of following Christ is the carnal man.  The carnal man centers on self; my wants, my desires, my feelings.  

 

The religion you present is devoid of sacrifice and Spirit.  It is the bubblegum version of Christianity that teaches that we need do nothing, no obedience, no moral codes; if it feels good then do it.  This does not promote discipleship.  Obedience becomes very negative because it stunts the self.  

 

Did the RLDS church really lose tens of thousands of members because they ordained women? I see this repeated a lot, but I don't see any compelling reason to think it's true. Correlation is not causation.

 

The fact is liberals have been abandoning churches more quickly than conservatives, but my understanding is that the reason has nothing to do with the churches themselves liberalizing. Religion in America is now very politicized. Religion has become associated with conservative politics, and that's why liberals are becoming less religious. If anyone needs a CFR I'll look up the reference. Essentially the religious right are scaring liberals away from the pews. 

 

The religion I present isn't devoid of sacrifice or Spirit. It's devoid of destructiveness, which some have associated with "true religion" 

Edited March 24, 2015 by Gray

[Buckeye]

....  Oh, I almost forgot to add that the current clock reading is 39 years, 10 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 5 hours, 32 minutes and 26 seconds and counting down.

 

To frame the lunacy of Scott's clock, it's helpful to note that roughly 40 years ago CBS premiered Good Times. Just my way of saying that, when Scott's 'clock' finally does run out, I predict that exactly 0 people will notice. But hey, good times for all.

 

 

Edited March 24, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

If we are going to judge the true church by conversion rates, I would propose that the religion of ISIS is the truest church right now (not to be confused with Islam). Heck, 100s of Yazidis converted on the spot after ISIS gave them the kind choice between conversion and, well, death.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730661/Hundreds-Yazidis-convert-Islam-avoid-ISIS-execution.html

[cinepro]

To frame the lunacy of Scott's clock, it's helpful to note that roughly 40 years ago CBS premiered Good Times. Just my way of saying that, when Scott's 'clock' finally does run out, I predict that exactly 0 people will notice. But hey, good times for all.

 

 

 

Even more to your point, that was also the year that "Three for the Road" premiered on television...

[Scott Lloyd]

As I said, present hand wringing (or smug projection of doom) is premature. As for the future, I'm confident the Lord will hasten His work in its time, even as I and others steady the arms of the prophet.

 

 

While I don't find it particularly plausible that such hastening would include the diminishing of Protestant denominations, I suppose I should keep a more open mind about that possibility.

Who is saying that "such hastening would include the diminishing of Protestant denominations"? Not I.

 

I don't know where you got that. Your comment is a non-sequitur.

[Scott Lloyd]

I haven't read any posts that I would characterize as "smug" or "predictions of doom," and the only thing close to handwringing posts are those like the opening post of this thread.

There's no hand wringing in the opening post. That comment makes no sense.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

To frame the lunacy of Scott's clock, it's helpful to note that roughly 40 years ago CBS premiered Good Times. Just my way of saying that, when Scott's 'clock' finally does run out, I predict that exactly 0 people will notice. But hey, good times for all.

 

 

Other than a possible oblique attempt at race-baiting (and I'm not at all certain of that), I'm struggling to see the relevance of your post.

 

If you're saying not much will have changed after the passage of 40 years, I will agree with respect to the Church of Jesus Christ altering its doctrine pertaining to the law of chastity.

 

I'll guarantee, though, that if I'm still around and coherent, I'll come back to this message board, or what might be reasonably regarded as its successor, to point out that Dehlin's prediction never came true. I suspect, though, that by then, it will be obvious to pretty much everyone that it won't come true.

[Scott Lloyd]

If we are going to judge the true church by conversion rates, I would propose that the religion of ISIS is the truest church right now (not to be confused with Islam). Heck, 100s of Yazidis converted on the spot after ISIS gave them the kind choice between conversion and, well, death.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730661/Hundreds-Yazidis-convert-Islam-avoid-ISIS-execution.html

Who here is "judging the true church by conversion rates"?

[Scott Lloyd]

As gay marriage becomes the lay of the land people will see that it is not much different than "traditional" marriage. Gay people will raise kids, get old together and care for each other as they whither away. As that day approaches churches will be filled with people who support gay marriage, because they will have so many examples around them that prove it a useful institution. Whether the official stand of a Church gets it or not is irrelevant, Church to many is people gathering together to worship, learn from each other, and embrace community.

But as I said someday, as with other social issues, the Church will learn to embrace that which it detests now.

How other churches or groups run their shops is up to them.

 

But the Church of Jesus Christ is what it is.

 

The plan of salvation is what it is, and in that plan, there is no place for sexual relations between individuals of the same sex.

 

That's the long and the short of it.

 

Here's the current countdown on that 40 year prediction: 39 years, 10 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 8 hours, 54 minutes and 34 seconds.

 

Here it is for your much shorter 25-year prediction:

 

24 years, 10 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 1 hour, 53 minutes, and 23 seconds.

 

As I said, I celebrate each passing moment that the Church of Jesus Christ has not knuckled under to social pressure on this matter.

[Gray]

Other than a possible oblique attempt at race-baiting (and I'm not at all certain of that), I'm struggling to see the relevance of your post.

 

If you're saying not much will have changed after the passage of 40 years, I will agree with respect to the Church of Jesus Christ altering its doctrine pertaining to the law of chastity.

 

I'll guarantee, though, that if I'm still around and coherent, I'll come back to this message board, or what might be reasonably regarded as its successor, to point out that Dehlin's prediction never came true. I suspect, though, that by then, it will be obvious to pretty much everyone that it won't come true.

 

I think he's saying that no one posting here will remember or care about the predictions in 40 years. 

 

I doubt this or any current message board will be around. Certainly not this same group of posters all posting at one message board (or whatever eventually replaces message boards).  

 

Personally I'll be browsing the HoloNet from the comfort of my Space Couch, discussing the important issues of the day (I prophesy the most pressing issue will be the ethics of indentured servitude of cyborg clones). 

Edited March 24, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

I think he's saying that no one posting here will remember or care about the predictions in 40 years. 

 

And I'm saying I intend to keep it alive, if for no other reason than to illustrate the vainness of foolish and unlearned predictions.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

And I'm saying I intend to keep it alive, if for no other reason than to illustrate the foolishness of unwise predictions.

 

I don't think you'll care for longer than a year or two at most, but I wish you luck!

[Scott Lloyd]

Did the RLDS church really lose tens of thousands of members because they ordained women? I see this repeated a lot, but I don't see any compelling reason to think it's true. Correlation is not causation.

 

The fact is liberals have been abandoning churches more quickly than conservatives, but my understanding is that the reason has nothing to do with the churches themselves liberalizing. Religion in America is now very politicized. Religion has become associated with conservative politics, and that's why liberals are becoming less religious. If anyone needs a CFR I'll look up the reference. Essentially the religious right are scaring liberals away from the pews. 

 

The religion I present isn't devoid of sacrifice or Spirit. It's devoid of destructiveness, which some have associated with "true religion" 

Or to put it another way, religion seems to have little relevance to to the liberal mindset. Hence, it makes little sense for a faith group to liberalize or otherwise politicize its doctrines according to the whims and fashions of the day. They won't win any lasting adherents that way.

 

People who seek religion in their lives are looking for solid guideposts. And if that's true, there will always be those who desire the blessing that the Church of Jesus Christ can bring them, notwithstanding the vain predictions of those who don't like the fact that it won't cave in on same-sex "marriage."

Edited March 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think you'll care for longer than a year or two at most, but I wish you luck!

Shall I start a clock on that prediction?

[Buckeye]

I think he's saying that no one posting here will remember or care about the predictions in 40 years. 

 

I doubt this or any current message board will be around. Certainly not this same group of posters all posting at one message board (or whatever eventually replaces message boards).  

 

Personally I'll be browsing the HoloNet from the comfort of my Space Couch, discussing the important issues of the day (I prophesy the most pressing issue will be the ethics of indentured servitude of cyborg clones). 

 

Bingo. I predict that I'll be explaining to my great-grand children how The Simpsons was a scandelous show in my time, and Three's Company was equally so in my parents.

[stemelbow]

How other churches or groups run their shops is up to them.

 

But the Church of Jesus Christ is what it is.

 

The plan of salvation is what it is, and in that plan, there is no place for sexual relations between individuals of the same sex.

 

That's the long and the short of it.

 

Here's the current countdown on that 40 year prediction: 39 years, 10 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 8 hours, 54 minutes and 34 seconds.

 

Here it is for your much shorter 25-year prediction:

 

24 years, 10 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 1 hour, 53 minutes, and 23 seconds.

2040 is coming quickly.

As I said, I celebrate each passing moment that the Church of Jesus Christ has not knuckled under to social pressure on this matter.

hm...makes ya wonder what most LDS would have said about the matter of homosexuality 40 years ago. A much different perspective, methinks. Things change, teachings evolve. Kind of fun to imagine the changes a comin'.

[Gray]

Or to put it another way, religion seems to have little relevance to to the liberal mindset. Hence, it makes little sense for a faith group to liberalize or otherwise politicize its doctrines according to the whims and fashions of the day. They won't win any lasting adherents that way.

 

People who seek religion in their lives are looking for solid guideposts. And if that's true, there will always be those who desire the blessing that the Church of Jesus Christ can bring them, notwithstanding the vain predictions of those who don't like the fact that it won't cave in on same-sex "marriage."

 

Oh, there is a strong tradition of liberalism within American Christian churches. There is no particular conflict between liberalism and religion. But religion is now associated with conservative politics. An unintended consequence, I'm sure. 

 

 Hence, it makes little sense for a faith group to liberalize or otherwise politicize its doctrines according to the whims and fashions of the day.  

 

Does it make more sense to politicize according to the whims and fashions of yesteryear? 

 

People who seek religion in their lives are looking for solid guideposts. 

 

Some people seem to need that, yes. 

[Gray]

Shall I start a clock on that prediction?

 

Sure, add it to the list! 

[Scott Lloyd]

Bingo. I predict that I'll be explaining to my great-grand children how The Simpsons was a scandelous show in my time, and Three's Company was equally so in my parents.

Don't you think there will be a take-away point when it becomes clear that the Church of Jesus Christ is not going to repeal the law of chastity despite the oh-so-certain predictions of people in the early 2000s?

Edited March 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

Don't you think there will be a take-away point when it become clear that the Church of Jesus Christ is not going to repeal the law of chastity despite the oh-so-certain predictions of people in the early 2000s?

 

The law of chastity itself (as defined in the endowment ceremony) doesn't say anything about homosexuality, but there have already been important changes to how it's been interpreted. For instance, while a man may be sealed to multiple women simultaneously in life, he may no longer cohabitate with them - this would be considered adultery. In years past this would not have been adultery.

 

A first presidency letter was sent out in the early 80s warning against what were considered impure sexual practices among married people. That letter has been essentially nullified and ignored. 

 

Legal marriage has been interpreted as being an important part of legitimate sexual relations between husband and wife, whereas the early church was not concerned with legal marriage (I'm not sure when this change happened).

 

And finally, although the Savior taught that divorce and remarriage amounts to adultery, that has never been enforced in this church. 

 

 

PS feel free to correct my grammar. I have the sneaking suspicion some of my sentences need it. 

Edited March 24, 2015 by Gray